Standish Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Standish Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
December 04, 2023
The meeting of theStandish Planning Board was called to order by Chairman Charles Brown. Present were Frank Nappi, Deb Boxer, Andrew Walton, Patrick Gere, Carolyn Biegel, Town Planner Scott Hastings and Jackie Dyer, Admin.to Town Planner and Planning Board. Absent was Derek Wright.
Open Meeting
a. Call to order -Chairman Brown
b. Opening Statement from Planning Board Chairman Brown
c. Declaration of a Quorum-6 present
Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 06, 2023(there are no minutes to approve)
Approval of Finding of Fact:
- 5 Brothers Development, Cider Mill Lane, Map 35, Lot 34 11-Subdivision Amendment to Brookstone
Mr. Nappi made a motion seconded by Mr. Brown to approve the Finding of Fact as written. All in favor.
- LGJ Construction & Joe Banville Drywall, 634 Cape Road, Map 3, Lot 21-Subdivision Amendment to split a parcel of land.
Mrs. Biegel made a motion seconded by Mr. Gere to approve the Finding of Fact as written. All in favor.
- Donna Ross & Donald Smith, 34 Sandbar Road, Map 49, Lot18-Shoreland Zoning Application to remove existing cottage and build a year-round home.
A motion was made by Mr. Nappi and seconded by Mrs. Biegel to approve the Finding of Fact. All in favor.
- St. Joseph’s College,278 White’s Bridge Road Map 8, Lot 20-Site Plan amendment for proposed land division
Mr. Gere abstained from this vote. A motion was made by Mrs. Biegel and seconded by Mr. Brown. All in favor (5) with one abstaining.
Old Business:
- Pine Tree Estates, 580 Ossipee Trail W, Map 6, Lot 15, Map 5, Lots 32,33- Site Plan Application to expand mobile home park by additional 133 manufactured homes.
Bill Anderson from Atwell was present to represent the application. They want to defer questions for this until the January 8th, 2024, meeting. A motion was made by Mrs. Boxer to table this seconded by Mr. Nappi. All in favor.
- Kenneth & Anthony Grondin, Northeast Road, Map 14, Lot 84-Subdivision Application to build a 69 lot, single family home, subdivision (Woodbrey Heights)
Mr. Gere said he will be recusing himself from this project as he is a direct abutter. Dustin Roma from DM Roma was present to represent the applicant. He said they had a site walk and were looking at both access points from Rt.35. He said Ransom Consultants had done a peer review of the project and they are ready to answer what they can. He said the biggest change is where Woodbrey Lane crosses the stream and they have pulled the road about 100 feet away from that. They have prepared a grading plan and have provided a plan for the embankments and utilizing them. Dustin said that each Board member has a proposed grading plan in their plan set and what they feel is a reasonable layout of the homes, driveways, and roads.
Dustin said there were some concerns around the stormwater ponds and long-term erosion control. He said they responded to those comments and have added more rip rap, additional areas of check dams, and relocated maintenance roads. He said he feels they have addressed many comments back to Ransom as what they are proposing. He said the issue is with drainage and having it go where it needs to go so the slopes are protected. Dustin said the water needs to flow over the slopes, but not damage them. He said they looked at the portion of Eastern Lane and where it comes into Route 35. He said there is a section of trees that are just inside the property line that abuts the Twaddell property. He is looking at input from the Board as they are thinking about removing those trees. If they don’t remove the trees, they will have to reposition the road further up the hill.
He said if they have to reposition the road, it will squeeze down the lot size of lot one and lot two. He said they feel it’s important to keep the location of the intersection where Eastern Lane intersects with Northeast Road. They do not want to have to go any further up the hill because of the impacts on sight distance and having two intersections too close together, as they like to keep them separated. He said they have no flexibility on Woodbrey Lane at all. Dustin said they are proposing the sidewalk connection between the two roadways. He said it was discussed to move the intersection closer to Eastern Lane where it intersects with Woodbrey Lane with a right of way extending to the undeveloped adjacent parcel. Dustin said it’s about 400 feet between the two roads. He said between the two roads, they might make 10 lots on the inside of that area with smaller lot sizes.
