Pownal planning board denies Shane Brady mobile‑home park over Elmwood Road safety concerns

A divided Pownal Planning Board voted Oct. 15 to deny an application for a four‑unit mobile‑home park on Elmwood Road after concluding the proposed Elmwood entrance would create unsafe conditions for traffic and emergency responders.

The board’s decision followed written concerns from Fire Chief Peters (Aug. 20, 2025), Road Commissioner Dan Libby (Oct. 6, 2025) and a letter from RSU 5’s director of transportation expressing worries about school‑bus operations. Chairman Todd Mellin moved that the board find the project in violation of Pownal Land Use Ordinance sections 604C2, 901A5 and 807F; Mercedes Pour‑Previti seconded. The motion passed, 4–1.

“It is a dangerous spot,” Mellin said during deliberations, citing the site walk, the letters and the board’s own observations. Tim Giddinge, the town CEO, had summarized missing materials in the application and flagged the items the board wanted fully documented, including an engineered road design, stormwater review, a wetlands study and a performance bond. Giddinge also noted concerns about septic placement relative to the floodplain and the need for a dry hydrant on nearby Chandler Brook.

Applicant Shane Brady described the project as “4 mobile homes on 3.3 acres” with “a shared leach field and individual septic tanks with a pump station to transfer to a central leach field” and a single well to serve all units. Brady and his engineer, Jamie Garland, said MaineDOT had issued a driveway permit for the proposed entrance and offered to supply crash‑history data and additional engineering for the board’s consideration.

Residents and nearby property owners objected at the public hearing. Meaghan Arena said she was “very concerned about a high‑density housing project and how it will change the look, esthetics, and feel of our community.” Russ Allen questioned the plan’s field scale and recommended a licensed surveyor place pins before construction; he also urged a wider easement (he suggested 25 feet, not the 10 feet shown) to accommodate construction vehicles and future maintenance. Gene Bookatub and others raised worries about nighttime lighting, headlights, traffic speed on Elmwood Road and the potential for increased noise.

Board members emphasized the particular safety questions posed by the Elmwood Road entrance. Several cited the town’s experience with winter driving conditions and emergency response needs, and Samantha Peikes of NorthStar Planning reminded the board how to frame findings under the ordinance if it chose to deny. Some board members said they were open to returning the application with a consolidated, complete packet; others, including Mellin and Marcia Bowen, said the road location was a disqualifying problem as configured.

The board’s written motion cited the fire chief and road commissioner letters and the board’s site observations as support for the finding that the proposal would cause unsafe conditions on Elmwood Road. The motion passed 4–1; the minutes record that the applicant left immediately after the vote. The board noted that the applicant may appeal the denial under town procedures.

The files and minutes show several outstanding technical items that the board had requested before the hearing: a peer review of any wetland delineation (the applicant later provided a wetland study in progress), a stormwater/runoff analysis, an engineered road design, erosion‑control plans and a performance bond estimate. The board also asked for clearer legal language between park ownership and tenants and for documentation that septic infrastructure would be sited at least one foot above the floodplain.

Next steps: the denial is final at the board level; the applicant may pursue an appeal or refile with a revised plan that addresses road location and the technical requirements cited by the board. The board noted separately that ordinance updates (including mobile‑home guidance and conservation/minor subdivision clarifications) are under staff review and could affect future proposals.