Saco Planning Board approval for a Lincoln Street residential development has sparked residential grievances with potential failures of due process in approval hearings.

The planning board met on Aug. 15 to determine application completeness for a proposed 332-unit residential development on 321 Lincoln St., which currently has about 56.7 acres of undeveloped area. The board found that the application materials were incomplete and moved to push further assessment to the Sept. 5 meeting.

The development was first discussed by the planning board when Graiver Homes, the applicant, brought it for initial site plan review on Sept. 6, 2022. The site plan application was approved and thus began a series of public hearings about the proposed site — the last of which occurred on June 6.

On Aug. 15, the planning board considered an application completion assessment and did not hold a public hearing; however, for months neighbors from the area have voiced concerns about various aspects of the project from conservation to sidewalks to traffic.

In addition to the public concerns about the site itself, some citizens have filed a grievance petition with the city clerk, calling for the city council to address bias and failure of due process concerns about the May and June planning board meetings.

Inga Sandvoss Browne is one of the primary complainants and directly addressed concerns of vote intimidation by the planning board chair, city planner and city attorney toward board members that ultimately granted preliminary approval for the plan.

“On both 6/20 and 6/29, the Chair, City Planner, and City Attorney cited the possibility of impending threats of litigation against the City by the developer to cower the Board into re-voting on these two review standards, and both previously recorded failed votes were subsequently overturned in re-votes for approval,” Browne wrote in a letter to Portland Press Herald Executive Editor Steve Greenlee.

She refers to a back-and-forth among the planning board over the course of the June 20 meeting and a special June 29 meeting to grant preliminary plan approval that began with two tied votes — therefore, failed votes — about the wildlife, scenery, and unique and critical areas criteria that ultimately ended in a third vote of approval of the preliminary plan on June 29.

When discussing this matter and following the second failed tie vote, board member Jeff Grossman asked for clarification from the board chair on the procedure for a tie vote that would result in a re-vote rather than just a failed motion.

“If memory serves, this reminds me of the situation last week, and I think the situation, if I’m correct, is not so much as debating and until you come back with a positive vote,” City Councilor Joe Gunn said in response to Grossman’s concerns. “It’s just taking a re-vote, and if it falls along the same result whether it’s three-three or in the negative, that you present a legal justification for your vote so that would survive going to the Board of Appeals let alone going to court.”

In response Grossman cited the testimony given by the Saco Conservation Commission at earlier hearings about the large portions of forest clearing required for the project and the effects of increased impervious surfaces on natural drainage.

Ultimately, the planning board agreed to add conditions to the planned proposal, resulting in an agreement with Loni Graver, one of the Lincoln Street applicants, to include 20 percent more new plantings to the original plan. The section was put to a vote again and passed 5-1 with Grossman voting against.

A detail in the letter sent to Greenlee regarding the grievance petition part of Browne’s concerns was the lack of video for planning board meetings, which she recognized as not on par with neighboring planning boards. The Aug. 15 meeting was the first meeting to be published as a video on the planning board website.

The petition was submitted to the city clerk on Aug. 11 with 172 signatures from community members. Grossman was not present at the Aug. 15 meeting for unspecified reasons. The city council has yet to make a public response to the grievance petition.

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.