The Planning Board met on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 for a review and public hearing on the recently resubmitted application for the proposed Carr Woods condominium project.  Having met on September 21, 2021 for an earlier public hearing, the developer, Andrew Carr, requested that the project be tabled on several occasions in order to incorporate revisions and concerns offered by town staff, the planning board, and the public [Article 1][Article 2]. Jim Fisher and William Gerrish of Northeast Civil Solutions, provided the board with a review of the updated project prior to the public hearing.

Fisher explained that the while the revised design still includes a total of 18 new units and one single family lot located at 10 Deep Brook Road, the configuration of units has been changed in order to better address concerns.  As it currently stands, the project proposes six duplexes, one quad, and two single units on a private road.  The road entrance has been moved to a northern location where it will connect with the existing Deep Brook Road.  

Fisher informed that the third-party reviewer hired by the town to study the area’s wetlands, came up with findings that were identical to earlier studies.  Additionally, Fisher said, “Wetlands have been delineated to the greatest extent feasible,” and that the impact to wetlands is, “significantly less than last proposed.”  

In the April 1 application package addressed to Town Planner Maureen O’Meara, Gerrish signifies that the stormwater management design has been considerably revised to address concerns raised by the Town Planner and Town Engineer, Steve Harding and will ultimately, “Help mitigate an existing drainage problem in the vicinity of the project site.”  Furthermore, Fisher added, “We will also work with the town on the Shore Road Rehabilitation Project and be fully transparent.”

Following the review by Fisher and Gerrish, 14 members of the pubic participated in the public hearing.  One resident addressed issues raised on behalf of the Cape Cottage Beach Association and the association’s concern over stormwater drainage at Casino Beach exacerbating an existing problem with drainage and pollution of the beach.  More addressed concerns with drainage and runoff on adjacent properties.  Others pointed out concerns over inaccurate calculation of open space and uncertain landscaping designs.  One resident spoke in favor of the development and the potential to alleviate the town’s housing demands by offering dense housing options.  In addition to an email sent to the board earlier, one resident addressed photos that had been taken showing alleged bedrock that had not been included in the developer’s plan. 

Following the public hearing, the Planning Board had an extended conversation regarding additional concerns.  Noting a significant list of conditions raised in an April 13 report by Harding, board Chair Jim Huebener said, “At this time I am not comfortable approving this with so many conditions.  I prefer to table so that issues can be addressed.”  Board member Jonathan Sahrbeck agreed and added that he would want to see an updated traffic study.  

Board member Alton Palmer asked that a third-party landscape architect be hired to verify that the proposed designs meet ordinance standards.  “Based on current landscape plans, I would vote against this project because I think the buffering is inadequate.  If a third party reviews it and renders an opinion that it does meet ordinance, then I could be swayed,” Palmer said.  O’Meara supported this request, “Because the site is ledgy and  challenging because of slope, we need a landscape architect who will look at the site and look at it for its unique characteristics and not give us a more traditional buffering plan.”

Clarification on bedrock locations, as addressed during the public hearing, was also requested.  Additionally, board members requested that information on open space calculations be provided to show how much of the counted open space would be untouched versus altered and still considered to qualify as open space.  

The board voted 6-0 in favor of tabling the application to the June 21 meeting in order to give the applicant ample time to prepare requested materials.  Board member Andrew Gilbert recused himself from discussion and the vote per a potential conflict of interest.