-
Planning & Economic Development Saco City Hall 300 Main
Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538
Bob Hamblen Interim City Planner
[email protected] Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357
City of Saco, ME Planning Board Agenda
Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Workshop – 6:00PM
Location: Workshop via Zoom.us Workshop:
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance 2. Proposed Zoning Map 3. Proposed
Site Plan Review Ordinance 4. Proposed Subdivision Ordinance
_____________________________________________________________________________________
How to Access this Remote Meeting via Zoom: 1. Access zoom.us
from your browser. 2. Select “Join A Meeting” 3. Enter the meeting
ID: 825 8304 8555 4. Enter meeting password: 003126 5. Select
“Join” How to Access Remotely via Phone: 1. Dial: 1-646-558-8656 2.
Enter the meeting ID: 825 8304 8555 3. If prompted, enter meeting
password: 003126 4. Follow the prompts to join/participate in the
meeting. Questions? Contact Planning & Economic Development
Department at #207-282-3487.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82583048555?pwd=dzFXMTJPQUpUMUEyK2UxSGM5SDZhZz09
-
Planning & Economic Development Saco City Hall 300 Main
Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538
Bob Hamblen Interim City Planner
[email protected] Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357
Date: September 17, 2020 (for September 22, 2020 Workshop)
To: Planning Board, Zoning Ordinance Review Committee
From: Bob Hamblen, Interim City Planner
Re: Overview of Discussion to Date
The Sept. 15 workshop may have been frustrating in terms of not
completing the list of items that was on the agenda, but, the 2
hour discussion of Rte. 1, master plan development, and mixed uses
was useful in terms of identifying where more information could be
helpful.
• Breakdown of existing development types in Saco
73% Residential (including all Res. Apts) 16% Commercial 5%
Industrial 6% Exempt
Source: Nick Desjardins, City Assessor
• Kids in Schools
“I would estimate we have 10 children under the age of 18. We
mostly have the occasional baby or toddler, but they usually end up
buying a house pretty quickly. There is probably less than 6 in the
school system.” – Matt Dubois, Regional Property Manager, Chinburg
Management re: Mill Building 4, Saco Island – 150 apartment units,
with a mix of studios, 1 bedrooms, and 2 bedrooms. The mix is about
1/3 of each unit type. Studio: 525 - 625 sq. ft 1 Bedroom: 780 -
825 sq. ft 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath: 825 - 1,040 sq. ft 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath:
1,090 - 1,270 sq. ft
“Number of kids is extremely low” – Elliott Chamberlain re:
residential development, Park North
“Your question about kids at Cutts Ave. apartments units, there
are none in either building.” --Bob Gaudreau, Hardypond
Development. The Cutts Avenue apartments, 2 of 3 phases built to
date, total 47 studio and 1-bedroom apartments, ranging from
450-750 s.f.
-
• Examples of mixed-use projects – there aren’t many that come
to mind, but Rock Row in Westbrook is one. Here’s what Jennie
Franchesci, Director of Planning and Code Enforcement, has to
say:
“The approvals for Rock Row, at this time, only incorporate the
commercial components of the retail complexes along Main Street
(Market Basket Area) and the Amphitheater. The residential
components will have to come back through the review process when
they are ready. We have not permitted any residential on their site
yet.
As it relates to percentages of how much they can put on the
site, we are not regulating that beyond what the contract zoning
district allows which is 500sf/dwelling unit.
Our perspective on this is that the market will bear what the
market will bear. They will not build an entire site of residential
if the market will not support it, and vice versa with commercial.
To pick an arbitrary number seems to be stifling creativity of
design with market driven needs. We feel that if a density standard
is provided and a use is permitted that is as far as we are
limiting growth, in a growth district.”
2011 Comp Plan
Ch. 6: Land Use Goals and Policies Re: Current MU-4 district,
Proposed as R5MU Planned Limited Mixed Use Development Area (PLMUD)
(Underlining added to bring your attention to pertinent language.)
