Planning Board approves 94‑lot Lincoln Street subdivision after weeks of debate over sidewalks and phasing

The Saco Planning Board voted 5–1 on June 16 to grant final subdivision approval for a 94‑lot single‑family development at 321 Lincoln Street, clearing the way for phased construction while placing conditions meant to protect residents during build‑out.

The vote followed hours of review by staff and a lengthy public hearing. Charles Tedleman, Saco’s city planner, told the board the applicant had submitted a revised construction sequencing and phasing plan and that most technical items had been addressed; staff recommended several conditions related to surveying, interim services and off‑site pedestrian improvements. Applicant Drew Gagnner of Coral Poll, representing Big Ledge LLC, asked the board to approve the plan and explained the team’s approach to phasing and construction access.

Neighbors and board members spent most of the discussion on where the developer should be required to extend sidewalks off‑site. Several residents urged the board to require a sidewalk connection to the existing network at Skyline Drive to improve pedestrian safety and access to bus stops and the nearby school. "For a project of this size, I would like to see the developer commit to some part of the sidewalk either in phase B of Tasker Street or connecting at least up to the end of Skyline Drive," Saco resident Ingga (Eningga) Brown told the board during public comment.

The applicant said the proposal included significant frontage improvements and argued the scope must be reasonable so the subdivision remains feasible. "We’re pretty adamant…that the sidewalk scope meets the intent of the ordinance," Drew Gagnner said, urging the board to balance connectivity goals with project viability.

Board members negotiated changes to the draft conditions. The board clarified that surveys of foundations near setbacks would follow the preliminary‑approval language (survey within 5 feet), reworked a condition on interim trash and snow services so those responsibilities are clear during phased construction, and moved the completion of certain Tasker Street off‑site improvements to Phase C to avoid routing pedestrians through active construction entrances.

Planning board member Jeff Brusho, who pushed for the longer off‑site sidewalk connection to Skyline Drive, said he wanted the final plans to include the more extensive link. Other board members emphasized the practical limits of what the city can require of a single developer and suggested alternatives such as a fee‑in‑lieu or phased requirements, but the condition set approved by the board leaves the applicant responsible for the sidewalk work shown in the current plan set while allowing staff to finalize technical details prior to pre‑construction.

The motion to adopt the conditions of approval passed on a 5–1 vote. The final subdivision motion carried 5–1 with Jeff Brusho recorded as the lone vote against the approval. The motion and vote are reflected in the official minutes; the board also adopted findings of fact and moved to require final homeowners’ association documents and third‑party construction monitoring before issuance of building permits.

What happens next: The applicant may begin permitting tasks required by the conditions — including final construction management and homeowners’ association documents — and can proceed with phased construction once required pre‑construction submissions and inspections are complete. The board’s conditions require post‑construction compliance checks and allow staff to require modifications if interim phases cause service or safety problems.