Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues review of Bradley Street 'Greens' subdivision, schedules follow-up for April 1
Summary
The Saco Planning Board continued the public hearing and application review for a 32‑unit residential subdivision on Bradley Street after applicants addressed stormwater, buffering and utilities; staff and peer reviewers flagged outstanding engineer comments.
The Saco Planning Board on March 4 continued a public hearing and the application review for a proposed 32‑unit residential subdivision at Map 67, Lot 27 (Bradley Street Greens) and set the matter for further review on April 1.
The applicants, represented by David Ehrenstam of CityView Construction and engineer Chris Taylor of Sebago Technics, told the board they revised plans since their January appearance to address peer‑review and city engineer comments, focused on stormwater design and on‑site treatment, and adjusted unit types. "We're trying to build basically a cul de sac with 16 units, 16 duplexes, on about 6 and a quarter acres of land," Ehrenstam said; Taylor clarified the current layout is 32 units made up of 15 duplexes plus two single‑family units.
Board members pressed the applicant on utilities, stormwater routing and buffering. Taylor said the stormwater approach now relies on on‑site treatment with underdrain soil filters and detention basins discharging at locations intended to match predevelopment rates. He said an originally proposed piped connection to adjacent development was removed. The design team also reduced a proposed water main from 8 inches to 6 inches after coordination with the fire department, Taylor said. Taylor described proposed vegetation along the shared property line as eight‑ to ten‑foot balsam fir plantings to supplement gaps in existing arborvitae, and explained a shallow berm at rear yards that the applicant proposes to include in homeowners association (HOA) maintenance obligations so it remains effective for long‑term conveyance.
Board members and staff noted outstanding city engineer comments and a landscape peer review that remain in the file. No members of the public spoke during the hearing. The board voted to open the public hearing, then, after receiving no public comment, voted to continue the hearing and the application review to April 1 so the applicant can respond to remaining engineering and peer‑review comments.
Planning staff and the applicant will return with updated materials addressing the city engineer memo, landscape peer‑review responses, and any clarifications on stormwater, buffer planting sizes and the HOA maintenance language.
