Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents conceptual plan for 21-unit Rangeley West rental project
Summary
A presenter representing a property owner described a conceptual subdivision of two lots in the Rangeley West area to construct seven buildings with three two-bedroom units each (21 units total), with community water and clustered septic plans; the board agreed to review a draft letter of agreement.
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kyle Cole, speaking on behalf of a property owner, presented a conceptual plan for two lots separated from the Rangeley West subdivision (lots 16 and 17) and distributed supporting documents to the board.
Cole said the “project is a subdivision to construct 7 dwellings” and that each dwelling would contain three two‑bedroom units, "for a total of 21 units," and that the units were intended as long‑term rentals under single ownership. He asked for initial reactions and offered a draft letter of agreement the chair could sign to confirm the board’s preliminary review without binding the board to final approval.
Cole described the site as roughly 20 acres, noted that a single‑family home already has been permitted on one lot, and emphasized design choices to place dwellings uphill and septic systems downhill. He said the owner intended to use a community water system and that Department of Health requirements would apply; he also said engineering design firms had been engaged to address phosphorus and stormwater issues.
Board members asked about phosphorus counts, parking for three‑unit buildings and building dimensions. Cole said the parcels were previously treated as exempt from phosphorus allotments for the nearby basin and that final engineering and permitting would proceed through state processes when the designs were complete. The board agreed to review Cole’s draft letter and said it would provide a response at the next meeting.
The board did not take formal action on the concept beyond scheduling review and possible follow‑up.

