Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest Planning Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saco council hears strong public input and divided views on steering limits for planning board leadership
Summary
Public commenters and councilors debated proposed code changes that would bar licensed real estate brokers or active developers from serving as planning board chair or co‑chair; supporters cited optics and a grievance history, while multiple councilors urged disclosure and recusal instead of a profession‑wide ban.
SACO, Maine — Residents and councilors on Nov. 10 debated proposed amendments to Saco’s administrative code that would prevent a sitting planning board member who is a licensed real estate broker or an active developer from serving as planning board chair or co‑chair.
Sandy Gay, a land use attorney and former planning board member, urged the council not to adopt the draft amendments, arguing they could produce unequal treatment for some citizens and risk constitutional challenge: "it's very likely an equal rights violation," she told the council, and pointed to existing recusal procedures and the city's code of ethics as remedies.
Kelly Archer, a retired real estate broker and co‑filer of the grievance behind the recommendations, supported restrictions aimed at avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Archer urged wording changes to avoid narrowing categories — for example, favoring the broader "real estate license" over the narrower term "brokers" — and described a multi‑year grievance process that led to the current proposals.
Councilor Hatch, who chaired the ad hoc grievance review group, framed the recommendation as targeted to leadership roles rather than participation, saying the intent is to "reduce the risk, and I emphasize the appearance of a conflict of interest by preventing a sitting planning board member who is either a licensed real estate broker or an active real estate developer from serving as planning board chair or co‑chair." He cited the Lincoln Village litigation and said defending such suits can impose costs on taxpayers.
Several councilors pushed back on a blanket ban. Councilor Hewitt said Maine law already provides disclosure and recusal mechanisms and warned that excluding whole professions would remove needed expertise: "The goal should be to manage conflicts responsibly when they arise," Hewitt said. Councilor Berman called the proposed change a permanent fix to what he described as a temporary situation and noted existing safeguards: limits on number of members from the same occupation, recusal rules and appointment vetting.
City staff took notes and the item was assigned for follow‑up; Councilor Johnston will carry the item to a future meeting for additional consideration and potential alternative approaches. No formal vote on the §4‑34 amendments was taken Nov. 10.
Why it matters: The change would affect who can lead planning‑board deliberations in a city where land‑use decisions have generated high public interest and litigation. Councilors who oppose a ban cited the need for professional expertise on the board; supporters prioritized preventing perceived bias and limiting litigation risk.
What’s next: Staff will return the proposal to the council at a future meeting after additional review; the ad hoc committee encouraged any councilor proposing an alternative mitigation strategy to bring it forward for consideration.
