Planning Board continues review of Cascade Road subdivision and proposed athletic dome; applicant reduces footprint and supplies manufacturer letter

The Saco Planning Board continued the public hearings Sept. 2 on two related applications for Map 48, Lots 5/6/7: a three‑lot preliminary subdivision and a proposed 66,000‑square‑foot athletic dome with onsite parking and supporting facilities. The board found the subdivision application complete with a 6–0 vote and voted to grant two limited waiver requests; Catherine Paolini recused from related votes.

The developer and site engineer said they had significantly reduced the dome’s footprint and moved the structure farther from Cascade Brook and an adjacent property after meetings with Maine Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (IF&W) and other reviewers. “We reduced the width of the building by 40 feet and reduced the footprint in order to pull the building substantially farther away from the abutting property,” engineer Silas Canavan said. The applicant distributed a manufacturer letter stating the dome fabric and the planned acrylic top coating do not contain intentionally added PFAS.

Public commenters raised several substantive concerns. Abutters and residents asked the board to verify chain of title for a small interior lot (identified in the submitted survey as Map 48 Lot 6) and flagged disparate historical deeds and assessor records; multiple residents asked staff and the city attorney to confirm ownership and deed clearance before any final approval. Fred Fratantes Jr., an abutter, also questioned whether the project’s projected spectator/participant counts would create more vehicle trips and parking demand than shown in the applicant’s materials. Several residents, including Kelly Archer and Inga Brown, requested more documentation about ownership and about building‑code enforcement, including whether an automatic sprinkler system will be required.

Planning staff and the board directed two discrete follow-ups. Staff will seek confirming, written comment from the assessing department and the city attorney to resolve the Lot 6 chain‑of‑title question before the project reaches final plan consideration. The board also asked staff to compile a draft findings checklist and to invite code‑enforcement and fire‑department staff to clarify whether the project meets local and state fire and sprinkler rules and whether any exemption or alternate approach would be permitted; those interpretations affect building setbacks, “clear yard” requirements and potentially the dome’s allowable area.

For the subdivision application the board granted two waivers related to street plans and homeowners‑association documents; the motion to grant waivers passed 6–0 with one abstention. The board opened and then continued the subdivision’s public hearing to Oct. 7; it also continued the athletic‑dome public hearing to Oct. 7 to allow staff, the applicant and commenters time to address title, stormwater and code questions. The board asked the applicant to provide a title report or attorney confirmation of ownership, clarified where sidewalks will be built as part of the larger development, and requested copies of any state fire‑marshal correspondence the applicant relies on.