Area: The Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development Area includes the
area between Lincoln and Bradley Streets west of Forest Street.
(See Figure 6.2). Vision: The Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development
Area develops as a high quality, mixed‐use neighborhood with a mix
of higher‐density residential uses and lower‐intensity
non‐residential uses such as community services and professional
offices. A large part of the development area is retained as open
space. The character of the neighborhood is urban higher
density/intensity of use on the limited portions of the area that
are suitable for development while the significant areas with
natural resource value are preserved as open space and conservation
land. The buildings are typically more than one story and may
include a mix of uses. The area is pedestrian‐friendly and includes
a high level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that serve the
neighborhood and link the area to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. A substantial portion of the neighborhood is set
aside as open space and conservation land. Allowed Uses: The
primary use within the area is residential. A range of residential
uses including multifamily housing and elderly facilities should be
allowed in the
-
area. Limited service, office, recreational, and community uses
should be allowed in the Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development Area
as part of a planned mixed‐use development or for the reuse of
existing buildings. The following types of uses are generally
appropriate in the Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development Area: ‐
residential uses including multifamily housing ‐ elderly congregate
housing and eldercare facilities ‐ health and human services and
facilities ‐ recreational, cultural, and educational uses accessory
to an another allowed use Development Standards: All new
development in the Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development Area
except for the reuse of existing buildings, should be part of a
planned development which is served by public sewerage in which the
overall development pattern, street and pedestrian networks, green
infrastructure, and utility networks for the entire parcel or
development are designed and approved by the Planning Board. The
areas with wetlands and other development limitations should be
preserved as natural open space. Limited alteration of wetlands in
this area should be permitted if necessary to allow reasonable
development of the non‐wetland areas and provisions are made to
mitigate or compensate for the wetland disturbance. Lot‐by‐lot
development that is not part of a planned development should not be
allowed. The development plan should include a mix of residential
units and a limited amount of non‐residential uses and should
demonstrate how the development will be consistent with vision for
the Planned Limited Mixed‐Use Development Area outlined above.
Residential uses should be allowed at a density of up to 10 units
per acre for those portions of the area that are developable with
higher density (up to 15 units per acre) for small units (one‐two
bedrooms) and should be developed in a compact manner. Special
density provisions for elderly or special needs housing should be
included. Re: Rte. One Planned Mixed Use Development Area (PLMUD)
Area: The Planned Mixed‐Use Development Area includes most of the
land on both sides of Route One north of the Cascade/Flag Pond Road
area except for existing commercial development directly along
Route One which is included in the Route One Commercial Corridor
designation. (See Figure 6.2). Vision: The Planned Mixed‐Use
Development Area develops as high‐quality, mixed‐use neighborhoods
on either side of Route One with a wide range of both residential
and non‐residential uses. Each neighborhood includes a mix of both
residential and non‐residential uses. Retail uses within these
neighborhoods either provide for the day‐to‐day needs of residents
or workers in the neighborhood or offer goods and
-
services that complement the goods and services offered by the
Downtown business community or in other commercial districts. The
character of the neighborhoods is more urban than suburban with
higher density/intensity of use than in the Route One Commercial
Corridor. The neighborhoods are organized around an internal street
system rather than being primarily oriented to Route One. Major
buildings are typically more than one story and often include a mix
of uses. The neighborhoods are pedestrian‐friendly and include a
high level of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that serve the
neighborhoods and link the area to the Eastern Trail and other
areas of the City. A substantial portion of each neighborhood is
set aside as open space, recreation areas, and conservation land.
