A map of the Scarborough portion of the proposed Gorham Connector. The road is in yellow, blue represents bodies of water, dark green is where wetlands are possible and light green is where wetlands are confirmed. After initially backing the project, Scarborough councilors appear poised to rescind the town’s support. Contributed by Maine Turnpike Authority

After a contentious meeting last week, the Scarborough Town Council is poised to vote on a resolution that withdraws its support of the Gorham Connector.

A measure canceling support for the $300 million transportation project will appear on next week’s council agenda. If passed, Scarborough would be the first impacted community to formally withdraw from the project.

The council received a presentation from the Maine Turnpike Authority on the Connector at a workshop on Sept. 18.  The project is intended to alleviate traffic from Gorham to Portland and its neighboring communities by providing an alternative route to the congested Routes 22 and 114 and other local roads. The Connector would run from Route 114 from the Gorham Bypass to I-95 Exit 45 in South Portland.

During its regular meeting later that evening, some councilors wanted to add a resolution to the agenda withdrawing the town’s support while others argued the council never – or, very rarely – takes action on a topic immediately after a workshop was held on it.

More than 300 people attended a meeting in March on the proposed Gorham Connector hosted by the Maine Turnpike Authority at the Shaw Gym in Gorham. Kelley Bouchard/Staff Writer

Councilor Don Cushing

The resolution, drafted by Councilor Don Cushing, would withdraw the council’s support of the project and authorize the Town Manager to cancel the town’s Memorandum of Agreement with the MTA. It would also state that the council will reconsider its position if the project gains public support in the future and that the town will work with state agencies and other communities on traffic solutions that the Connector intended to resolve.

The resolution is poised to pass at the Oct. 2 meeting with the majority of councilors expressing their opposition to the Connector at the Sept. 18 meeting. The reason some councilors opposed adding it to that evening’s agenda was procedural.

“In my 10 years with the council we have never, that I can think of, had people come from state agencies, do presentations and then turn around 15 minutes later and say, ‘eh, no,'” said Councilor Jean-Marie Caterina.

Meanwhile, others argued that the council’s position on the project is clear and that waiting until its next meeting delays the inevitable.

“I think we should stop kicking the can, stop waiting around and make the decision,” said Councilor Karin Shupe.

Cushing said the council has heard “plenty from the public” on the matter and it is time to take action.

“I completely understand the practice of having a workshop and then giving some time to think about it. I think that’s a good practice in general,” Cushing said. “But, I can’t imagine leaving this room tonight with the conclusion being that this council failed to act on what the public asked for us to do because of past practices. That makes zero sense to me.”

The council voted 4-3 to add the resolution to its Sept. 18 agenda, one vote shy of the five votes needed. Council Chair Nick McGee, Council Vice Chair April Sither and Councilor Caterina were the three councilors opposed, but stated they support the resolution’s inclusion on the council’s Oct. 2 agenda.