Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision 26 02 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board sends Ricker Farm subdivision back as incomplete after fire-safety, road-standard concerns

Lisbon Falls Planning Board · May 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board voted 5–0 to return the Ricker Farm subdivision application as incomplete after multiple abutters and staff (including the fire chief and public works director) reported that Running Brook Road does not meet town standards and may not safely accommodate additional lots.

After extended public comment and staff reports about road width and emergency access, the Lisbon Falls Planning Board voted unanimously to return the Ricker Farm subdivision application (Case 26-02) to the applicant as incomplete.

Residents and abutters raised repeated concerns about safety and roadway capacity. Dylan Moore told the board he and his wife are senior citizens and said he feared that "if in fact an emergency took place, I would seriously be worried about an emergency vehicle being able to get through." Nicholas Craig, another abutter, described the approach near the proposed lot as effectively a single-lane dirt segment that "wasn't meant to sustain a large amount of traffic." Several speakers said adding another home would increase drainage, erosion and traffic on a road that, they said, is already degraded.

Chair (speaker 4) read the fire chief’s and public works director’s reports into the record, noting the fire chief (Craig Bouchard) reported that "in the road's current condition, 2 fire trucks could not pass each other on the road, and there are no pull offs and no turnarounds." The public works assessment described one initial straightaway as roughly 16–17 feet (meeting minimum for a passenger car), with subsequent sections 14–15 feet wide and soft shoulders that "do not meet the width requirements."

Board discussion focused on five requested submission waivers tied to the road design. Members said the waivers were material to completeness and that applicant representation was needed to address them; the board then voted to send the application back as incomplete and require the waived materials as part of a complete submission. The motion carried 5–0.

The board’s action means the applicant must supply the required documentation and either correct the waiver requests or provide engineered justification before the planning board will reopen the application for decision.