Dustin said they want to give every lot some private backyard space. He said they want to make these public streets and have a connection between the streets. He said they could provide additional connections, but that would make for more infrastructure that needs to be built and that would create additional cross streets and make the intersections busier. He said the more crossroads that are introduced the more chaotic the traffic gets. Dustin said that there were some things on the memo that he feels they have taken care of. He said the open space design, conservation subdivision and the ordinance about unbuildable land has been looked at carefully and the slopes of the land would not be impacted to the point where there would be damage. He said the adjustments they have made will protect the land, increase the buffering and the overall design has been changed a bit. He said that is the summary of what they have done for the project.
Mr. Hastings said that Dustin did a thorough review, but they had asked Ransom to take a look at the intersections and traffic. He said they did point out some things in their letter as far as closeness to other roads like Marge Lane to Woodbrey Lane. They said that the 50-60 foot right of way is considered an access to this lot. He said it is an improvement over what they had with the steep slopes and roadways. Mr. Hastings said he doesn’t think the Board is at a point to do an approval as there are some items to talk about. Mr. Brown said he recommends they take the items one at a time to review.
Mr. Brown said he is looking at input from the Board as there are a lot of things to go through. He said they will take the peer review from Ransom and take that first. He read the following:
Peer review from Ransom:
General Notes on Sheet OSB-1 (sheet 4 of 21) – Note 10 refers to a “NRPA Tier 1 Wetland Alteration Permit #_______”. It is recommended that the permit number be provided to the prior final approval.
Response 1: The MDEP permits have been submitted and are under review. We will add the permit numbers to the final plan once they are issued.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 1: Response 1 is acknowledged and accepted.
2. Sheet OSB-1 (sheet 4 of 21) – The plans do not identify all the areas with slopes greater than 20%, what are considered unbuildable Primary Conservation Areas per §181-3 and should remain undisturbed. This sheet shows the large expansive Primary Conservation Areas where steep slopes (equal to or greater than a 20% grade) are found but does not show isolated areas where the slopes are greater than 20%. Lot 26 appears to be unbuildable due to slopes greater than 20% and several other lots are significantly limited (lots 21, 22, 25, 27) because of steep slopes. Areas with isolated areas of steep slopes exceeding 20% on other lots should also be identified (lots 5, 28, 29, 32, 33, 40, 44, 52, 53, 59, 64, 65, 66).
Response 2: We have added hatching to identify additional smaller areas of isolated steep slopes on Lots 29, 40, 59, 64 and 65. There are some very small pockets of slopes located throughout the property, but those areas generally represent a very minor topographic feature that can easily be worked around and would not be considered “unbuildable” in the literal sense of the term. We have shifted the alignment of Woodbrey Lane westerly from STA 74+00 to the end to provide greater separation from the steep embankment to improve the building envelopes on lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. We have prepared a grading plan for these lots on Plan Sheet 22 of 22 to show how the buildings, driveways and drainage will be accommodated on these lots where steeper topography exists.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 2: Response 2 is acknowledged and accepted.
Sheet OSB-1 (sheet 4 of 21) – The legend does not include the hatching indicating the steep slopes equal to or greater than 20%. The other sheets that include topography and lot information should show the unbuildable area areas where slopes are greater than 20%, and particularly sheets where the homes, driveways, and septic systems are shown.
Response 3: Hatching has been added to the legend to designate slopes that exceed 20%. We have also added the hatching to other plan sheets as requested.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 3: Response 3 is acknowledged and accepted..
4. Per §181-71(g)[1], a sidewalk should be provided on Eastern Lane from Northeast Street at station 0+00 to the start of the sidewalk on Eastern Lane near 11+60.
Response 4: We are evaluating potential modifications to the roadway design in this area to possibly shift the roadway away from the property line to avoid a row of mature trees that exists within our property limits. The trees would need to be cut to accommodate the current design. We will evaluate the potential to add a sidewalk to this segment of roadway while we are reviewing a potential shift in the road alignment between STA 0+00 and 4+00.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 4: Response 4 is acknowledged, and it is recommended that the Town follow up to its satisfaction.
5. Providing a 10-foot-wide pathway between Eastern Lane and Woodbrey Lane as an alternative to a cross street does provide pedestrian access, however it falls short of providing benefits to vehicular circulation. It may be more desirable to access one of more of the abutting lots (lots 6, 7, 52, 53) from such a cross street. A 10-wide pathway would potentially become a forgotten-about path from a maintenance standpoint due to being out-of-site and out-of-mind. There is also no plan, except for SB-1 (Sheet 5 of 21), that shows the full extent of the 10-foot-wide path with adequate detail.
