Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer proposes 7–8‑lot Shaker Road subdivision; board debates hydrogeological waiver and sight distance
Summary
DM Roma Engineering presented a sketch plan for a 7‑lot (possible 8th) subdivision at 224 Shaker Road. The board discussed shoreland frontage, shared driveways to reduce impervious area, sight‑distance for the Route 26 entrance and whether to require a hydrogeological assessment; members generally leaned against granting a waiver.
The Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan from DM Roma Consulting Engineers for a 7‑lot (with a possible eighth) subdivision at 224 Shaker Road, a roughly 23‑acre site in a shoreland and rural residential/agricultural zoning district.
JP Connley of DM Roma told the board the submission shows seven lots (potentially eight depending on shoreland frontage and usable area), a 630‑foot subdivision road with a hammerhead and an easement/paper street to the property to the north for potential future loop connectivity. Lots are proposed for duplex rental units; Connley said development would use public water and private sewer and that the applicant expects to treat stormwater with a single basin.
Board members pressed several technical points. On shoreland and hydrogeology, Connley asked whether a hydrogeological assessment would be required; members said the board generally does not favor granting waivers. One member suggested the applicant start with a short justification explaining why the ordinance section might not apply to the developed portion of the site (for example, limited sand‑and‑gravel aquifer shown on maps) and provide a waiver as backup if needed.
Sight distance for the Route 26 driveway was discussed; Connley said he had sight distance measured and that moving the road slightly could improve visibility but might conflict with an opposite driveway. Members recommended reaching out to the neighboring property owner directly and encouraged a drive‑by or a GPS‑assisted sitewalk because heavy vegetation limits on‑site views.
On design, staff and members encouraged shared driveways to reduce impervious area and suggested careful placement of any street light so it does not illuminate an existing residence; Connley said the utilities configuration could support a pole at the intersection but acknowledged tradeoffs for neighbors.
The board asked the applicant to prepare documentation on shoreland frontage, clarify applicability of the hydrogeological ordinance section (401.7.4), and return for preliminary review once these technical items and stormwater designs are available.
