Saco Planning Board Denies Ecology Education Inc.’s Extension Request Amid Concerns Over Missed Deadlines and Payments
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony and argument, the Saco Planning Board voted 4–1 (with 1 abstention) to deny Ecology Education Inc.’s request to amend Condition 9 — a construction deadline tied to an MDOT BPI grant — citing failure to comply with a May 24, 2024 construction loan agreement and insufficient timely performance to meet grant deadlines.
The Saco Planning Board on Feb. 3 denied Ecology Education Inc.’s request to amend Condition 9 of a 2018 site-plan approval — an amendment that would have extended the project completion deadline to June 3, 2027. The board’s vote to deny was 4 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention.
The ruling followed a lengthy public hearing that drew a steady stream of residents and experts who questioned both the school’s financial health and whether required contract milestones had been met. Board member Jeff Brochu, who moved to deny the amendment, said the record shows missed deadlines and delayed payments under the construction loan agreement the city executed with the applicant in May 2024. "They didn't pay for the design until the whole project was supposed to be completed," Brochu said in explaining his motion.
Why it matters: The contested condition requires coordination to build an off-site left-turn lane at Simpson Road that is linked to an MDOT Business Partnership Initiative (BPI) grant. If the BPI deadline is missed, the city could be left to manage a larger share of the cost. Proponents of denial argued the delay and payment history make meeting the BPI completion schedule uncertain; proponents of extension argued the project documents in the planning file have been satisfied and that many contract enforcement issues are the responsibility of City Council or code enforcement, not the Planning Board.
What the record shows: Applicant counsel Peter Van Hemel told the board that the materials required by the planning review — including engineering work by Sebago Technics and a funded project deposit account — were in the project file and that no formal default notices had been issued to the Ecology School. "We have not received any notice of default," Van Hemel said, urging the board to limit its decision to the project documents before it.
Residents and experts who addressed the board said otherwise. CPA Deb Hilton summarized audited financial statements that showed continuing operating losses and two recent "going concern" opinions in 2023–24; she cited roughly $8.6 million in USDA debt and near-term loan repayments totaling about $900,000 due in spring 2026. Public commenters and multiple board members also highlighted a construction loan agreement (identified in the record as a $308,233 loan) and emails and memos tying timeline obligations to the BPI schedule.
Board discussion centered on three lines of analysis: whether the extension request was timely filed; whether the Planning Board has authority to grant another extension or whether that review should be handled by City Council (noting the project sits inside a contract-zone agreement); and whether the facts presented in the planning-file documents provide sufficient assurance that the project can be completed by the BPI deadline.
The decision: Brochu’s motion cited "a lack of compliance with the construction loan agreement entered into with the City of Saco on May 24, 2024," and found insufficient technical capacity to satisfy the June 3, 2027 construction completion deadline in the MDOT BPI schedule. The motion passed 4–1 with 1 abstention; board chair Matt Provencal, Joyce Leary Clark, Jeff Brochu and Catherine Paolini voted to deny, Jim Moyer opposed and Chris Gagnon abstained.
What comes next: Staff will prepare formal written findings of fact reflecting the board’s decision and issue a notice of decision. City staff and code-enforcement or council processes may follow to address claims about contract breaches, mortgage priority and loan administration that many public speakers recommended be handled by the City Council or legal counsel. The board scheduled follow-up agenda items and directed staff on procedural next steps.
Board members emphasized the narrow scope of the vote: the denial related to the requested date amendment to Condition 9 rather than a change to the underlying requirement for a left-turn lane. Several board members and the applicant reiterated that if the city (or MDOT) decides not to build the turn lane, the board could later consider removing the condition as a separate policy decision.
