Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues hearing on 1774 Inn parking plan after neighbors and members seek more time to review revisions
Summary
The board heard an updated parking plan from the owner of 1774 Inn LLC that reduces on-site stalls and proposes a substitute tree buffer in exchange for a reduced setback; neighbors raised easement, traffic and nuisance concerns and the board continued the public hearing to June 4 to review new letters and revised plans.
The Phippsburg Planning Board continued a public hearing on an application from 1774 Inn LLC for seasonal temporary-event parking after board members and neighbors asked for more time to review revised plans and late-arriving technical letters.
The applicant, represented in the record as Sarah Donovan, described a revised layout that removes a previously proposed Parking Area 3 and reorganizes the remaining two lots to add spaces closer to the road and farther from the inn's dwelling and septic. Donovan said the plan creates up to 36 total stalls on the property (24 in the middle lot, 12 in the southern lot), that stalls will be roughly 10 by 20 feet, and that the operation would be staffed with parking attendants, temporary rope fencing and signage. "And then departures are always, between 9 and 10 because we have a very hard cutoff of music by 9, and everybody has to be kicked out by 10, and we enforce that really strictly," Donovan said in the hearing.
Neighbors and their counsel pressed the board on two related concerns. First, some residents asked whether the private easement that serves the Davens' driveway can be used for what they described as repetitive commercial parking and whether that title/right-of-interest question is a prerequisite to issuing a town permit. One neighbor-formerly-introduced-as-counsel said the town's ordinance requires an applicant demonstrate proof of title or right of interest and asked the board to consider whether the easement's language allows the proposed use. The board's presenter and other members responded that easement disputes are generally civil matters between property owners and that the board's role is to apply the town land-use standards; but several members said they would review the submitted title materials carefully before acting.
Board members also sought more specific information about traffic and nuisance risks, including the frequency and size of events that would use the lot, line-of-sight issues at library and driveway intersections, and maintenance of a substitute tree buffer. Several neighbors said recent activity has already caused light, noise and access disruptions near their homes and asked the board to attach conditions or deny a variance if impacts cannot be mitigated.
Because the board and several members had just received revised drawings and two letters that arrived shortly before the meeting (including a geologic memo and a neighbor submission), members agreed to continue the public hearing. The board closed the hearing portion of the meeting and scheduled a continuation for June 4 (reconvening near the start of that evening's meeting), inviting written comments two weeks ahead of the next session. No final permit or variance was decided at the May 12 meeting.
