Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board raises safety, well‑setback and grading questions for Bald Hill RV Park; grants 90‑day extension
Summary
Officials asked the applicant for Bald Hill RV Park to clarify well siting and septic setbacks, submit missing stormwater hydrology (Hydrocad) and resolve grading/contour discrepancies; the board granted a 90‑day extension for the applicant to provide revised plans and traffic data.
The planning board reviewed the Bald Hill RV Park site plan and told the applicant to correct multiple technical gaps — notably well setbacks, stormwater design and grading — before the plan can move forward, while granting a 90‑day extension to complete the work.
Planning staff said the proposed community well location did not meet the 300‑foot exclusion area because some existing septic systems fall within that radius. "The 300 foot well exclusion area unfortunately isn't met," staff said, and asked the applicant to provide the missing 100‑ and 300‑foot setback circles on the plan so reviewers can confirm compliance.
Staff also noted the hydrology submittal for the stormwater pond (Hydrocad) had not been included with the latest packet and that pond details (liner, setback to leach field) need revision. The board flagged grading inconsistencies: the contours shown on the plan did not match the site profile, and members requested contour detail at a usable sheet scale to determine whether a sitewalk is needed.
On site layout, the applicant indicated campsite pads of about 1,200 square feet and 40 feet deep; staff reminded the board that lot‑coverage calculations should account for pads, gravel parking, fire pits and other site features. Buffering and fencing near the active quarry were also discussed; staff recommended a 6‑foot solid fence and possibly wrapped fencing to deter access to mineral extraction lots, noting safety concerns given the presence of children.
Traffic numbers were questioned in the meeting: participants and the application referenced figures that appeared in different units (some speakers noted 28 trips, another cited 215 daily trips and others suggested higher totals), and the applicant agreed to submit a revised traffic impact memo reflecting trips per unit and daily estimates. The board granted the applicant a 90‑day extension to provide revised plans and the requested technical documents, voting unanimously.
Next steps: applicant to submit the missing Hydrocad stormwater analysis, show well‑and‑septic setback circles, correct grading and contour inconsistencies and provide an updated traffic memo within 90 days.
