By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

Woodlands Senior Living Center, a 48-bed memory care facility to be sited on North High Street, received tentative approval last week from the Bridgton Planning Board.

The board approved the project, submitted by Lon Walters, pending Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with four conditions:

• Extend the existing pine trees along the southerly boundary line with three additional 5-foot tall white pines planted 20 feet apart;

• The facility sign must meet the Sign Ordinance and be inspected by the code enforcement officer upon installation to make sure there is no excessive glare;

• The applicant will provide a phosphorus study;

• Submission of a letter from the Bridgton Water District regarding water usage and effect upon abutting properties.

“We want the Water District to confirm that their approval includes that they expect the water pressure downstream of the facility to continue to be acceptable,” said Planning Board chairwoman Deb Brusini. “The one abutter after the facility is the last property on the water line (it ends there).”

Planners continued a public hearing on the project Monday night as abutter Michael Sanborn and Mary Shorey, who resides across the street from the project site, raised various questions regarding adequate screening to lessen a visual impact, to phosphorus loading to traffic concerns.

Woodlands presenter Elliot Thayer addressed comments regarding water run-off, noting that all water will be directed to a retention pond. Once there, water will filter down 3 feet and be cleansed. Once the water travels through filters, it exits into a storm drain, which is where it currently flows. 

“We’re controlling flow and treating the quality above DEP specifications,” he noted.

Longtime property owner Bill Warren recalled that his grandfather planted corn there and “I don’t ever recall excess water.”

Warren felt some conditions planners considered to impose on Woodlands developer Lon Walters regarding an abutting property were “unreasonable,” noting that within this district, the town’s Land Use Ordinance allows 23 uses, many of which are two stories and could be sited 10 feet from a property line. The Woodlands project, Walters later pointed out, was slid away from the Sanborn property line to about 123 feet.

Walters initially balked at the idea of adding more trees to create a buffer between the facility and Sanborn property. His application called for three trees.

“One standard is to minimize the impact on neighbors. I understand the comment about the fence (a stockade fence would be used near the facility to close off an outdoor activity space for residents). It seems to me one thing that would be helpful would be additional trees up that line. Have you thought about that? It would further mitigate impact on abutters and their line of sight,” Brusini asked.

Walters said he thought about it, but ultimately decided adding more trees to the plan was “not something I want to do.”

“I have thought about it; there is no parking, no exterior lighting; you see a fence and a roof, that’s what you see,” he said. “The distance (between the facility and the Sanborn’s home) is more than two lots away. Lots can be 100 feet wide; there are two empty lots between the two, which seems reasonable. It’s not an objectionable use. It’s not like we’re building a convenience store where people are in and out. It’s just a building and fence in the distance. From my point of view, it seems not objectionable.”

Resident Mary Shorey raised questions regarding whether a computer model of the site and possible wetlands is accurate, and noted several accidents, including involving moose and deer, have occurred on the stretch of road where the facility is proposed to be constructed.

Just recently, “A vehicle hit a small moose. These kinds of things happen a lot on this section of road,” she said.“The day is coming that a pedestrian is going to be hit.”

Shorey sees development of a big facility with staff, visitors and deliveries will increase traffic in a zone where the posted speed limit is often ignored. Shorey would like to see more signage and possibly the speed limit lowered.

When asked whether a traffic study had been conducted, Thayer said the Sewell Co. developed a “trip analysis,” not a traffic study which uses “counters” to track the number of vehicles on that roadway. He said analysis showed the “increase in traffic is below peak hour trips.” State accident records failed to suggest “high crash locations” exist on the stretch of North High Street near the facility.

“This is a low traffic generator,” Thayer said of the memory care facility. “The sight lines are fine. And, DOT entrance has been approved. As to the number of entrances, DOT limited this project to one driveway; which meets DOT standards.”

When asked how many employees would be on site, the maximum would be 10 to 12 during the day shift, six on second shift and four overnight. Walters again clarified that the facility would also serve up to 10 individuals on an outpatient basis — more like a “daycare” option.

Before closing the public hearing, Sanborn made a final statement, “Acknowledging the project is going to happen, not like where it is going, this area is a neighborhood community, but the referendum changed it. We’re asking you to be good neighbors, set the tone, reach out.”

Planners then asked their questions:

Dee Miller wondered if the height of the parking lot lights could be lower? Walters said if the height is reduced, then more poles would be needed to create the ground cover needed to provide a safe area. The lighting proposed “it’s not offensive, it’s not very big, it doesn’t look commercial, like a mall parking lot,” Walters added.

On the issue of privacy, Miller thought use of a stockade fence creates a “Wild West look” and not a residential feel that Walters is trying to create at the facility. She wondered if there might be a better option.

Walters said a stockade fence has a more “natural” look in comparison to white vinyl. 

In regards to parking, the plan calls for 45 spaces. Alternate Rolf Madsen asked how the number calculation was done.

Walters noted that he has developed several such facilities and through experience knows the number of parking spaces that will sufficiently serve the facility.

“I’ve been doing it for 30 years. I know how many we need, and what we plan for. I don’t like to pave and pave. I hate asphalt. I plan on the amount we need, not an extra 25 spaces,” he said.

Other questions about lighting were asked. Walters said some lighting must remain on, not on a motion sensor, since there is activity all night, be ambulance personnel arriving or staff shift changes at 11 p.m. Motion sensors could be used in the courtyard, since residents won’t be out in that area at night.

Brusini asked what Walters planned to do with the existing home that sits on the facility property since there was no mention of it in the application.

Walters said initially, the property would be used to store construction equipment; and later, it could be used as office space to conduct interviews for future employees. He could also envision the space as a place staff, who might be traveling an hour or two into work, could stay overnight if road conditions are poor.

Brusini reminded Walters that if there is a “change of use” in regards to the residential home, then a plan must be submitted to the code enforcement officer, who would then determine whether it needs Planning Board review.