Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saco planning board continues review of 94‑lot Lincoln Street subdivision after heated debate over off‑site sidewalks and phasing
Summary
The Planning Board continued the public hearing on the 321 Lincoln Street subdivision to June 16 after weeks of debate over whether the developer must pay to extend sidewalks off‑site. Staff asked for more off‑site sidewalk to close gaps; the developer said the extra 2,000 feet was economically infeasible and would raise housing costs.
The Saco Planning Board continued the public hearing on the 321 Lincoln Street final subdivision on June 2 after an extended debate over off‑site sidewalks, construction phasing and stormwater protections.
City Planner Charles Telman told the board staff is generally supportive of the subdivision layout but urged clearer phasing and construction management plans. Staff recommended extending sidewalks beyond the applicant’s frontage to close gaps in the pedestrian network, including a potential connection toward Skyline Drive and Evergreen to improve access to nearby destinations.
Representing Big Ledge LLC, Drew Gagnum of Goral Palmer said the project already proposes an internal sidewalk network and off‑site links that reach Tasker Street and Lincoln Street. He objected to staff’s later request for roughly 2,000 additional feet of sidewalk to reach Evergreen, telling the board that "an extra 2,000 feet of sidewalk is just simply not doable from an economic standpoint" and estimating the added work could exceed $250,000 because of drainage, curbing and a pump station in the Skyline Drive corridor.
Board members probed both sides. Several members emphasized pedestrian safety and the city’s connectivity goals; others questioned whether it was fair to require a single developer to shoulder large off‑site costs when the city has previously not funded those segments. Board member Jeff Brchu said the Lincoln Street frontage is densely developed on the applicant’s side and argued that linking to existing sidewalks near Lincoln is important for safety and potential future bus or school stop reconfiguration.
Concerns went beyond sidewalks. Neighbors warned about dust and truck traffic during site clearing, potential stream impacts and flood risk in low‑lying yards. Resident Mary Elizabeth Carolyn told the board her yard already collects runoff and asked the board and staff to ensure construction phasing and stormwater protections prevent her backyard from becoming a pond.
The developer and staff also disputed sequencing questions: when interim stream crossings and water‑main connections will be constructed, how emergency access will be assured during phased construction, and how the city will handle future street acceptance when phases are offered for dedication.
After hearing public comments and extensive board discussion, the Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to June 16. Staff will revise draft findings and conditions to reflect the board’s direction; the applicant was asked to provide a more formalized phasing plan and a construction management narrative before the continued hearing.
What’s next: The Planning Board will reconvene the public hearing on June 16. The board asked staff to circulate updated findings and conditions in advance and indicated it will expect clearer documentation on phasing, emergency access and erosion controls before making a final decision.
