Saco Planning Board Meeting - September 15, 2026

The Saco Planning Board convened on the evening of September 15, 2026, with Chair Matt Prevenzel presiding and Ward 7 City Council liaison Nathan Johnson in attendance. The board's principal work was a continued public hearing and deliberation on a telecommunications tower contract-zone rezoning application proposed for a roughly 100-by-100-foot parcel in North Saco's rural conservation zone. The board also approved prior meeting minutes, accepted the consent calendar, heard limited public comment, and set next steps for drafting findings. No agenda or minutes were available for cross-reference; this summary is based solely on the raw transcript.

Meeting Minutes Review

• The board reviewed and accepted the minutes from the August 18, 2026, and September 1, 2026, meetings. Two separate motions to accept the minutes as presented passed without additional discussion; individual vote tallies were not transcribed.

Consent Calendar

• Board members reported that all consent calendar items appeared complete. A motion to accept the consent calendar as presented was approved without additional discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

• General public comment (agenda item limited to 15 minutes): No members of the public came forward, so no testimony was taken.
• Public hearing on the tower application (item 8):
  • A resident opposed the application, arguing that the applicant is "far from having exhausted other reasonable opportunities." They noted the use is outright prohibited outside industrial zones, cited $50–100 signal boosters and amplifiers as a five-minute alternative available online, and stated they had spoken with both the fire chief and police chief, who "both said they don't need it." The speaker also cautioned that the coverage maps' green areas are misleading.
  • A second speaker said they supported all prior public speakers. They expressed concern that property values could be reduced by "2 to 20 percent, depending on where you live and close to that tower." They argued the tower would likely benefit neighboring communities and travelers on roadways as much as, or more than, Saco residents, and asked how many towers the city would need to accommodate "before we reach saturation?" before granting like requests.
  • A board member, referencing the testimony, noted that one public speaker said Saco public safety officials provided no information suggesting they were concerned about existing service.

Discussion Items

• Applicant's update and board questions: The city planner reviewed additional written responses to comments that arrived after the packet deadline. The applicant stated that city council dates are not yet scheduled and the project would require first and second reads, and noted that additional information would be provided to the board before the next meeting. The applicant explained that police, fire, and EMS do not need to locate on the tower itself, but that 911 calls placed from roads and homes rely on the coverage the tower would provide, and that master lease agreements with major carriers support both public connectivity and public safety.
• Board members questioned industry standards for future carrier separation; the applicant deferred, stating they are not an acoustical engineer. Members also discussed whether the small 100-by-100-foot parcel is unique enough to justify the zone change, with one member stating, "I don't consider this unique enough, but there has been no other investigation" of alternative sites, while another member concluded the land "probably is unusual in that it is centered in the place it needs to be to provide the service it needs to provide."
• One board member urged the board to stay focused on the four criteria questions before them rather than new technical information, and noted that if any one or more of the four criteria votes is negative, the board would forward a negative recommendation to the city council, which makes the final decision on all zoning.
• The board voted to close the public hearing, then returned to deliberation. Board member Chris suggested that future items of this nature be considered in a separate meeting dedicated specifically to that item. The board discussed whether to schedule application-completeness review as part of the consent calendar; the chair preferred not to fold it in but liked the idea of designating time during consent approvals. A planning board meeting was noted for the 20th, and the next regular review was set for October 6.

Key Outcomes

• The board accepted the August 18 and September 1 meeting minutes as presented.
• The consent calendar was accepted as presented.
• The public hearing on the North Saco telecommunications tower rezoning application was closed.
• The board voted on the four criteria questions; the chair stated the board would "generally adopt the findings" and make a recommendation based on the votes cast that evening. The final vote tally was not captured in the transcript.
• Two other agenda items were tabled.
• The board plans to review drafted findings at the October 6, 2026, meeting, with additional application information to be circulated before that date.