Lebanon
In a unanimous decision last month, the board ended its preliminary review of the project, which sought to build 306 single-family homes on 294-acres near Mechanic Street and Poverty Lane.
Questions surrounding Lebanon’s sewer capacity, combined with a lack of cooperation from developer Doug Homan, left the board unable to determine whether the project is “scattered or premature,” a designation that could indicate the project is a danger to the health, safety or prosperity of the community.
“The board is unable to conclude at this time that the preliminary design is not scattered and premature,” the board said in a written decision.
If such a finding were made, the board could deny the subdivision site plan approval in a formal review later on.
Instead, board members drafted a decision highlighting several areas Homan should address before undergoing such a review, including deficiencies in lot and street design, wetland protections and stormwater plans.
“Basically, the ball is in his court to address the issues and concerns that are summarized,” Lebanon Planning Director David Brooks said on Tuesday.
Under city regulations, Homan has a year to act on the board’s findings and determinations, Brooks said. He also could choose to ask for a one-year extension when that time expires.
Homan declined to comment on the board’s decision when reached on Tuesday.
The developer often was at odds with city officials during the preliminary review, criticizing the Planning Board and city staff for being overly bureaucratic during a process intended look at the project conceptually.
In recent months, he’s challenged the results of a city wastewater study, which found the project likely would put Lebanon’s sewer system over its city-mandated threshold.
At the board’s Oct. 26 meeting, Homan argued the city’s standards are some of the most conservative in the country, calling them “arbitrary” and “anti-development,” according to meeting minutes.
If the city were to instead use standards set by the state Department of Environmental Services, he said, it would double the amount of Lebanon’s sewer capacity.
However, Mayor Sue Prentiss countered that although the standards might be conservative, they’re universally applied to all projects, the minutes said. Discussions are ongoing to determine a solution to sewer issues, she said, but the City Council hasn’t made a formal decision.
Aside from the wastewater issues, a written decision from the board also cited problems with how Homan and his engineering firm, Pathways Consulting, designed the subdivision, saying the plans didn’t provide enough information on how the subdivision would impact natural resources.
The property includes several wetlands, yet preliminary plans didn’t show a required 100-foot buffer from many of those “high-value” lands, which would be required under the city’s zoning ordinance. Several proposed housing lots also appeared to be “substantially or wholly” subject to wetland buffer restrictions, the board found.
The board also said it was not persuaded the actual subdivision layout “is sufficiently functional, economical and aesthetically pleasing to conform with the public interest.”
In many instances, proposed lots and roads would require excessive grading and reworking of the natural landscape, the board said in its decision.
Although Homan set aside 71 acres, or 24 percent of the overall property, for open space, the board found much of that land would be unusable. Difficult terrain, wetlands and power lines exist in those areas, according to the report, making them difficult to traverse.
Stormwater plans and drainage calculations provided by Homan also “lacked sufficient details and information for a formal review,” the board found.
“The applicant has still not provided all of the information nor addressed all of the comments and concerns noted by the board, city staff and abutting property owners about the proposed storm drainage systems for development,” the board said its written decision.
Some board members also took issue with the wildlife study commissioned by Homan, flagging concerns about the “limited duration” of the study. A city-funded effort found some rare animal and plant species in the area of the proposed development, the board decision said, but those findings couldn’t be confirmed because Homan wouldn’t provide access to the scientist used in the study.
Questions about how the subdivision would impact school bus routes went unanswered, the board found. And the city and Homan’s engineers still haven’t reached an agreement on plans for traffic mitigation.
The Planning Board also recommended Homan settle two private disputes over the property before moving forward with the project, although the city holds no jurisdiction over either.
The Carter Community Building Association has opposed relocating the golf course, which opened on the site in 1923, and currently holds a deed restriction it says would prevent Homan from making changes.
National Grid and Liberty Utilities also hold power line easements on the property. Both have asked Homan for additional information and fees regarding the project, which he has declined to provide.
Neighbors and those opposed to the development applauded the Planning Board’s decision on Tuesday, while also questioning whether the review produced any valuable results.
“How many hours of people’s time did we spend on this?” asked Dean Sorenson, a Wellington Circle resident and former member of both the Planning Board and City Council.
Sorenson said he was “delighted” with the decision, but wondered whether the two years’ worth of monthly meetings were a valuable effort for nine board members who walked away with serious concerns.
“It’s not over. I wish the applicant would consult with the Planning Office and arrive at an application that helps us build community,” he said.
Former City Councilor Steve Wood, who owns Poverty Lane Orchards and Farnum Hill Ciders, also was dismissive of the effort to obtain information from Homan and engineers.
“There were so many reasons that the proposal was bad, expensive and dangerous for this town,” Wood said. “(The board) had the complete authority to throw up their hands and say ‘sorry.’ ”
Planning Board member Joan Monroe called the proceedings an “up, down, back, forth process,” but said every application is unique and poses its own challenges.
Monroe declined to explain the specific challenges with Homan’s proposal on Tuesday, but contrasted the subdivision proposal with those that follow a “textbook example” of providing information over time that makes decision-making more clear.
“It’ll be interesting to see if the project comes back and what it looks like,” she said. “I would not bet money on anything.”
Tim Camerato can be reached at tcamerato@vnews.com or 603-727-3223.