Development with direct access to Route One is minimized to enhance
traffic flow and curb cuts on Route One are limited. An attractive
Route One streetscape is created. Allowed Uses: A wide range of
retail, service, office, light industrial, entertainment,
recreational, and community uses should be allowed in the Planned
Mixed‐Use Development Area as part of a planned development or on
small existing lots. A range of residential uses should also be
allowed in the area but only as part of a mixed‐use development
that includes a significant non‐residential component. The
following types of uses are generally appropriate in the Planned
Mixed‐Use Development Area as a permitted or conditional use: ‐
retail businesses with a maximum floor area of 40,000 SF ‐ personal
and business services ‐ financial services ‐ business,
professional, and government offices ‐ restaurants but not
drive‐thru service ‐ community and government services ‐ recreation
and entertainment uses ‐ cultural and educational uses ‐ inns and
bed and breakfasts ‐ low‐impact light industrial uses ‐ residential
uses as part of a mixed‐use development Development Standards: All
new development in the Planned Mixed‐Use Development Area except
for the expansion of existing uses and the development or
redevelopment of existing lots with less than two acres of area,
should be part of a planned development which is served by public
sewerage in which the overall development pattern, street and
pedestrian networks, green infrastructure, and utility networks for
the entire parcel or development are designed and approved by the
Planning Board. Lot‐by‐lot development that is not part of a
planned development should not be allowed. The development plan
should include a mix of residential and non‐residential uses and
types of non‐residential activities and should demonstrate how the
development will be consistent with vision for the
-
Planned Mixed‐Use Development Area outlined above. Residential
uses should be allowed at a density of up to 10 to 15 units per
acre with higher density for small units (one‐two bedrooms) and
should be developed in a compact manner. Special density provisions
for elderly or special needs housing should be allowed. PB and
Committee members, be aware that 10‐15 units per acre correspond to
3,000 s.f. and 4,000 s.f. per dwelling unit, which matches footnote
26 states is allowed for a master planned development.
-
Planning & Economic Development Saco City Hall 300 Main
Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538
Bob Hamblen Interim City Planner
[email protected] Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357
Don Girouard ZOR Topics List for 8/25 Workshop Packet
Continued to 9/15/20
Continued to 9/22/20
(Items 1-6 Addressed during 8/25/20 Workshop. Starting with item
#7, staff has responded to, or provided a reminder, provided
suggested language, or turned to Attorney Jim Katsiaficas for input
for the remainder of items on the list. Staff does not mean to
substitute its own knowledge for that of the Board’s and Committee
members, but if the provided material is of any help or even saves
some time, then you may find it worthwhile.
Please do review item #1 below re: consistency between
ordinances and a comprehensive plan.)
1. Lincoln St. R5MU vs. MDR
Atty. Jim Katsiaficas provided background, noting that the area
is zoned R5MU to be consistent with the current MU4, which he
understands was adopted in 2013 to be consistent with the 2011
Comprehensive Plan, and that zoning ordinances must be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Several Board members noted that the
proposed R5MU zone should be moved back into the MDR zone, and it
should be noted during the 2021 Comprehensive Plan update. The
Board and Committee came to the consensus that the area currently
proposed as R5MU should be zoned as MDR instead and directed staff
to make this change.
CAUTION, FOR THE RECORD: Jim is 100% correct re: consistency
between a community’s comprehensive plan and ordinances being a
core principle in land use and zoning law and practice. In noting
that the 2011 and 2018 editions of the Comp Plan recommend a
mixed-use, higher density zone for two Lincoln Street properties
(Tax Map 51, Lot 19-1 and Map 52, Lot 19), then recommending that
the Zoning Map be amended so as to rezone the two parcels to MDR
without a corresponding change in the underlying Comprehensive
Plan, the group has taken a big step toward putting the City in a
legal indefensible position.
This is at least as much a comprehensive plan issue as it is a
ZO, Zoning Map issue. The latest Comp Plan effort is about to get
under way – just saying.
2. Subdivision standards applied to master planned
developments
Mike Eon, ZOR Steering Committee member, provided summary of his
comments on this item. Jim Katsiaficas weighed in about a recent
change in state subdivision law, as well as the standards for
-
review of site plan and subdivision applications. Mike Eon
stated that he believes that Saco’s subdivision standards are
sometimes stricter, which is why he is suggesting them for Master
Planned Developments. The Board and Committee came to the consensus
that some less impactful projects (non-master plan developments,
perhaps) should undergo just site plan review, while large projects
should also go through subdivision review when determined that they
are more impactful.
