Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board asks applicant to supply DOT sign-off, water analysis and clearer finances for subdivision resubmission
Summary
The Board found the applicant’s supplemental narrative insufficient to address earlier failures on groundwater, water capacity and traffic; it requested a full updated application, DOT documentation, a forward-looking well-capacity statement, and a simple bank/lawyer statement on financial capacity.
The Blue Hill Planning Board reviewed the Jonathan Fisher Fields subdivision application and told the applicant the supplemental materials submitted after a February sufficiency review were not enough to reverse prior findings.
Board members noted the application had failed sufficiency review on groundwater, sufficient water and traffic. The applicant provided a narrative and a measurement of current vehicle counts on a nearby main road but did not supply new expert analyses, a DOT driveway permit or a forward-looking statement on well capacity. The Board advised the applicant to submit a full updated copy of the application with the specific documentation needed for another public hearing and a resubmitted sufficiency review.
Scott Blanchard pressed that the traffic data did not meet the Board’s request for Department of Transportation documentation; Chair Matthew Martin said that DOT driveway permits are typically obtained before local application and that such sign-off helps the Board find the traffic criterion sufficient. Martin and other members also said the current materials document existing wells but lack an expert statement confirming future water sufficiency for the proposed development.
On financial capacity, the Board clarified the requirement: a brief statement from a bank or a lawyer confirming the applicant has the funds to complete the project would satisfy the criterion — the Board does not require exhaustive disclosure of personal finances. The Board also raised stormwater concerns and suggested conservative runoff calculations (for example, modeling a lot as fully impervious) to test compliance with stormwater standards.
The Board did not vote to approve the application; instead, it outlined the documentation the applicant must provide to trigger another hearing.
