Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manley Road Wahan Oaks subdivision tabled over missing stormwater, lighting and design details
Summary
The planning board voted to table the final site-plan/subdivision review for the 14-lot Wahan Oaks subdivision on Manley Road because the application lacked exterior lighting details, building/form-based-code design specifics, sidewalk and landscaping details, and documentation about lot frontage off a proposed private road.
The Auburn Planning Board tabled the final site-plan and subdivision review for Wahan Oaks, a proposed 14-lot single-family subdivision on Manley Road, after staff and board members found the application incomplete.
Staff reported the applicant had provided a stormwater plan, a wetland Permit‑by‑Rule filing and a fee‑in‑lieu for open-space improvements (to be used for Mount Appetite trail work). However, the submission lacked several required elements, including exterior lighting details, sidewalk design specifications (width and esplanade), building-design information required by the form‑based code, and landscaping/species details.
Board members also questioned whether frontage documentation was adequate because the project uses a private road: the ordinance defines frontage as the lot length facing an accepted public street, and staff requested documentation stating that the lots would have frontage off a private road that is not publicly accepted. The board discussed whether addressing the frontage issue should be handled as a waiver request rather than ignoring the ordinance.
Kyle Berwick, representing Trillium Engineering Group and Homes ForAll LLC, said some outstanding items (a stormwater report and a few staff comments) remained and that the team believed most prior review comments had been incorporated; staff said missing plan details remain foundational.
After deliberation, a board member moved to table the application to next month’s meeting so the applicant could provide detailed lighting, landscaping and form‑based design information; the motion carried and the item was continued to the June meeting.