Consider this, excerpted from §230-416. Additional requirements
for a master planned development – would clarify that both site
plan and subdivision review are triggered for all master plan
development:
Sec. 230-416.A(1)
(b)
The site plan or and subdivision review phase involves the
preparation and review of the detailed development plans for
individual buildings, subdivisions, or phases of the development in
accordance with the City's site plan review provisions and/or
Subdivision Ordinance requirements. In addition to conforming to
the requirements of those chapters and the other zoning
requirements, a master planned development must demonstrate that it
is consistent with the approved master plan and its development
standards.
3. Lot area per residential unit in master planned developments
(1000 sf / 3000 sf / 5000 sf)
See existing footnote 26 from Table 412-1. Minimum Lot and Yard
Requirements (underline added for emphasis):
26. The lot area per dwelling unit requirement for dwelling
units that are part of an approved master planned development in
accordance with § 230-416 varies with the size of the unit. For
dwelling units with not more than two bedrooms and less than 800
square feet of total floor area, the requirement is 3,000 square
feet of lot area per unit; and for dwelling units with more than
two bedrooms or more than 800 square feet of total floor area,
regardless of the number of bedrooms, the requirement is 4,000
square feet of lot area per unit
And, its counterpart as footnote * in the current 8/1/20 draft
(underline added for emphasis)::
* The lot area per dwelling unit requirement for dwelling units
that are part of an approved master planned development in
accordance with site plan review/subdivision requirements varies
with the size of the unit. For dwelling units with not more than
two bedrooms and less than 800 square feet of total floor area, the
requirement is 1,000 square feet of lot area per unit; and for
dwelling units with more than two bedrooms or more than 800 square
feet of total floor area, regardless of the number of bedrooms, the
requirement is 2,000 square feet of lot area per unit.
As a result of the last couple of workshops, Master Planned
Developments would not be allowed in the Portland Road Zone.
However, the possibility was left open for the establishment of
Portland Road “nodes” and the potential for Master Planned
Developments being allowed in those designed nodes in the future.
See next item.
https://ecode360.com/32492471#32492471
-
4. Permitted/limited nodes/prohibited master plan developments
in the PR district.
Portland Road district: Matt Provencal suggested that densities
in Master Planned Development should be agreed upon by the Planning
Board and developer during the review process. Matt also suggested
that smaller densities should only be allowed with additional
benefit, such as green space, solar panels, or similar. Jim
Katsiaficas responded to this that courts do not look kindly on
municipalities with such “sliding scale” standards and would
suggest having an objective standard to avoid legal issues. Two
other Board members expressed being uncomfortable with allowing the
currently proposed Master Planned Development densities in the
Portland Road zone, citing potential strain on City infrastructure
that it could cause as a major reason. The proposed Master Planned
Development standards would allow smaller lot requirements for
units approved as part of Master Planned Developments. The proposed
lot area per dwelling unit standards for Master Planned
Developments are as follows: “FOR DWELLING UNITS WITH NOT MORE THAN
TWO BEDROOMS AND LESS THAN 800 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA, THE
REQUIREMENT IS 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA PER UNIT; AND FOR
DWELLING UNITS WITH MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS OR MORE THAN 800 SQUARE
FEET OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, THE
REQUIREMENT IS 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA PER UNIT.” Mike Eon
suggested that in some areas of the City, it may make sense to have
smaller densities, but not in all of the proposed Master Planned
Development zones within the City (he especially cited the entire
Portland Road Zone, and suggested nodes where this could be
permitted in the PR Zone in the future instead). Mike Eon also
suggested having higher required percentages for commercial use,
with smaller percentages for residential. The Board came to the
consensus that different densities approved as part of Master
Planned Developments may apply in different zones within the City
(for example, smaller densities may work on Saco Island whereas
larger densities may be more applicable in other areas). Further,
it was decided that Master Planned Development should not apply in
the entire Portland Road District. The Board requested that staff
remove the possibility of Master Planned Development in the
Portland Road District and pursue the Portland Road “Nodes” where
Master Planned Development is eligible as a future amendment to the
zoning ordinance.