Response 5: We have revised the plans to show the full extent of the proposed 10-foot-wide paved sidewalk on Plan Sheets 8 and 13 with a match line. Building a cross street would result in the creation of at least 4 additional corner lots that would have no side yard buffering and minimal back yard space. Adding two more street intersections also creates more chaos with traffic movement patterns with vehicles only using them as cut throughs. The paved sidewalk would be substantial (10 feet wide) to provide room for multiple modes of pedestrian movements (bikers, walkers, runners, etc.)
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 5: Response 5 is acknowledged, and it is recommended that the Town follow up to its satisfaction.
6. Sheet 16 of 21 – Wet Pond WP-1 is designed with steep outer embankments with a 50% grade (2H:1V) that are constructed in Primary Conservation Areas with slopes greater than 20% in grade and greater than a 20-foot elevation difference. Primary Conservation Areas are defined as unbuildable per §181-3 and should remain undisturbed. Constructed slopes with a 50% grade that are more than 20 feet in height would be a challenge to maintain. Also, the 3 stormwater discharge outlets for WP-1 are located in a remote location on a non-traversable with no access.
Response 6: We have revised the plans (See Plan Sheet 16) to include the construction of a maintenance access road along the base of the embankment to provide opportunity for inspection and maintenance of the embankment. We understand that it is a stated goal of the Town’s ordinances to have as much of the Primary Conservation Areas as possible located within the open space and to remain generally undisturbed, however it is necessary to impact some areas of streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc. to build the project. If we elected to develop the project as a Conventional Subdivision instead of a Conservation Subdivision, there would be much more land area including steep slopes, wetlands and stream crossings impacted by the development, so we feel that the proposed design meets the Town’s goals for open space preservation with protection of wetlands, steams and steep slopes in the 41.65 acres of Open Space that is proposed to be preserved as part of this project development.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 6: The extent to which there would be more impact to steep slopes, wetlands, and stream crossings if a conventional subdivision was proposed instead of a conservation subdivision is debatable since the majority of the proposed 41.65 acres of preserved open space is inaccessible from a practical standpoint from the west due to the steep slopes and wetlands and landlocked on the north, east the southern boundary lines by other abutting properties. Primary Conservation Areas with slopes greater that 20% are described as “unbuildable” per §181-3 and it is understood that the Planning Board will interpret the meaning of this term as it feels is appropriate.
7. The two western outlets of the WP-1 discharge into a gully that borders an abutting property Map 14 lot 82-A. The applicant should provide verification that this gully is adequately stable to receive the additional focused stormwater discharge and that the new discharge will not impact abutting properties.
Response 7: We have added permanent stone check dams to the existing wooded swale where the pipes discharge, and also extended the riprap aprons to the bottom of the natural swale. Based on our field observations this swale, with the incorporation of the proposed riprap aprons and check dams, is adequately stabilized to receive concentrated flow from the pond.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 7: It is recommended level spreaders be incorporated at the terminus ends of these two riprap outlets with granite curbing for level lips, as opposed to 2x10 P.T. boards, to ensure longevity.
8. The southern outlet of WP1 discharges onto a Primary Conservation Area steep slope (22-25%) at a very remote location with no means of access for future maintenance or repairs. The slope downgradient of the outlet drops an additional 25 vertical feet with slopes of between 22% and 27% grade and a wetland at the toe of slope. Primary Conservation Areas are defined as unbuildable per §181-3 and should remain undisturbed. This area of the site appears to be completely inaccessible, and there is concern that the downgradient slope would be susceptible to severe erosion from the new source of focused stormwater discharging from WP-1. Aside from being difficult to maintain this area, the wetland would be at risk of impacts from erosion and sediment deposition.
Response 8: Plan Sheet 16 has been revised to include a maintenance access road along the base of the embankment to provide opportunity for inspection and maintenance of the pipe outfall. We have revised the plans to extend the riprap apron to a proposed stone-berm level lip spreader to convert the concentrated flow to sheet flow before it is discharged to the embankment.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 8: It is recommended that the 2x10 pressure treated (P.T.) boards proposed for the level lip in the level spreader detail newly included on Sheet 16 (SP-1) be replaced with granite curbing for the level lip to ensure better longevity. The proposed level spreader is an improvement, however the high likelihood of erosion on the wooded slope downgradient of the level spreader outlet due to discharge from WP1 is a significant concern, and there will be no ability to access this location to repair any erosion. The downgradient wooded slope is also proposed open space to be preserved.
