The Saco (SOCL) Planning Board convened on July 9, 2026, at 6:46 PM for a regular meeting. Key actions included approval of meeting minutes, consent calendar items, preliminary subdivision approvals, a gas station and convenience store site plan, and a final subdivision. The board also discussed a dock size waiver and determined it lacked authority to grant it.
All right, good evening, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the planning board and valued community representatives. I welcome you all to this evening's assembly of the SOCL Planning Board. As chairman, 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're 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 a responsibility entrusted to us by our community, working diligently and thoughtfully to chart a course that fosters growth, prosperity, and harmony. With that, I would like to call this meeting of the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026, Soccle Planning Board to order. I look forward to the productive discussions, discussions, and meaningful outcomes that lie ahead. Thank you. With us this evening, myself, Matt Prevencil, the chair of the board. And to my left, we have our vice chair, Joyce Leary Clark, and planning board members Jeff Bruchel and Catherine Palini. And board member to my right, um, Chris. Why am I Gagnon? Right. Sorry. It's been a long week already. Um thank you. Apologies, Chris. Um, and our staff members, our city planner Charles Tellman, and our plan planning compliance manager, Lisa Harmon, along with our City Council liaison from Ward 7, Nathan Johnson. I'll get warmed up, don't worry. Um with that, we will move to our first item on our agenda, which is number three really, um, which is our review of our draft meeting minutes from our last meeting on June 16th. Board members, are there any questions, comments, or edits on that draft document. Jeff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had a a minor one. Um we've started to change um uh how the votes were recorded. Typically, if we had somebody that was in the minority, are we just doing away with that in the sense now that we're trying to get people to realize that the vote was taken, this is what the vote was, and if you want to know more details to look into the video record. Yeah, that's the direction. I think we don't want to be going through. I think one thing I've noticed is especially when we're trying to get in the specifics of conversation. I think most members have said we're getting like the names, we're mixing up names. Um we like to generally summarize the discussion points, then acknowledge the votes, um, and then leave it for the recording if somebody wants to go in back in and uh we've talked to some applicants who you know who go back and will listen to the meeting uh before even going to the minutes for that because they know that the meeting the conversation in the recording is more correct than the minutes, and it's just we don't want a 15-page document for minutes each week when we have the recording available. Thank you, Charles. Any other thoughts there? No, it makes sense. I just didn't know. Do we if somebody abstains, do we put down who abstained? Or that that's a that's a good question. We can be a little bit more specific if you want, like the you know, five voted yes, one voted no. Um if that was one of the and we can say the members' name. Uh usually in like approval letters I'll say uh if they're you're absent or you abstain from the vote rather than how you vote, but yeah, I just thought that the typically the the abstention was noted, who abstained or if there was somebody opposed, they would typically vote who opposed. But I mean I have no problem because I understand that we've been in flux for several years trying to streamline this and not make a full dictation of what happened at the meeting. So yeah, I'm fine. Thank you. All right, thank you, Jeff. Any other thoughts from board members.