Developer has change of heart; proposes subdivision over storage facility

By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

Developer Mark Lopez has changed his mind.

Although approved to build a multi-storage facility off North High Street and Mountain Road, Lopez has scratched that idea in favor of a seven-lot subdivision.

Engineer Jeff Amos of Terradyn Consultants told Bridgton Planning Board members last week that the shift in plan was due to negative reactions from abutters regarding the storage facility.

“Mark is a member of the town and wants to be a good neighbor,” Amos said. “A subdivision might be better received.”

When Lopez was asked if he wished to add further comment, he simply replied, “Well said.”

Although the application calls for a seven-lot commercialsubdivision on the approximately 17-acre site, Amos clarified to planners that the word commercial should be dropped from the paperwork. The property is located in the Mixed Use Corridor District.

The plan calls for four lots (ranging in size from 2.15 to 3.81 acres) with a shared road, accessed from North High Street. Meanwhile, the remaining three lots (1.94 acres each) will have separate driveways onto Mountain Road.

The developer requested a waiver regarding a hydrogeologist to provide comment about the impact of onsite septic systems on downstream wells. “The size of the potential septic systems can vary widely between different uses,” the applicants said. “We ask that this be evaluated as part of the Site Plan Review process for each individual lot.”

The plan calls for individual wells and septic systems.

Anticipated date for construction there is listed as September 2021.

New Fire Chief Glen Garland called for a 45-foot by 75-foot “hammerhead turnaround” be created at the entry point to the roadway serving the four lots facing Route 302, which would provide space for a dump tank and truck in case of a fire emergency. If fire struck at any of the three lots facing Mountain Road, firefighters would simply close off that section of roadway.

Planner Dan Harden noted that an existing snowmobile trail runs along the back side of the property. Once construction starts, the trail would either need to be redirected or permission gained from property owners.

Abutter John McInerny pointed out that his property is on the “low side” and water from the Lopez site “washes out our driveway every year. After 54 years, we’re used to it,” he said.

McInerny, who is one of seven abutters along the back-side of the lot, asked if an environmental impact study had been done.

Amos noted that Mark Hampton Associates found no vernal pools, wetlands or streams — but did identify a swale (drainage course). If property is developed as “commercial,” a stormwater plan would need to be included as part of the Planning Board’s review.  

Planners gave tentative approval to the subdivision proposal, with conditions stipulated by the fire chief and developers gaining road access permit from Maine Department of Transportation.

Laurie Vance, who resides on Mountain Road and had voiced opposition to the storage facility plan, said, “It is wonderful news that the proposed storage facility, which we believe violated both the spirit and letter of Bridgton’s zoning rules, is withdrawn. Mr. Lopez’s new proposal is to subdivide the parcel. We hope that, given this change, the Planning Board will examine any future proposals for this subdivision with an eye toward enforcing the rules that will preserve the Mixed Use District's rural and scenic characteristics, which are supposed to be protected under the Land Use Ordinance.”

Solar Farm adjusted

Looking to work with a nearby homeowner, engineer David Albrecht of Borrego Solar Systems Inc. of Lowell, Mass. told planners that the solar array proposed off Chadbourne Hill Road, on property owned by Tom Saliba, has been adjusted. Panels were initially 74 feet from the Andrew and Donna Derstine property line, but the array was shifted to push that distance to 199 feet. Albrecht said the distance of the array to the Derstine residence is 586 feet. The system, Albrecht pointed out, remains the same overall size.

A site walk was held at the property on June 27.

Albrecht gave a quick overview of the project, noting the proposal includes two parcels totaling about 20 acres that front Chadbourne Hill Road. There are a couple of wetlands, including Roger’s Brook. Due to the brook, two arrays will be constructed. An access road will connect the two arrays.

To reduce environmental impact, Albrecht said the access road would be 14-wide.

The plan calls for a double gate, 7-foot high chain-link fencing (it is raised 6 inches to allow for small animals to travel through the fenced area), an equipment area that includes central inverter, transformer and data acquisition center which allows operators to “see what is going on every single minute of operation.” All equipment is placed on a concrete pad. The “racking system” is positioned facing south and titled. The system is 8 to 9 feet high. All cables associated with the racking is underground. 

Albrecht said if fencing is used to screen the array from abutters, brown or beige slats could be used.

Tree clearing (18.5 acres) is proposed, although the parcel has recently been forested for timber. Albrecht noted that downed trees, slash and stumps left from the timber harvesting operation outside of the fenced array area will remain. Inside the fencing, ruts will be graded out and the area revegetated.

Planner Dan Harden wondered if the trees left on the ground outside of the fence could pose a hazard for firefighters?

“I don’t see a big problem. When we deal with woods fires, you’re dealing with undeveloped land, stumps and logs. It is problematic, but not impossible,” he said. “We have four-wheel drive vehicles and access to forest service equipment.”

Garland noted one requirement will be Fire Department access to Knox Box to be able to open the service gate to enter the array.

The lease is for 25 years, with five-year extensions available.

Planners closed the public hearing, and will begin deliberations on the proposal at their “next opportunity.” No specific meeting date was set.