9. Wet Pond WP-2 has one outlet with no apparent way to access the outlets for maintenance or repairs, and it discharges onto a Primary Conservation Area steep slope with a 40% grade. As described above in comment 8, it would be difficult to maintain the stormwater outlet to WP-2 for maintenance or repairs. The area downslope of the outlet, which continues below the outlet for an estimated 30 vertical feet at a 40% grade appears to have a wetland at the toe of slope. This area of the site appears to be completely inaccessible, and there is concern that the downgradient slope would be susceptible to erosion from this new source of focused stormwater discharging from WP-2. Aside from being difficult to maintain this area, the wetland would be at risk of being impacted by erosion and sediment deposition. The WP-2 detail on Sheet 16 of 21 also does not show the toe of the slope below the outlet, which needs to be shown to assess the full extent of the discharge areas and the receiving resource that may be impacted. In addition, Primary Conservation Areas are defined as unbuildable per §181-3 and should remain undisturbed.
Response 9: Plan Sheet 16 has been revised to show the tow of the slope below the pond outlet, and to include the construction of a maintenance access road along the base of the embankment at Wet Pond WP-2. A riprap swale is proposed to be constructed to convey drainage from the pipe outfall of the pond to the wetland channel.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 9: To address this comment, the applicant has proposed a riprap swale and access road at the outlet of WP-2 extending 125’ straight down a steep slope with a 40% grade and more than a 30’ drop in elevation. The constructability and practicality of maintaining such a steep riprap outlet swale and adjacent 10’ wide access road raises significant geotechnical concerns due the potential risk of erosional damage driven by the discharge of WP-2 and the questionable long term viability of this challenging design feature. At this time, there is no detail provided as to how the riprap outlet swale and associated access road is to be constructed. The responsibility of maintaining this wet pond outlet will place a significant burden on homeowner’s association or a Town. There is also no reference to maintenance of riprap swales in the Inspection, Maintenance and Housekeeping Plan included as Attachment 7 in the Stormwater Management Report.
10. Per §181-7.1.B.7.e, Low Impact Development (LID) technologies are to be included for all developments that create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. The proposed subdivision creates 374,903 (8.61 acres) of impervious surface, but minimal LID stormwater technologies are being proposed. The wet ponds provide effective water quality treatment of stormwater as well as flood control, but wet ponds are typically not considered LID technologies because they are not an effective best management practice for groundwater recharge, which is a principal element of LID technologies. Large wet ponds are also a significant impact to the landscape relative to other smaller less centralized BMPs. LID practices are designed to mimic the natural hydrology of the site and therefore typically utilize smaller BMPs scattered throughout a development to treat the stormwater locally. Additionally, there is a goal of LID technologies is to reduce the amount of impervious created by the development. Examples of LID technologies include infiltrating rain gardens, under drained filter beds, bioretention swales and cells, pervious pavement, and pervious concrete, etc.).
Response 10: Roofline drip edge filtration BMPs are proposed for all buildings to be constructed on the lots, which represents a substantial portion of the impervious area of the project. We have elected to construct riprap and grass-lined swales for a significant portion of the project instead of traditional curb-and-gutter throughout. We have separated the drainage system into 2 wet ponds instead of building one single wet pond so that we are not conveying all drainage to a single point location, and to maintain the pattern of existing drainage through the parcel. Individual LID’s constructed throughout the project would create maintenance issues for the Homeowners Association and they are often neglected or inappropriately maintained in residential settings consisting of single-family homes on individual lots, so having large wet ponds will likely provide better water quality and quantity control with minimal maintenance when compared to utilizing exclusively LID BMPs.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 10: Response 10 is acknowledged and accepted.
11. There are no provisions for phased construction per §181-73. M.(6.(D)(e). This is a relatively large subdivision, and it would be reasonable to expect that the project would be constructed in phases over a period of multiple years with separate phased bond schedules. In addition to underground utilities, the phases should identify the sections of roads and roadway stationing associated with each phase.
Response 11: Construction of the project is intended to be phased. Note 12 has been added to Sheets 4, 5 and 6 indicating the extent of each project phase. The project phasing outlined in Note 12 was also reviewed and approved by the Portland Water District for constructability and valving.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 11: Response 11 is acknowledged and accepted.
