SACO — The applicant behind Lincoln Village, a 332-unit proposed residential development that the Saco Planning Board rejected earlier this year, is suing the city of Saco in Maine state court.
The applicant and plaintiff in the case, 321 Lincoln Street Development LLC, alleges that the Saco Planning Board’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, legally erroneous, and unsupported by the evidence in the record” when it voted down the development’s final application on Oct. 24.
The plaintiff is asking the court to force the Planning Board to reverse its decision and approve the development’s final application so it can move forward.
The man behind 321 Lincoln Street Development LLC is Loni Graiver — the president of the new homes construction firm Graiver Homes.
Graiver said Dec. 19 that he and his legal team are confident he can win the case.
Graiver’s proposed development, which was slated to sit between Bradley and Lincoln streets near the St. Demetrios’ Greek Orthodox Church, generated significant community pushback.
Residents who spoke at public hearings on the proposed development cited concerns ranging from increased traffic to alleging the Planning Board did not follow proper procedure when approving the development’s preliminary application.
Chelsea Hill, a concerned resident who spoke at some of the meetings, reiterated a number of those concerns in a Dec. 19 email to the Courier, saying that the development “fails to fit in with the surrounding community; it exacerbates existing unsafe traffic conditions; it does not align with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; (and) destroys the last tract of forested land in downtown Saco.
The Saco Planning Board approved the development’s preliminary subdivision, site plan, and conditional use application on June 29. But on Oct. 24 — “despite the fact that no factual changes had occurred since the Planning Board’s (preliminary approval, and) despite the fact that the Applicant acquiesced to and met all additional requested changes and conditions by the Planning Board” — the body voted down the final subdivision application, according to the plaintiff.
In an initial statement from the defendant, Saco’s legal counsel rejected the claims, saying the city did “not err, abuse its discretion, and that other grounds for reversal of the decision or acts in question do not exist.”
The appeal, which was filed on Nov. 22 in York County Superior Court, says the applicant took “substantial steps” to comply with Planning Board requests to ensure the development would clear preliminary and final approval, including participating in public meetings, revising their construction sequencing plan and updating the landscaping plan to include additional plantings. The applicant even pledged an additional $100,000 for traffic mitigation efforts in order to assuage public concerns about traffic safety even though the Board did not require it, according to the appeal.
In a later filing, Graiver’s lawyer summarized the key legal issue stating: “Plaintiff argues that earlier findings made by the City of Saco Planning Board collaterally estopped the board from changing its finding at final approval of the subdivision application.”
Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that bars a party from re-litigating an issue that was already decided in a previous proceeding. The appeal expanded on its estoppel argument, saying that because the plaintiff satisfied “all relevant standards and ordinances, and, there being an absence of any change in facts or circumstances since the preliminary approval, the planning board was bound by its earlier determination and factual findings.”
While the development was working its way through city approvals, a loosely coordinated citizen’s group called “Save Saco Neighborhoods” spearheaded opposition to the development, and in August filed a grievance petition with the city that had been signed by 172 community members — which prompted a special hearing to discuss complaints raised by the group.
Save Saco Neighborhoods is named in the plaintiff’s appeal, which alleges that the group circulated the petition in an attempt to “intimidate” the Planning Board. According to the plaintiff’s lawyers, City Council succumbed to pressure by Save Saco Neighborhoods when they moved to hold a special hearing on Sept. 26 in response to the grievance petition.
321 Lincoln Street Development LLC, which is being represented by attorneys Jana Kenney and Gregory Braun from the firm Bergen & Parkinson, applied to move the case from York County Superior Court to the Business and Consumer Docket, a state-level court that decides certain business disputes.
The application was granted on Dec. 12, and has been reassigned to Justice Thomas McKeon.
The plaintiff was also granted a motion to extend the deadline to submit their case brief from Jan. 1 to March 1. The defendant’s brief is due 30 days after, on April 1.
The defendant’s counsel was originally Saco City Attorney Timothy Murphy, but the city is now represented by Daniel Murphy from Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson.
Daniel Murphy was unavailable to offer comment when the Biddeford Courier contacted him Dec. 20. Saco City Planner Emily Cole-Prescott and Communications Director Emily Roy also did not respond to request for comment.
Save Saco Neighborhoods reacted to the news of the lawsuit in a Dec. 15 Facebook post, saying it objects to a state court being asked to intervene in a local land-use issue.
“This project FAILED BIG during its Final Review. This review process is well publicized and codified in City Law. It is how the City of Saco controls what goes on within its city limits,” they wrote.
The group also said in the post that they are going to dissect the “inaccuracies” in the appeal, highlighting that the plaintiff calls the units in the proposed development “workforce housing.” Loni Graiver has not shared in writing the intended sale or rent price for units in his development or verbally committed to any pricing scheme, according to the group.
Graiver said Dec. 19 that this was false, noting that he verbally gave his “expected sale prices on record as directed by the Planning Board,” but he did not address the claim about not providing something in writing.
His appeal does say that the 332-units would have been “workforce-priced” housing, though that term does not appear anywhere in the development’s final application that came before the Planning Board.
Workforce housing is an imprecise concept. The Brookings Institution – a Washington, D.C.-based think tank – defines “workforce housing” as housing that’s accessible to people making between 80 and 120% of area median income. That’s roughly on par with how neighboring Biddeford’s Affordable Housing Task Force defined “moderate” housing affordability. Other resources use different percent of area median income limits when defining workforce housing.
It’s also a controversial concept. Scott Thistle, the director of communications for MaineHousing, pointed out that many people who participate in affordable housing programs are also in the workforce, though they tend to make below 80% of area median income.
In his email to the Biddeford Courier, Graiver did not define workforce housing with area median income, but he did offer some exact pricing: of the 288 2-bedroom units in the development, eight would start under $300,000, with the rest priced between $300,000 and $400,000.
So could families that fall within the 80 to 120 percent of area median income plausibly afford one of those 2-bedroom units?
It appears some could.
2023 data from MaineHousing shows that the area median income in York County for a household of three is $86,875. That means a family that brings in 80% area median income makes $69,500 and a family with 120% of area median income makes $104,250.
When calculating whether these households could afford Graiver’s units, Sarah Sturtevant, a Shaw Innovation Fellow at the University of Southern Maine, suggested relying on mortgage terms provided by MaineHousing’s First Home Loan Program, which offers favorable rates to first time home buyers under certain income limits.
Using Google’s mortgage calculator, a family that makes $69,500 (80% of AMI) could afford a home that costs $256,200, assuming a 30-year fixed loan at a rate of 5.95% (provided by MaineHousing), a $31,544 down payment, and $300 in monthly, non-mortgage debt payments.
The median percent down payment for people ages 24-32 is 8% according to National Association of Realtors data released in 2023, that translates to $31,544 using the national median home sales price in September 2023. Google’s model also assumes a debt-to-income ratio of 36%.
A family that makes 120% of area median income ($104,250) could afford a home that costs $382,000, assuming they also take advantage of the First Home Loan Program and have the same monthly debt payments and down payment.
Mortgages with higher interest rates than those supplied by the First Home Loan Program would make Graiver’s units less affordable for these households.
Thistle emphasized he couldn’t speak to the specifics of Lincoln Village, just the general housing price points Gravier listed, but said they seemed reasonable.
“I would say those prices are in line with affordability generally – even though it sounds like a lot.”
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
