Kevin Malone, architect, presents preliminary two-lot subdivision plan for 1862 Mountain Road; board asks for revisions

Kevin Malone, an architect representing property owner James Day, presented a preliminary plan May 7 for a two-lot subdivision at 1862 Mountain Road and the board asked him to revise the design and provide additional studies before returning.

The board and town staff identified a list of outstanding technical items they said must be addressed before the board could act. "I see that the consulting engineers have a list of about 13 items that still need to be addressed," Malone said during his presentation. Staff repeatedly requested soil and percolation information, driveway profiles, site-distance measurements, the plan limit of disturbance, and a clear diagram of separation distances between proposed wells and septic systems.

Why it matters: staff flagged a substantial wetland area and streams connected to the property’s pond, and several members said splitting the pond between two lots could create long-term maintenance problems. Staff told the board the pond appears to be man-made and has a spillway, and recommended the parties provide a legal maintenance agreement if the pond cannot be kept on a single lot.

Town staff said wetland delineation must be documented by a wetland scientist and that federal or state jurisdiction could apply. "Delineation should have been done by a wetland scientist," a staff member said, urging the applicant to include a formal delineation on the plan set.

The board also noted that minimum lot acreage for the RA zoning district depends on on-site soils and that applicants must submit soils data so the town can calculate allowable lot sizes. Malone said a percolation test had been performed this summer by Fusco Engineering but that it was not witnessed by town staff; the board asked that any such tests be documented and witnessed during the review so results can be accepted by the town.

Staff advised that the PDF plan set submitted to the board differed from a physical copy and asked the applicant to resubmit consistent materials. The board outlined the monthly submission-review cycle and advised Malone to resubmit after addressing the comments; staff referenced a 17-day window the group used to describe the timeline for getting materials in time for the next agenda. Town staff also noted that, in addition to town review, the project will need resubmission to county DPW for the road entrance and to county planning for any comments and said county reviews can take additional time.

Several participants urged Malone to have his engineer attend the next meeting to explain constraints and the feasibility of alternative lot configurations. Staff specifically suggested that Brian Friedler from the engineer’s office present next month if he is able to attend.

Votes at a glance: the board adopted the minutes of the previous meeting earlier in the session and later voted unanimously to adjourn; both procedural motions carried by voice vote.

Next steps: the applicant was instructed to address the engineer comments (including soils/perc documentation, wetland delineation, driveway profiles and well/septic separation details), resubmit a consistent plan set by the stated deadline to be considered for the next month's agenda, and consider returning with the project engineer to walk the board through technical constraints. The town records and meeting recording are available on the town’s website, and minutes will be posted when complete.