12. It would be helpful if the Subdivision Plans SB-1 and SB-2 (Sheets 5, 6 of 21) and all other plan sheets showing roads included roadway stationing to help the viewer stay oriented.
Response 12: Roadway stationing has been added, as requested.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 12: Response 12 is acknowledged and accepted.
13. Individual building envelopes and driveways should be provided with consideration given to actual topography, wetlands, etc. in accordance with §181-77.E(1)(a).
Response 13: Plan Sheet 22 has been prepared and added to the plan set, which shows detailed grading, driveway locations, septic locations and house placement for those lots located generally beyond the intersection of Woodbrey Lane and Eastern Lane where topography becomes steeper.
Ransom’s follow-up to Response 13: Response 13 is acknowledged and accepted.
Eric Twedell-Northeast Road. Said he is hopeful that things will get settled with all of the concerns that have been brought up. He asked the Board to look at the site plan and where his driveway and house are. His concern is drainage, and he encourages the Board to keep the line of trees to prevent erosion into his lot. He feels his property is under risk or silt and erosion, noise dust and light pollution. Concerned about Eastern Lane access. He said leaving his driveway everyday is difficult and he can’t imagine 50-60 cars leaving the development with the traffic already on Rt.35. He said he feels like this neighborhood will be secluded and a suburb with car access only. He said walking on Rt.35 is dangerous. He said they need to focus on the school buses and their issue with the traffic. He likes the idea of a sidewalk.
Bob Lancaster- has property that abuts this and said he shares the same concerns about traffic as well as everyone else. He said the CCSO has put up an apparatus to measure the traffic. He said it takes seconds for a vehicle to reach him when he pulls out, it’s just a matter of seconds. He said his concern is for kids. There are a lot of emergency vehicles and when they come over the crest of the hill at a high rate of speed, that is very dangerous. He said the first lot should be taken out and have the bus come into the subdivision. He said he would sell the back of some of his land, so they can have a turnaround and the kids would be safe. Mr. Lancaster said Woodbrey Lane should have a speed study. Blasting is a concern to him. Is it possible to meet all the codes on that? Mr. Hastings said they would have to meet the requirements. He asks for the Board to look at safety related issues, as he has seen a lot of accidents on that hill. He said that the road will be close to a neighbor’s house, just 11 feet and 4 inches from his porch.
Tony Folsom- Dolloff Road. said he has the same issues and concerns about safety for the kids. He said stopping on the hill would be very dangerous and there are a lot of dump trucks that use this road.
Maurie Hill- Wildridge Road. She is concerned about the citizens of Standish being protected and that is the role of the Planning Board. She is concerned about safety, and about blasting. Will it affect other residents’ foundations? She said she feels they need to inspect everyone’s existing foundations before they blast. She said she wants to make sure all due diligence is fully done. She said she thinks about the impact on wildlife as well. She asked about the hammerhead turnaround and Mr. Hastings said the plan showed a steep slope and they are required to mark it on the plan if it’s more than a 20% slope. Maurie said that she thinks lot one and two need to be removed from the plan.
Tony Folsom- said John Cross is the PWD director and on the average of a couple of times a year during the winter, a tractor trailer cannot make it up the hill. A truck from the Public Works Department has to hook onto them and haul them up the hill.
Chris Lapointe- Fort Hill Road. Said a lot of truck traffic has shifted on to Rt.114 and there is a lot of congestion with traffic back up to almost a mile each way. He said the DOT doesn’t care about pedestrian traffic, just to keep traffic moving on the roads. Chris said the drivers coming over the hills don’t care and go as fast as they can. He thinks what the DOT has proposed at the intersection of Rt.35/114, isn’t going to help at all.
A motion was made by Mr. Nappi to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Biegel. All in favor. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Roma if they had discussed this plan with MSAD 6 and he said he has not been able to connect with anyone yet. He said he doesn’t think he can make a recommendation and the school would make the decision as to where they would enter/exit into the subdivision. He said he presumes the school district will come into the subdivision with the buses. Mrs. Biegel said she would be in favor of a third-party review for the traffic. Mr. Brown said it makes sense for Ransom to go out and do some further studies of the traffic, as they are working for the Town. Mr. Roma said it is not uncommon to have road areas where there is more traffic and where building is encouraged. Mrs. Biegel asked about some additional signage or something that calls attention to the turning traffic. Mr. Brown said the whole length of Rt.35 is like this. Mr. Roma said he has the direction he needs and all the comments.
