Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves Little River subdivision amendment allowing private septic systems
Summary
The Belfast Planning Board approved Amendment No. 2 to the Little River subdivision on April 9, allowing individual subsurface wastewater systems in place of a previously approved municipal sewer, after staff confirmed test‑pit results and proposed conditions and the developer outlined cost and engineering constraints.
The Belfast Planning Board voted April 9 to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Little River subdivision (Map 4, Lot 62G), allowing the developer to remove a planned public sewer system and use individual subsurface wastewater systems for each lot.
The board found that the applicant, B and B Belfast Homes, provided site test‑pit data showing at least one suitable subsurface wastewater location per lot and that the proposal met local zoning limits for a planned unit development. Planning and Codes Director Bob Fournier told the board the amendment removes the requirement for public sewer design and that ‘‘the city engineer will not need to approve any public sewer design on construction drawings’’ given the change to private systems.
Developer Benjamin Hooper said the decision is driven by cost and site constraints. ‘‘Building road and utility is extremely expensive in Belfast in particular,’’ Hooper said, noting Phase 1 road costs approached ‘‘almost $100,000 per house’’ and that continuing the public sewer would push lot infrastructure costs well above what the developer considers sustainable for the proposed density.
Board members pressed Hooper on whether extending the nearby city sewer would be feasible; Hooper said the nearest public sewer is several hundred feet from the property and that wetlands, distance and pump‑station requirements would make extension costly. Fournier added that the property’s plan meets the PUD standard and that without municipal sewer the maximum lots allowed is 50 and the applicant’s 48‑lot proposal complies with that limit.
Staff briefed the board on technical findings: the project covers roughly 100 acres with approximately 12.3 acres of developed area (about 6.37 acres impervious), and submitted soil test pits showed variable depths, with 34 pits reporting limiting depth near 10 inches but at least one compliant location per lot. Fournier said state reviews—such as the site‑law (SLOTA) amendment and MDEP permit‑by‑rule where applicable—remain part of the permitting process.
The board approved the amended findings and the conditions of approval, and moved to approve Amendment No. 2 to remove the municipal sewer requirement and allow subsurface wastewater systems for each lot. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally; the motion was carried and the board closed discussion.
Next steps: staff will update the final findings and conditions to reflect the board’s edits (including removal of off‑site sewer requirements and the planned removal of an existing pressure line stub), and the applicant will pursue required state permits and code‑enforcement inspections for individual systems.
Authorities and key references from the hearing include local subdivision and zoning chapters cited by staff and applicant (chapters cited in the hearing: chapter 1 and 2 zoning, chapter 90 technical standards, chapter 94 subdivision); the applicant must also amend site‑law (SLOTA) permits and follow MDEP rules where applicable.