5. Sprinklers: rural subdivisions, ADUs, etc.
Sprinklers: Deputy Fire Chief David Pendleton was asked to
provide insight on residential sprinklers. He spoke to the safety
provided to occupants and firefighters, the reduction of property
fire damage and the ability to use far less water than would be
applied by firefighting hoses. He referenced supporting materials
included in the Planning Board’s Workshop packet from August 25,
2020, including the timeline of fire development, builder
incentives, a PSA message and a video side-by-side comparison of an
unprotected room and an identical room protected by a sprinkler.
Discussion led to Planning Board and ZOR Steering Committee members
being unanimous in agreeing that residential sprinklers are an
important life safety feature and should be in all one- and
two-family dwellings, including ADUs. However, some members felt
that it should be optional for
-
the homeowner to install sprinklers after receiving education
from the builder because of the resulting increase in construction
costs.
A Planning Board member suggested that a possible cost saver
with requiring residential sprinklers could be the waiving of the
fire impact fee. Deputy Pendleton stated that he had spoken with
Chief Duross about this, and they both agreed that it would be
appropriate. The Board and ZOR Committee gave the direction that
all new residential units should have residential fire sprinklers.
Currently, only multi-family residential units (3 units or greater)
must have sprinklers. This change would extend to single-family
structures and ADUs as well as duplexes, if the revised zoning
ordinance passes.
6. Main / Elm MDR vs. HDR
The consensus of the Board and Committee was that this corner
should revert back to MDR due to concerns about traffic in that
corner. The Board and Committee directed staff to correct the maps
within the ordinance itself to reflect the direction given.
__________________________
Items 7-10 were considered at Sept. 15, 2020 PB/ZOR Committee
meeting –
_____________________
7. I-zone expansion to Flag Pond Rd.
Rand Clark, an area developer, has requested consideration of an
amendment to the Zoning Map that would extend the Industrial zone
along the Turnpike all the way to Flag Pond Road for two parcels
owned by he and his wife. Tax Map 76, Lot 12 is 3.2 acres, with a
single-family dwelling. Map 76, Lot 12-2 is 44.8 acres. Combined,
the two have about 430 feet of frontage on Flag Pond Road. Mr.
Clark hopes to acquire a portion of Tax Map 76, Lot 13, a 38-acre
parcel that abuts the Turnpike, but that has no frontage on Flag
Pond Road.
Assumedly, Mr. Clark’s interests would be served if Lot 12, and
the “flagpole” portion of Lot 12-2 as well as the northerly-most
portion of Lot 13 – today zoned R-1a – were instead rezoned to I,
rather than as shown on the draft, revised Zoning Map asLDR.
Consensus was to refer this to upcoming Comp Plan/ Long Range
Planning Committee.
8. 346 / 348 North St. to HB
This staff member is unsure what has come before on this item.
Assumedly the choice is between HB and BI. If the discussion were
regarding existing zoning, it would come down to between B-8 and
B-2c. The two parcels are currently B-8, along with several parcels
bounded by the old Exit 5 off-ramp and the Turnpike, including XL
Sports and the Ramada Inn. The “Proposed Zoning Map” suggests that
the two parcels be rezoned to Highway Business (HB), joining
several parcels on the other side of North Street in the HB zone,
rather than remaining lumped together with XL, Ramada and other
lots in the BI zone (which also crosses North Street to include
several parcels between the Turnpike and Industrial Park Road. Each
lot includes a single-family dwelling, which is a permitted use in
the HB
-
zone, and not an allowed use in the BI zone. That may be the
primary factor in deciding to keep the two parcels in the HB zone.