- Patrick Michaud and 5 Brothers Development, Cider Mill Lane, Map 35, Lot 34 11-Subdivision Application to build Brookstone Condominiums at Cortland Place-10 Units
Dustin Roma was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Brown said they are waiting on the DEP approval. Mrs. Biegel said that at the site walk, they talked about connectivity and building the roads out. Mr. Roma said a possibility is to have the driveway extended all the way to the end past the condos. He said that he didn’t think specific areas of a neighborhood need to be reserved. Mrs. Biegel said the more connectivity we have, the less congestion. She said they lost a lot and an easement with this change they are asking for. She said she feels it leaves opportunities open and causes less congestion at intersections.
Mr. Roma said that common elements of a condo need to be looked at. He said that they are providing what is being asked for.
Mr. Brown asked about the added 10 lots and the easement for those. Mr. Hastings said when a right of way is on the plan, the buildings and the utilities are laid out, without having to establish a right of way or easement over personal property. He said Dustin has done well with the plan and there is a road for connectivity going back towards Rt.35, abutting the Brown property.
Mrs. Biegel mentioned light fixtures and what they were going to use. Mr. Roma said they are goose neck style and will be down facing and not spreading the light upwards. Mrs. Boxer said there are lights called Dark Sky lights and there is a whole industry of them. Mr. Hastings said there is a condition of approval on lights and what they must be.
A motion was made by Mrs. Boxer and seconded by Mr. Gere to table this application to the January 2024 meeting. All in favor.
New Business:
- Michael Nelson 73 Gilman Road, Map 52, Lot 4- Shoreland Zoning Application to remove existing cottage and build a new residence.
This application was withdrawn, and the applicant plans on reapplying in the Spring of 2024
Public Hearing:
TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO THE STANDISH TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 181, LAND USE, PART 1, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, GENERAL STANDARDS, MANUFACTURED HOUSING UNITS
Mr. Hastings said this was brought to the Ordinance Committee by Pine Tree Estates. They want to minimize the frontage of the lots that are within the expansion they are proposing. He said the Council had introduced this and had their first reading.
Bill Anderson representing RHP, said they put this forth for consideration to extend the park and reduce the amount of road frontage. He said they are doing a residential development trying to meet the cluster subdivision requirements. He said they are proposing a 60-foot lot width that reduces urban sprawl and reduces the development and the impact on the natural features. He said this is affordable housing and is a must for a sustainable design. He said it develops a lot more preservation of the land for the development. He said the Town plan speaks to this and it is key to their proposal.
Heather Richards-resident of Pine Tree Estates. She said she figured out if this is passed, you can fit three trailers in. She said she is concerned about their so-called affordability as they are charging a lot more for rent than any others are in mobile home parks. She said she bought her home 5 years ago and has put a lot into it. She said when she retires in ten years, the park rent will be unaffordable, and she will be priced out of her home.
Clay Abello- resident of Pine Tree Estates. Said RHP wants to get rid of the kid’s park that the kids play on all the time. She said they have no perks living there, you pay for dirt if you ask for any.
Gary-resident of Pine Tree Estates. Said there are some problems and the owners have never contacted anyone to ask what they can do to help. He said they put profit first and not the people. Gary said there is a water issue, and he has replaced his water heater three times. He said on Thanksgiving there was no water and no notices sent out. He said the playground was nice and now they want to move it out close to Rt.25. He said the drainage they supposedly fixed, still floods. He said they promise stuff and then don’t come through with it. Gary said they don’t care about the people and it’s not right. He said the average cost in Maine for a mobile home park rent is $ 350.00 and that includes trash pick-up. He asked why they haven’t had someone come by and say” let’s have a meeting so you can tell us what the issues are.” He said they aren’t against the management.
Anthony Folsom-Dolloff Road. Said he has been at all the meetings concerning Pine Tree Estates and doesn’t understand why they should do 100 feet of frontage and now they want 60 feet. He said the park has been there for 70 years. Said he hears from people that live in the park and the water system with no pipes being replaced. Said people are more concerned about developers than the people of the town. He said that the playground is where they want to build and all the kids in the park will not have a place to play and it shouldn’t be taken from them. He said the Town needs to stop giving waivers and start thinking about the people, not pacifying the developers.
