Wells planning board receives Drake’s Station life‑care plan amid dispute over who will pay for a Route 1 traffic signal

The Town of Wells Planning Board on April 7 accepted a site‑plan application and agreed to move the Drake’s Station life‑care development toward a public hearing, while leaving unresolved who will fund a traffic signal the state’s warrant analysis says the Route 1/Drakes Island intersection needs.

Applicant Jeff Oliva, representing developer Benjamin Meggs, described a proposal for 45–46 residential units aimed at older adults, a community building with shared space for residents and visiting medical personnel, sidewalks and a loop road. Oliva said the project’s traffic study and signal‑warrant analysis have been submitted to DOT and that the development’s own traffic increase is small relative to existing Route 1 volumes: “the intersection already needs it,” he said.

Town planning staff and several board members pressed the applicant on the intersection and related roadway improvements. Staff noted outstanding items tied to drainage and to coordination with DOT, but recommended appointing the planning office as the completeness agent and scheduling a preliminary public hearing so the public can review the project.

A central point of contention was who should pay to install the traffic signal DOT’s study indicates is warranted. One planning member said the town’s historic position is not to pay for state road improvements and that the state or future grants normally fund such signals; others argued a developer contribution or phased improvements could reduce safety concerns before DOT acts. “I think before we approve this, we’ve got to determine who’s going to pay for that light,” a board member said during the discussion.

The applicant proposed phasing the development so initial infrastructure and on‑site improvements could proceed while coordination with DOT and potential grant or funding options are clarified. Staff suggested phasing could require specific on‑road safety improvements before later permits are issued, for example widening shoulders or localized intersection improvements that would reduce immediate safety impacts.

There was also discussion of emergency access, stormwater connections to Route 1 and parking for caregivers and visitors. Fire‑department review of radii and road widths was reported as satisfactory to staff.

Next steps: the board voted to make the planning office the completeness agent and to schedule a public hearing. DOT coordination and whether the developer will contribute toward signal installation or roadway widening remain unresolved and are expected to be central topics at the public hearing.