See also the attached 4/19/20 memo from Emily Cole-Prescott and
Jessa Berna re: this item.
Consensus was to refer this to upcoming Comp Plan/ Long Range
Planning Committee.
9. Berry Rd. RC to LDR
Staff has reviewed Nathan Johnston’s e-mail of 8/25 regarding
this potential rezoning. This email was included in the “subsequent
communications” packet, distributed on 8/25, available at this
link. We concur. If such a change is to be contemplated by the
City, the proper place to start is the upcoming Comprehensive Plan
process. See also the attached 4/19/20 memo from Emily
Cole-Prescott and Jessa Berna re: this item.
Consensus was to refer this to upcoming Comp Plan/ Long Range
Planning Committee.
10. 265 North St. MDR for event use
Atty. David Lourie has spoken twice now and submitted a letter
dated 8/15/20 re: allowing use of the property as an “Event
Center,” on behalf of the owner, Ted Arcand. The term “event
center” is not defined by the ZO, and is not an allowed use. The
property was approved for an “Office in a Residential District,” a
conditional use, by the PB on 3/10/20. The property was approved
for a “Boarding House” use, another conditional use, by the PB on
3/16/16. For many years before that, the property was used by York
County Counseling Services.
In terms of “recreation”-type uses proposed for the new Medium
Density Rsidential (MDR) zoning district, three uses are proposed
to be allowed: Club (private), Park and Playground, and Water
Recreation.
A sampling of other uses that may be in some way related or have
impacts similar to an “event center,” and are allowed in the MDR
zone, include Bed and breakfast inn (conditional), Public uses
(conditional), Community living arrangement, and Schools/public and
private. “Places of public assembly” are, notably, not allowed in
the MDR, and is defined as follows:
PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY OR ENTERTAINMENT A commercial,
nonprofit, or governmental use that provides a place for public
gatherings and events, such as theaters, concert halls,
auditoriums, function halls, clubs, and similar venues. A place of
public assembly or entertainment may include facilities for the
provision or sale of food and beverages to people attending
activities or events or the sale of related merchandise, such as
souvenirs, specialty apparel, or items related to the activities
occurring at the site.
The building dates to 1935, and comes in at about 4,100 s.f. of
floor area, 1st and 2nd floors combined. It is a bit of a white
elephant, but would need help from the City via zoning if it is to
succeed as currently requested.
No consensus, but the possibility of a contract zone was
discussed. Most did not want to see a use such as PLACES OF PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY OR ENTERTAINMENT added to MDR zone. If applicant chooses
not to pursue a CZ, then refer to upcoming Comp Plan/Long Range
Planning Committee.
https://www.sacomaine.org/PB_subsequent%20communications_2020_0825.pdf
-
____________________
Items 11-17 to be considered at Sept. 22, 2020 PB/ZOR Committee
meeting – ____________________
11. Commercial solar energy projects: height limits, setbacks,
buffering, maintenance
See draft edits provided by Jim Katsiaficas in an attachment: §
VII21. Commercial Solar Energy Systems. Jim has suggested:
• a draft definition for CSES, • added a required financial
guarantee for removal, • clarified setback requirements, and, •
produced a more easily understood standard.
See also e-mails from:
An interested party, Marie O’Brien, suggesting certain
amendments to the original draft (pre-Jim K.). This e-mail is
available within the Workshop Packet for August 25, 2020, available
at this link.
Gina Wolfman at Greenskies, the firm that is pursuing a 21MW
solar facility off New County Road. Her e-mail is a response to
having seen Jim K.’s draft.
Staff believes that Atty. Katsiaficas’ revisions were sorely
needed, and result in a workable standard for a commercial solar
installation.
12. Lighting standards
See email from Planning Board member Jeff Brochu, on page 9 of
the Board’s “subsequent communications” packet, distributed on
August 25, 2020 and available at this link. Staff has no additional
comments on this item, and would welcome Board discussion.
