Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board approves Coastal Crossing buffers, open space and road standard, continues final plan for revisions
Summary
The Town of Wells Planning Board closed a public hearing on the Coastal Crossing Subdivision, found the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer and 38% open space suitable, confirmed nearby hydrants meet fire-protection requirements, approved a 22-foot private road standard, and continued the application for 30 days to finalize plan revisions.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Wells Planning Board closed a public hearing on the Coastal Crossing Subdivision and took a series of determinations for the three-unit condominium proposal on Sept. 23.
Warner Gilliam of Walsh Engineering, representing 35 Littlefield Road LLC, described the plan as a three–single-family dwelling condominium on about 1.84 acres in the General Business district that would remove an existing house for a net gain of two units. Gilliam told the board the proposed units would have roughly 2,100-square-foot footprints (including porches and decks), provide nine on-site parking spaces, and use a single shared entrance aligned with Connor Drive.
At the staff’s request, the board reviewed the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer around the multifamily portion. After discussion about the placement of drainage (which staff said is subsurface) and preservation of plantings, a motion to find the 25-foot buffer suitable passed unanimously.
Staff also reported the plan provides approximately 38% open space, exceeding the town code requirement of 35% for multifamily developments. The board voted unanimously that the proposed open space is suitable and should remain free of sheds or patios within the landscape buffer.
On utilities, staff noted updated connection letters from the sanitary district showing adequate capacity for the residential proposal; the sanitary district still must approve final design plans before final approval. The fire chief emailed that three nearby hydrants are operational and suitable for fire protection; the board moved and unanimously found the existing hydrants satisfy the town’s fire-protection requirement.
For road standards, staff recommended—and the board approved—a 22-foot private roadway standard for the condominium driveway (consistent with Section 20110 of the town’s street standards), with the applicant to provide detailed road design statements on the next plan set.
Staff reported the proposed underground stormwater system meets town standards but noted one rim-elevation adjustment. The condominium documents have been forwarded to the town attorney for review. The board continued the application for 30 days to allow the applicant to revise plans to address remaining staff comments and to finalize required documents.
Public commenters raised practical questions about sewer connections and future commercial use of the front portion of the lot. Don Gonyer (39 Connor Drive) asked whether the sewer tie would require additional road cutting; Gilliam and staff said the plan proposes crossing from the subject property to tie directly into an existing manhole near Alltown to minimize road work. Lisa Pinto (30 Connor Drive) asked where vehicle access would be if a future commercial use is proposed; board and staff reiterated that any commercial use would require a separate application, a new site-plan review, and public notice before the board could act.
Next steps: the applicant will update plans (including the requested Beacon Street cross section and the stormwater rim elevation), finalize condo documents for town-attorney review, and return to the board for final sign-off after the 30-day continuance.

