BRUNSWICK, Maine — A proposed 17-unit subdivision in a residential area near downtown Brunswick was tabled Tuesday by the planning board because of questions about the viability and design of the project.
Brunswick-based Coastal Building Investments is proposing to divide a 7.5-acre parcel bordered by Barrows Street, Columbia Avenue and Spring Street into residential sites, with a 965-foot private drive and other improvements.
A condominium complex proposed for the property by the same developer was approved in 2006, but it was scuttled because of the economic downturn.
Tom Cole, a real estate agent representing landowner Robert Cole, said in an interview after the meeting that the improved housing market in Brunswick led his client to revise his proposal for single-family homes this time around.
One home has already been constructed on the property.
Although it is one of the few undeveloped parcels in the dense residential area, there are several factors that make the subdivision problematic, including its road design and the wet, swampy nature of the land.
It is unclear whether the developer intends to build the site out as a single development, which would require a stormwater permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection, or sell house lots individually, which does not require a state permit.
Board Chairman Charles Frizzle said he is “uncomfortable” allowing individual units without a plan to treat runoff, but he admitted the board couldn’t force Coastal Building to construct a single development.
Concerns over water went even further for four residents abutting the property. All said they have serious flooding during rainstorms and are concerned that stripping mature trees and adding impervious surfaces could exacerbate the problem.
Several Columbia Avenue residents said they fear the weight of foundations and roads, along with the alteration of the landscape, could raise the water table and make the notoriously wet area even worse.
In response, Curtis Neufeld, the engineer who designed the project, said a stormwater management plan to deal with runoff from the site would be designed for the subdivision.
On the other hand, he acknowledged, there had been no study on how the combined weight of the project could affect existing groundwater levels.
Other aspects about the proposal set off alarm bells for planning board members.
Frizzle questioned the dead-end cul-de-sac road proposed, worrying it could hinder vehicles entering or leaving in the case of an emergency and did not reflect the grid road design of the surrounding neighborhood.
Vice Chairwoman Margaret Wilson echoed concerns about the road and also questioned the project’s build-out over three phases.
“What happens if we get two phases done, and the economy goes south?” she said, adding that it could leave the town with a dead-end road in the middle of the neighborhood.
The board’s concerns echoed those made by John Foster, the town engineer, in comments about the project.
Other concerns included whether sidewalks would be included or if informal footpaths connecting the property to Crimmins Field next door would be preserved.
The fact that the sketch plan — changed at the last minute to add a new road plan — left so many unanswered questions gave some board members the impression it was too incomplete to act on.
“It does seem rushed to me,” said board member Richard Visser.
Jeremy Doxsee, town planner, said staff had discussed pulling the item from the board’s agenda after seeing the changes that would be required but decided to keep it on because notices to abutters had already been delivered.
Although the board declined to approve an early sketch plan for the subdivision, the developers will still be able to resubmit a final proposal to the town’s planning department.
After the meeting, Cole said he was confident that the concerns raised in the meeting could be addressed and the plan resubmitted.