Theresa-resident of Pine Tree Estates. Moved to park two years ago and safer for kids. In two years’ time, their lot rent has gone up by $200.00 with no explanation or justification. She said she read the state statute, and it says that all renters right across the board get the same rent fee. Said the office has made promises and then told them when it came time, they were not allowed to do it. They have been told they can’t use the clubhouse and they have no contacts to call. They come to the door without any notice about anything. She said they have CMP wires on the ground and were told by the park manager that she will not let CMP come in and see if they are dangerous. She said the water issues are many and when will they fix them. A drunk driver is driving around the park still and the park manager has done nothing. She said she fears for the safety of her children, and nothing is being done. She said she has begged the park manager to do something, and she does nothing. She said these problems fall on the park manager and her boss over her. She said she is not against the expansion, but she is against the way they are treated and the conditions.
Gary- Pine Tree Estates. Said he has photographs of wires on the ground and in the trees, they don’t know if these wires are charged or not. He said he has asked and asked about this and nothing is done. He said it would be nice to have things righted around.
Judy Estes-resident of Pine Tree Estates. Moved there several years ago and they love the park. They are asking to be respected with good water and leave the playground for the kids where it is. She said they need to take care of the people that are there now before 133 more people move in.
Maurie Hill-Wildridge Road. Said she doesn’t live in the park but is concerned about the quality of the water and it is a public health issue. She said there are basic things that need to be fixed now before they do any expansion. She said water is an important part of one’s lives.
Heidi Bello-Sunset Drive- said the park says they want to help people, but rent is $ 800.00, and this is too high. She said they just want their money and don’t care about people on Social Security or anyone else.
Theresa-resident of Pine Tree Estates. Said there are used homes in the park. Said that this is not going to be affordable housing with social security. People in the park are afraid of losing their homes, especially with the rate hikes in park rent. She said people cannot afford the increases.
Caitlyn Williams-Pine Tree resident. They do not get anything about the water when it can be unsafe. Said the park manager tells them nothing. The playground needs to stay. The kids are not allowed to ride bikes in their own yard, are not allowed to play ball in their own years and are not allowed to have a swing set. She said she is targeted daily by the park manager because she has bikes on her lot. Said she has not been allowed to replace a shed and was told 3 times that she could not. Said they just want to be safe and live in peace.
Rob Williams-Pine Tree resident. -says park does not care. He said they claimed they went around and met with residents and has never met anyone of them. Said the park manager rides by daily taking pictures. Has had many water issues and nothing has been resolved. He said the main water line has been broken many times. Said a truck was parked on the lawn right beside the break and it was fixed within a few hours. He said he thought a licensed plumber had to be present and fix stuff. He said no one is licensed and he said how they have gotten away with so much, he doesn’t understand. He said the flooding issues need to be fixed, and the electrical lines need to be taken care of. He said the park doesn’t care about the residents, just making the most money possible.
Gary-resident of Park. Said he has googled RHP Properties and there are many class action lawsuits against them all over the country. He said they are conspiring in the communities to raise lot rents. He told the President of RHP that maybe its time to put the people first and the dollar second. He said they need to show they genuinely care about the residents, and he said it makes it look like they are trying to force people to move. He said the lot size will only make things worse.
Resident of Park- said there is a rat infestation in the park from an older trailer that was moved. She said that many residents have beautiful homes in the park and this health issue should be taken care of.
Caitlyn Williams-resident of park. She said when they moved in six years ago, they paid lot rent of $ 364.00 and that was affordable. She said they can’t afford the park rent now of $800.00 and she can’t work because of two autistic children that are very needy. She said she loves it here but is not sure how much longer they can do it. She said her husband works 70 hours per week and they are just making it. She said this is not affordable and having a different lot size is not going to change things.
Heather Richards- resident of the park. If they are allowed to bring the lot size down, can they charge the residents there now more because they have a bigger lot. Gary spoke again and said they aren’t willing to fix anything. He said he hopes they (RHP) change and if they don’t, they are going to lose their neighbors, but where will they go? He said the Planning Board should research RHP and look at who they really are. He said they care about the money and that’s all. He hopes that whoever spoke tonight will not get any backlash from RHP and the park manager for it.
Public hearing closed. No further discussion. Mr. Brown said this will be sent to the Council for their December 12, 2023 meeting. Mrs. Boxer said that the Planning Board cannot make this decision and she had sent her concerns to the Council as well. Mr. Nappi said the December meeting for the Council is a public meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:25pm.