Planning Board continues public hearing on Cascade Road athletic dome after lengthy debate over noise, wetlands and code questions

The Saco Planning Board continued the public hearing on a proposal to site an air‑supported athletic dome and associated site work on Cascade Road (Map 48, Lots 5 & 6) after extensive technical presentation, applicant responses and public comment.

Applicant updates and staff notes The applicant, represented by Silas Canavan of Atlantic Resource Consultants, presented multiple plan changes since the prior hearing: a gravity sewer alignment to the Waterfall Drive sewer system; relocation of mechanical (HVAC) equipment to the building’s north side to reduce sound toward southern neighbors; removal of snow‑storage from the shoreland zone; addition of an internal sidewalk to Cascade Road and an offer to escrow funds for a future public sidewalk; and a decommissioning plan. The applicant said they had submitted supplemental sound propagation analyses showing multiple HVAC units running together remain below applicable thresholds. The submission packet included recent correspondence from Maine Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (IF&W), DEP delegated review notices, and additional materials described in staff’s "after the fact" packet.

Public concerns raised Several residents and representatives spoke during the reopened public hearing. Speakers raised these concerns: potential noise from blowers, fans and HVAC units running day and night; maintenance and snow removal at the dome perimeter adjacent to wetlands; whether the structure should be sprinklered if occupant thresholds change; whether the proposed site encroaches on fish habitat and wetlands; and whether the dome membrane or turf could release microplastics or PFAS into the environment. Attorney/advocates and campground owners warned the facility could affect adjacent campgrounds and condominiums and urged more scrutiny of wetland and habitat impacts.

Applicant and technical responses - Farley dome representative Jason Abbott said the dome fabric supplied from a U.S. manufacturer contains no PFAS and described routine maintenance, snow‑shedding behavior and replacement procedures for the membrane. He offered to provide supplier letters to confirm material claims. - Architect Andrew Tawarji said the project team has engaged the State Fire Marshal; their occupancy analysis estimates a maximum occupant count below 300 so the code threshold that typically triggers required automatic sprinklers would not apply, but final determination rests with the fire marshal and code enforcement. - The civil engineer noted IF&W provided comments the day before the meeting; applicant responses and coordination with IF&W are in the packet and the team offered to continue direct coordination with that agency.

Board reaction and procedural outcome Board members expressed a mix of concerns: several urged clear written documentation from IF&W and the State Fire Marshal and asked staff to include all "after the fact" materials in the next packet; some members asked for more specifics on snow‑removal operations and sidewalk/crossing details with Maine Department of Transportation for Route 1/Cascade Road connectivity. Given the number of technical and public concerns, the Planning Board voted to continue the public hearing to August 12 and requested that staff and the applicant coordinate with IF&W and the fire marshal and provide the outstanding documentation for the next meeting.

Quote "There is a lot of information here, but that's not from this applicant...we just want to be fully transparent," Emily Cole Prescott said when discussing the supplemental packet and agency correspondence.

Next steps The board continued the public hearing to August 12 and asked the applicant to provide clearer written verification on material safety (PFAS/microplastics), updated sound analysis documentation, fire marshal code determination on occupant load and sprinklers, and coordination results with IF&W and DOT on sidewalks and crossings. The board also instructed staff to assemble the after‑the‑fact packet materials into the next meeting packet for review.

Ending The matter remains under review; the board specifically requested agency verifications and clarified that final action will depend on those technical responses and staff recommendations at the next hearing.