Pownal Planning Board denies waiver to drop visual screening for proposed four‑unit mobile home park

The Town of Pownal Planning Board on Aug. 20 denied an applicant’s request to waive visual‑screening requirements for a proposed four‑unit mobile home park, and identified multiple missing or inconsistent documents that must be corrected before the application can proceed.

Chairman Todd Mellin said the board’s concern was protecting the town’s rural character and ensuring the development meets the Minor Subdivision Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. “We are trying to prevent these homes from impacting on the rural character of Pownal,” Mellin said during the hearing.

Applicant Shane Brady asked the board to waive a requirement for visual screening in buffer strips, citing a state mobile home statute and arguing that the town has not required visual screening for other residential developments. "I am requesting the waiver because in the state statute it describes the rules in mobile home parks," Brady said, and he read portions of the statute into the record. Brady also said he was willing to provide trees but objected to a detailed landscape plan because of slopes on the property.

Board member Mercedes Pour‑Previti said the town’s Mobile Home Ordinance explicitly includes buffer strips and that state rules permit—but do not require—municipalities to set buffer widths up to 50 feet. She pressed Brady on why he sought the waiver and noted the board’s authority under the Minor Subdivision Ordinance to require mitigation for negative impacts. “The portion that you just recited was for the first 25 feet of the buffer strip,” Pour‑Previti said.

Planning Board members expressed both practical and procedural concerns: Secretary Marcia Bowen raised site‑distance and driveway visibility, Orion Breen called a landscape plan a reasonable and nonburdensome requirement, and Tim Giddinge and Bill Schmidt flagged internal plan inconsistencies (utilities shown as both overhead poles and underground, slab vs. modular details).

After discussion, Chairman Mellin moved to deny the waiver request to omit visual screening in buffer strips; Mercedes Pour‑Previti seconded. The motion passed 4‑0.

Beyond the waiver, the board identified several substantive deficiencies in Brady’s submission. Members said the NorthStar peer review and a June 11 memo from Sam Piekes left outstanding items labeled E and F related to groundwater and septic pollution risk; the board requested documentation showing the off‑site leach field will not cause nitrate or groundwater contamination. Mellin pointed to a checklist discrepancy: the application had marked "No" for FEMA Hazard Zone when the board’s records indicate the parcel is in a hazard zone and must be corrected.

Neighbor Russ Allen spoke during public comment, saying the submitted plan misplaces his driveway and utility poles, omits nearby wells (he mentioned known arsenic and uranium in local wells), and lacks survey pins and full deed descriptions. “My well is probably within 70 feet of the boundary,” Allen said, urging independent verification rather than relying solely on the applicant’s survey.

Code officers also requested that Brady consolidate all corrected documents into a single, dated submission packet for the board to review. The board indicated that once a completed application is submitted, it will vote to accept the application as complete, schedule a site visit if appropriate, and then set a public hearing. Brady said he would update authorization letters on the town’s website form (which Bill Schmidt noted now requires notarization).

The board suggested the applicant address the following before the next meeting: clarify FEMA hazard mapping on the application; submit groundwater/septic impact analyses addressing off‑site leach field nitrate risk; correct plan inconsistencies (utilities, foundations/slabs vs. modular units); include survey pins and deed/easement documentation; and provide a landscape plan or clarified buffer approach that demonstrates consistency with the town’s ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.

The board did not vote on the final application’s completeness and said it will take up those determinations after Brady submits a corrected packet. The hearing ended with the board scheduling continued consideration for the next meeting; the denial of the waiver was the principal formal action taken.