Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bar Harbor Bank presents conceptual plan for new branch at 116 Newport Road; board raises setback, parking and drive‑through concerns
Summary
Bar Harbor Bank & Trust presented a two‑phase concept to build a 2,050 sq ft new retail branch adjacent to its existing Main Street property at 116 Newport Road. Board members pressed the developer on parking, drive‑through location, a 75‑foot PUD perimeter setback, waterline relocations, and pedestrian access; no vote was taken on the concept.
Representatives of Bar Harbor Bank & Trust presented a conceptual plan to the New London Planning Board on July 14 to add a new 2,050-square-foot retail branch at 116 Newport Road and to create a small financial campus with phased renovations of the existing branch.
Kevin Giandreau, director of real estate management for Bar Harbor Bank & Trust, said the two‑phase project would add a new building beside the current ~3,000-square-foot branch, improve queuing and circulation, and remove the existing drive-through canopy from the front of the site. "It would allow better queuing," Giandreau said, and staff described a plan that would keep existing curb cuts on Newport Road and seek a no‑net‑increase in impervious surface.
Project manager Jason Hill of TF Moran walked the board through the conceptual site layout: 90‑degree head‑in parking for an expanded front field, one‑way circulation retaining existing curb geometry, and a reconfigured drive-through behind the building with a dedicated bypass lane. Hill said the conceptual layout provides 10–12 stacking positions for drive‑through lanes and that the plan could meet the town’s 31‑space parking requirement for the combined campus or, alternatively, seek a waiver and preserve landscaped areas.
Board members pressed the team on several technical and operational points. Members expressed concern that the location where two‑way parking meets one‑way circulation could be confusing without clear signage and pavement markings, and several preferred the drive‑through remain behind the building to reduce visibility from the road and to consider safety for older drivers. Hill said the layout could include pavement markings, stop controls and signage to channelize traffic and that the team would explore moving or reconfiguring an exit depending on grade and sight distance.
Staff raised a separate regulatory issue: as the property is a converted planned‑unit development (PUD) with pre‑existing buildings, a 75‑foot perimeter setback applies to new structures. Adam told the board that existing buildings are closer than 25 feet because they pre‑date the PUD conversion and that the new building or canopy could trigger a need for zoning relief or a two‑part approval including a PUD amendment or variance.
On utilities and construction logistics, the consultants said public water and sewer tie‑ins are planned; a private 2‑inch water line crosses the proposed footprint and would have to be rerouted and coordinated with the water precinct. Stormwater work is being planned as a no‑net‑increase project and low‑impact design features would be used despite the project falling below the town’s 2,500‑square‑foot formal stormwater threshold.
No formal vote was taken; the board provided nonbinding feedback favoring a rear drive‑through location for safety and senior access, asked the team to refine signage and pavement marking plans, and requested the applicants return with revised drawings and any required applications for PUD amendment or zoning relief.
