Brunswick Planning Board Workshop on Garnett Ridge Subdivision – December 9, 2025

The Brunswick Planning Board held a workshop on December 9, 2025, to review a revised sketch plan for the Garnett Ridge subdivision at 119 Moody Road. The applicant, Teradine Consultants on behalf of Alex and Stephanie Hallett, presented a scaled-back proposal for a 13-lot open space subdivision with 17 housing units (eight single-family homes and four duplexes) on a 1,725-foot private dead-end road. The board and public discussed two waiver requests: one for exceeding the maximum 1,500-foot dead-end road length (combined with Moody Road, total ~4,500 feet) and one for exceeding the maximum 25 units on a dead-end road (proposed 16 new units plus existing 28 on Moody Road). No votes were taken; the workshop aimed to gather feedback before the applicant invests in further studies.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Steve Walker (900 River Road): Supported the applicant’s avoidance and minimization efforts but argued the waivers are inconsistent with the ordinance, particularly the rural farm and forest planning area’s goal of protecting unfragmented wildlife habitats. Stressed that open space must be perpetually protected via a recorded legal document, not just held by the current owner. Noted that the 1,500-foot road length standard originated from the rural Brunswick Smart Growth Plan and that the project would fragment the largest remaining habitat block.
• Greg O’Donnell (157 Brackett Road): Calculated the total dead-end road length at 5,635 feet (3.7 times the ordinance limit) and total units at 47 (nearly double the 25-unit limit). Argued the vernal pool survey is incomplete; additional surveys are needed near proposed lots. Claimed the roadway would cut off significant vernal pools from adjacent wetlands, violating Maine DEP Chapter 335. Expressed concern about contamination of the town water supply from septic systems, lawns, and roadways within the aquifer protection zone.
• Susanna Rowe (Brackett Road): Questioned why waivers are still needed despite the reduced scale, noting the road length and unit count still exceed limits. Criticized the town’s history of allowing long dead-end roads through waivers or negotiations, undermining the integrity of ordinances. Called for the town to compile data on all dead-end road lengths and unit counts. Challenged the trip generation data, stating the use of the 11th edition ITE manual (2021) instead of the 12th edition (2025) and the lack of rural-specific data. Also noted that traffic volumes are seasonal (September/October data does not capture summer peaks) and that hourly capacity figures from MaineDOT’s map viewer are for state routes, not local dead-end roads.
• Patty Dunning: Held up a photo of the area and emphasized that ordinances are local laws that should be upheld. Pointed out that the project requires six ordinance variant requests, which she found excessive.
• Sandy (Town Council District 4): Stated that waiving ordinances is effectively breaking the law. Urged the board to decide whether to abide by the laws or change them, but until then, enforce them. Called the project “beautiful” but misplaced at the end of an already-abused road.
• Dan Rosh (Brunswick): Observed that Garnet Ridge, along with the Opal and Jones Farm proposals, represents a three-pronged attack on a highly sensitive area. Argued that the original intent of limiting dead-end road units was to prevent overdevelopment, and that tacking new dead-end roads onto existing ones defeats that purpose. Recommended denying waivers and suggested developers cut their losses and build elsewhere.
• Sean Hogan (Brunswick): Commended the board for thoughtful questions. Stated that waivers should be rare and exceptional, not routine, and that a precedent of granting waivers has led developers to expect them. Advised looking beyond motor vehicle trip generation to include pedestrian and bicycle safety.
• Jade Bowden (103 Moody Road, adjacent to proposed road): Expressed concern that granting this waiver would set a precedent for further waivers on Moody Road, where other private roads (Crossman Road) are already under development. Questioned the accuracy of the speed survey placed near the intersection, arguing speeds are higher mid-road. Stated the proposed turnaround is not feasible due to trash and property constraints. Doubted the road can meet private road regulations due to wetland setbacks. Raised environmental concerns about runoff and pollution affecting her well water. Urged the board to firmly stop the project to protect residents who moved there for solitude.
• Mark Rosenthal (238 Durham Road): Emphasized that the project is not in a designated growth area and that the town has ordinances on house numbers, road length, and environmental protection that should be enforced.
• Braden Alster: Called it “astounding” that the discussion continues. Criticized the inaccurate speed estimates and the lack of pedestrian safety considerations. Noted that the rural moratorium was passed easily and that once the land is developed, it cannot be recovered. Asked the board to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and future generations.

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation (Matt Pelletier, Teradine Consultants): Presented the revised plan reducing the original 22 lots/33 units to 13 lots/17 units, removing the road from significant vernal pool habitat. The new road is 1,725 feet, with 69% open space (up from 47%). Traffic analysis based on ITE trip generation estimates 13 new PM peak hour trips and 133 average daily trips. The applicant plans to hire Barton & Lojudis for a comprehensive traffic study. Waivers are needed for dead-end road length and number of units.
• Staff Comments (Matt James, Land Use Planner): Noted that the revised plan generally meets ordinance standards, but wetland impacts have increased. Reminded the board that safety considerations should include both vehicle and pedestrian safety.
• Board Discussion:
  • Laura Hatmaker: Questioned trip generation methodology and the 86% increase in average daily trips. Supported the need for a third-party traffic study. Raised concerns about the wildlife protection overlay: the 250-foot vernal pool buffer is a minimum, and the development still fragments habitat by cutting off vernal pools from wetlands. She assumed worst-case lot clearing, which would further degrade habitat connectivity.
  • Rob Burgess: Questioned the history of the 1,500-foot road length standard and whether it existed when Moody Road was developed. Staff indicated it was a recent addition. He also raised the precedent of incremental waivers, but staff noted each waiver is case-by-case.
  • Chris Baldwin: Expressed discomfort voting on waivers without more information, especially a comprehensive traffic study and peer review by the town engineer. Wanted stronger protections for open space and limits on clearing. He was open to considering waivers if those issues were addressed.
  • Kelly Matson: Stated the board does not invent waivers—they are allowed by ordinance—but she considered these waivers “imprudent.” She noted the street standards ordinance is separate from the zoning ordinance, and waiver criteria differ.
  • Alison Harris: Agreed with colleagues. Concerned about preserving conservation in perpetuity, extending dead-end roads, and pedestrian safety. She noted the comprehensive plan update recommends stronger rural protections, and while the project is entitled to review under existing code, waivers are discretionary and she would have a tough time granting them.
  • Chair (unidentified): Shared concerns about the length of Moody Road and adding nearly double the existing number of houses. Feared that granting waivers without a holistic view of town-wide traffic impacts would be problematic. Not willing to approve waivers at this point.
• Applicant Response: Acknowledged the feedback. Emphasized that the development is allowed under the ordinance with waivers, and they are committed to addressing environmental and traffic concerns through further studies and design modifications. They offered to consider a conservation easement for the open space.

Key Outcomes

• No votes were taken; the workshop was for feedback only.
• The board conveyed strong reservations about granting the requested waivers, with several members indicating they would not support them at this stage.
• The applicant will proceed with a comprehensive traffic study by Barton & Lojudis, aiming to return to the board in January 2026 for a formal waiver vote.
• The board requested additional information: a complete traffic study, a peer review by the town engineer, stronger conservation easement language, and details on how the HOA will limit clearing and maintain open space.
• Staff will compile information on the status of other nearby developments (Opal, Jones Farm) for the board’s awareness, though it is outside the scope of this application.