Sacco Planning Board Meeting - March 3, 2026 - Reviews Rezoning, Subdivision, and Condominium Projects
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacco Planning Board Meeting - March 3, 2026
The Sacco Planning Board convened on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The meeting covered three major agenda items: a completeness review for a zoning map amendment on Flag Pond Road, a continued completeness review for an 18-lot subdivision on Easy Street, and a continued public hearing and preliminary approval for a 25-unit condominium development at 42 Ferry Road. The board also heard public comments on non-agenda items and general planning updates.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Flag Pond Road Rezoning (Item 6A): Two residents from the McKenzie Preserve HOA spoke during the public comment period. Paul Santabor (21 Tabby Way) expressed concern about a potential 200-condo development, citing traffic and safety issues at the Flag Pond Road/I-95 overpass. He urged thoughtful development and involvement in the process. Wes Clark (8 Tabby Way) recommended rezoning to Low Density Residential (LDR) instead of the requested Portland Road District, questioning the meaning of "multi-use" as a zoning category.
- 42 Ferry Road (Item 6C): During the continued public hearing, abutters raised concerns about stormwater, flooding, wetlands, the historic Seal Rock Spring, and density. Maggie Mondack (29B Old Orchard Road) argued that the stormwater model ignores existing flooding and called for a hydrogeologic study, wider buffers, and a 25 mph speed zone with a signalized crossing. Georgia Bell (29A Old Orchard Road) questioned the adequacy of stormwater standards for 100-year events and noted discrepancies in groundwater test results. Andrew Mondack (29 Old Orchard Road) requested a more robust margin of safety, a green buffer corridor, and reduced density. David Rewinkle (32 Ferry Road) urged the board to investigate the spring location at his property, citing historical evidence, and expressed concerns about concentrated stormwater overflow and parking counts.
Discussion Items
- Flag Pond Road Rezoning - Completeness Review (Item 6A): Applicant Drew Gagnum (Coral Palmer) presented a petition to rezone two parcels (totaling ~60 acres) from Industrial to Portland Road District, citing environmental constraints, connectivity, and consistency with the comprehensive plan. The applicant emphasized no solidified development plans but indicated potential for mixed-use. Board members questioned compatibility with adjacent industrial land, wetlands, and access. The board found the application complete (6-0) and scheduled a public hearing for April 7, 2026.
- Easy Street Subdivision - Completeness Review (Item 6B): Applicant Austin Fagan (BH2M) proposed an 18-lot single-family subdivision accessible via Mary's Way in Old Orchard Beach. The project includes a loop road, public water, private septic, and one wetland impact. Several items were missing from the packet, including financial and technical capacity, HOA documents, landscaping details, and archaeological review. Board members noted incomplete information and concerns about maintenance and jurisdictional coordination. The board voted 6-0 to continue the completeness review to April 7, 2026, and scheduled a site walk on March 18, 2026, with invitation to the Conservation Commission.
- 42 Ferry Road - Continued Public Hearing and Preliminary Approval (Item 6C): Applicant Craig (Acorn Engineering) presented updated plans addressing landscaping and traffic. The board discussed two options for pedestrian connectivity: a sidewalk to Pine Ridge Road with an all-way stop versus a longer sidewalk to Old Orchard Road. Board consensus favored the Pine Ridge option due to feasibility. The board also deliberated on the location of Seal Rock Spring, with abutters advocating for further study and city staff deferring to existing surveys and zoning maps. After closing the public hearing (5-1), the board granted a waiver for internal landscaping (6-0), found the proposed open space sufficient (6-0), adopted findings of fact and conditions of approval (5-0-1), and granted preliminary subdivision, site plan, and conditional use approval (5-0-1).
Key Outcomes
- Flag Pond Road Rezoning: Application found complete (6-0). Public hearing scheduled for April 7, 2026.
- Easy Street Subdivision: Completeness review continued to April 7, 2026. Site walk scheduled for March 18, 2026 at 8:00 AM.
- 42 Ferry Road Condominiums: Public hearing closed (5-1). Preliminary approval granted (5-0-1, with Jeff Rusho abstaining). Key conditions include updated tree survey, financial capacity letter, and design and installation of a sidewalk connection from the site to the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Ferry Road, including a crosswalk and an all-way stop or alternative approved by DOT and city staff.
- Meeting Extended: The board approved extending the meeting to 9:30 PM to complete business.
- Planning Department Update: Planner Charles Tuttleman introduced a new memo format and requested board feedback. Jeff Rusho requested a report on housing permit data.
Meeting Transcript
All right, good evening, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the planning board, valued community representatives. I welcome you all to this evening's assembly of the Sacco Planning Board. As chair, it is my privilege to convene this gathering dedicated to the thoughtful planning and development of our community. Today we come together with a shared commitment to shaping the future of our city in a manner that reflects our values, respects our heritage, and fulfills the needs of our residents both now and in the future. Our agenda tonight contains important matters, each requiring our careful consideration, expertise, and collaboration. As we engage in our deliberations, let us remember the profound impact these decisions will have on the lives of all, keeping in mind we are residents like you. It is our duty to maintain transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in our proceedings, ensuring that the voices of all are heard and respected. Together we must embrace the responsibility entrusted to us by our community, working diligently and thoughtfully to chart a course that phosphorus growth, prosperity, and harmony. With that, I would like to call this meeting of the Tuesday, March third, twenty twenty-six planning board to order. I look forward to the productive discussions and meaningful outcomes that lie ahead. And to my left, our Vice Chair Joyce Larry Clark, along with planning board members, Jeff Rusho, Catherine Pellini, and to my right, Jim Moyer and Chris Gagnon. Our staff members with us this evening are our city planner, Charles Tuttleman, and our planning compliance coordinator, Lisa Harmon. Along with our City Council liaison from Ward 7, Nathan Johnson. And with that, we'll move to our first item on our agenda, which is our review of our February twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six meeting minutes. Board members have any questions, comments or edits on those minutes. Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve the second motion by Jim and a second by Joyce to accept the minutes as presented. Any additional discussion on that motion. All right, those in favor, Chris? Yes. Jim. Yes. Joyce. Yes. Jeff? Yes. Catherine. Yes. I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes 60. Our next item on our agenda is just a brief overview of our planning board public hearing guidelines. This is a document developed by the board and city staff outlining the procedure in place for public hearings held. This explains the purpose of the public hearings, the outline procedure of reviewing an application, public comment presentation, and meeting duration. If anyone has any questions about this document or the process, please let us know. We have hard copies available at the rear of the auditorium along with digital copies on the city's website for review. Our next item number five is our public comment period. This is where we'll open for a period. Excuse me. I always mess up my words here. This comment period is limited to a total of 15 minutes to items not under planning board review. The planning board appreciates public comments and knows that public comment about matters before us can help the board understand neighborhood concerns, review an application, or help address an outstanding item. Those wishing to make statements about an application that is under planning board review are asked to provide those statements during the applicable public hearing period. Comments during this period are limited to three minutes. If there are multiple members of the public looking to speak, we may reduce that time to accommodate all speakers. So with that, if anyone is with us this evening to speak or have any general questions about planning, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Specifically, the there's two applications here that are completeness review, and we won't will not be having public comment on it. So I would just say for general understanding that if there are members of the public who wish to speak on item 6a or 6B, flag pond road rezoning, or the Easy Street application, this would be the time to speak because there's no public hearing or no public comment associated with those two. So that would just be my suggestion because I know I see some folks here who may not be. I typically don't do this, but just in the interest of people's time and keeping them aware because I know that we have some folks not familiar with SACO here.
openpublica.com