Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board grants lighting waiver for Cascade Road entry, continues athletic complex review to April 1
Summary
The Planning Board granted a lighting waiver for the Cascade Road athletic complex entry but continued completeness review so the applicant can resolve traffic movement permit, septic vs sewer questions, slope and wetland concerns, and peer‑review comments.
The board continued its review of a proposed athletic complex on Cascade Road that includes an indoor dome and an outdoor turf field. The applicant presented updated materials and emphasized that the dome is intended as a recreational facility with a phased build: Phase 1 (dome) and Phase 2 (outdoor field). The board granted a limited waiver for entrance lighting and continued completeness review of the application to April 1.
Key technical issues remain unresolved. Staff and the board raised concerns about traffic: the outdoor field will require a Maine Department of Transportation traffic movement permit (TMP), and staff recommended limiting approvals to work that does not rely on a TMP until the TMP is obtained. Applicant representatives asked the board to consider conditional approval of Phase 2 pending TMP approval; staff and several members noted logistical enforcement problems with conditional approvals in the city’s experience and recommended separating phases for the record and permitting.
Septic versus sewer capacity was discussed at length. The applicant reported agreement with Maine DHHS on a low wastewater flow estimate for the facility and said a sewer connection would be expensive (estimated by applicant discussion to be on the order of tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100,000 depending on alignment and crossing of Cascade Brook). City staff flagged Section 188.802 of the subdivision ordinance, which requires sanitary sewer installation for subdivisions within 1,500 feet of an existing sewer line unless city agencies certify otherwise; staff asked whether that standard applies to the current filings. The board also discussed a requested waiver to allow a 1.5:1 slope in a short section of the shoreland overlay in order to reduce wetland impacts; staff agreed to seek the city engineer’s formal opinion and report back.
Board members and staff asked the applicant to provide more detail on snow‑storage controls near the slope that abuts an abutter (a campground), additional buffering along the shared property line, evidence on light spill and glare from athletic field lighting (peer reviewer requested a spillage analysis), and survey clarifications. The board voted 5‑0 to grant an entrance lighting waiver and to continue completeness review to April 1 so staff can review the requested materials and the city engineer's input.
