Lewiston planning hearing on proposed housing draws resident concerns about contamination, traffic and sidewalks

Developers proposing a multi-family project told the Lewiston Planning Board that their zoning, utility and traffic analyses show the site is feasible, but residents on Wednesday pressed for documentation about historical contamination at a neighboring garage site and asked for better notification and pedestrian connections.

"We're 4.8 out of 5," the developer said when introducing the proposal and offered to provide credentials and supporting documentation to the board. He said the project's engineering models indicate there is sufficient utility capacity, that a traffic impact study (TIS) has been submitted for DOT and town review, and that downstream capacity and other reviews must still clear before any approval.

The developer said the planning board is advisory and that the town board will hold the formal public hearing on any subsequent action. "This project will not get approved if any of those reviewers determine that that modeling is incorrect or that there's no capacity," he said.

Residents raised several recurring concerns. Multiple speakers asked for proof that tanks once associated with the adjacent Cronig's garage had been removed and that chemical migration had not occurred. One resident asked for state and federal records because, she said, "there has historically been a lot of things where people are told what they want to hear so that a project can move forward, but all the proof and the research prior says that none of that has been cleaned up." The developer responded that the tanks were removed in the early 1990s, that testing along the property line showed no migration, and that the company can provide planning-board documentation and an executive summary for the public to review.

The transcript shows disagreement about public records: a resident cited the DEC website as listing active tanks at the site, while the developer maintained those tanks were not on the developer's property and said documentation confirming removal can be supplied.

On site design, the developer gave specific details: the plan shows 28% hardscape with the remainder pervious; a 16-foot permanent access easement will be preserved; stormwater areas and playgrounds will be fenced with a 5-foot screen/split-rail fence; ponds are about 3 to 6 feet deep; and sidewalks will be added within the site to connect to an existing crosswalk, though there will be no new sidewalk on the north side of Saugus Center and Salem Road.

A resident asked how a traffic study is done; the developer described traffic counts during morning and evening peak periods and a Saturday window, followed by Synchro modeling to determine level of service. He said the TIS was completed "earlier this year" but did not give a specific date when asked.

On operations, the developer said the site will have two full-time on-site staff (a property manager and a maintenance supervisor) plus a regional director who visits the site; staff will handle tenant vetting, conflict resolution and maintenance. When asked who would maintain easements, the developer said on-site staff would handle plowing and groundskeeping. The developer confirmed the pump/grinder station would be the developer's responsibility, not the town's.

Residents also asked about notification of hearings and outreach; attendees noted that mailed notice is limited to properties within 500 feet and urged broader public notice beyond local papers. A resident requested that any remediation and developer documents be posted to the town website so the public can review them.

The board took no final action on the application. A member moved to close the public hearing; another seconded, and the motion carried by voice vote. Board members said the matter will return for further review at the town board meeting on the third Thursday of the month.