Planning board tables Londonderry Lane subdivision until revised turnaround and grade plans are filed

The Sanford Planning Board on Sept. 2 heard a revised plan for the Londonderry Lane subdivision, a small development realigning lots off Railroad Avenue and Ridley Road and asking two waivers for a short private stub and a steeper grade near the intersection. Eric Sowery, the applicant’s engineer with Allis Engineering, told the board the earlier longer private way was removed and the proposal now shows a 75-foot stub serving two lots, an easement to formalize an existing culvert, and two waiver requests related to the lack of a standard hammerhead turnaround and a short stretch of road grade.

Why it matters: Board members raised safety and precedent concerns about approving a private way without a conventional turnaround and about accepting steeper grades for private roads. The fire chief and staff indicated they could access the stub as presented, but several members warned that granting a waiver here could encourage future applicants to request similar exceptions.

Sowery said the fire chief “did agree with me” that the short stub makes a full hammerhead or cul-de-sac unnecessary and noted the applicant had removed a steeper 15% alignment in favor of a profile averaging about 3–5 percent. Planning staff (Jamie) confirmed an assistant city engineer had provided late comments and that the applicant had an updated plan to address some reviewer concerns.

Board debate centered on three points: whether the shown road profile provides safe vehicle and emergency access; whether approving a waiver would set an undesirable precedent; and what level of detail the board must see before acting. Several members asked the applicant to show grading to the edge of the right-of-way so the board can confirm adequate turnaround area within public limits. Developer representatives said individual driveway grading and lot fill would be completed before houses are marketed, and that driveway grades would likely be reduced when owners build.

Outcome and next steps: After discussion, a board member moved to table the application until the applicant submits revised plans that show a mini "T" or similar turnaround and grading to the right-of-way. The motion passed by voice vote. The board instructed the applicant to submit updated plans by the next submittal deadline (the applicant indicated a Thursday morning deadline) so the case can return at the Oct. 1 meeting. The board did not vote on the waiver requests themselves at this meeting.

What the decision did and did not do: The board’s action paused consideration of the waiver requests and directed staff and the applicant to provide clearer engineering detail; it did not approve or deny the waivers or the subdivision. Any future approval will be conditioned on the plans and the board’s formal findings.