13. Cisterns
Deputy Fire Chief Dave Pendleton offers the following: “When I
have talked about residential sprinklers, I typically have said a
parallel goal is for the City not to accept any additional
cisterns. I wrote recently that the water in a cistern does
contribute to life safety or property conservation until a fire
engine drives to the cistern, removes the water and then applies
the water to the fire which takes time. A residential sprinkler
system applies water to the fire very shortly after the ignition of
a home fire. I also wrote that if cisterns were going to remain an
option for a subdivision, the City needed to hold on to some of the
developer’s money for a while (3 to 5 years?) in case repairs or
modifications were required as is evident with two of the newest
cisterns continuing to leak. The City will have to absorb the costs
to repair these cisterns as there is no provision in the HOA.”
If City-wide residential sprinklers become accepted, cisterns
should be removed from the equation and so no updated language is
necessary?
https://www.sacomaine.org/PB_Workshop%20Packet_2020_0825.pdfhttps://www.sacomaine.org/PB_subsequent%20communications_2020_0825.pdf
-
So, with a consensus having been reached on item #5 above at the
8/25/20 workshop, then cisterns are thereby “…removed from the
equation and so no updated language necessary,” as queried by DC
Pendleton?
14. Site plan: standards for submitting applications, posting of
properties, public hearing notification, etc.
Draft language provided by Neil Schuster during the Board’s
public hearing on August 18, 2020. Excerpts from draft Article III
below; new language is underlined --
Section 3.01.b – Application Submission Process
(c) Application Submission Process
(i) Applicants shall submit a site plan review application, the
development plan, supporting documentation, and requested
waivers.
(ii) At the time a site plan review application is submitted all
site work (demolition, tree removal, grading, construction, etc.)
will cease until a final determination has been made by the
Planning Board.
Section 3.01.d – Public Hearing and Notice
3) The applicant shall erect a temporary sign on the subject
property that is no smaller than two (2) feet by three (3) feet,
with two (2) inch letters in black on a white background and shall
be clearly visible to passersby. The sign shall be posted at the
time a Site Plan Review application has been submitted and a
minimum of 14 days prior to the schedule Planning Board meeting.
The sign shall be posted seven (7) days in advance of the hearing
and shall be removed following approval or denial of the
application by the Planning Board. The sign should read: "Public
Notice – This property is the subject of a site plan review
application now before the Saco Planning Board. For information
please contact the Saco Planning and Development Department,
207-282-3487."
Section 6.01 – Criteria for Site Plan Approval
(b) Other Laws. The proposal satisfies the requirements set
forth in this chapter, other local ordinances, and applicable state
and federal laws. (No changes proposed; as drafted.)
Chapter 230, Article V. Non-conformance
§ V4. Nonconforming Uses
A. At the time a subject property or building is being reviewed
for issues related to continuation of or a change in a
nonconforming use, abutting property owners shall be notified by
the Code Enforcement Office. A public hearing will be scheduled.
Notification will include contact information and property owners’
rights to appeal a decision.
-
Attorney Jim Katsiaficas offers the following comments: “The ZBA
hears appeals from decisions of the CEO under the general appeals
provision, but here, Neil is suggesting notice to abutters and a
public hearing on the CEO’s mulling over the basic sole decision of
whether a proposal is for a continuation of a nonconforming use (no
review needed) or a change of nonconforming use (triggers Planning
Board review as change of use ). Notice and hearing before there
isn’t a CEO decision to appeal would to complicate the process.” In
that Jim is suggesting that both notice and a hearing at that stage
could cause problems and that both continuation and change of a
nonconforming use are addressed by the ZO already, staff leans
toward striking this suggested amendment.
15. Zoning Ordinance: designated authorized individuals to
determine nonconforming uses
Attorney Jim Katsiaficas offers the following comments: Under
current Chap. 230-1201 and continuing under Article XV (Draft 5,
8-1-2020), the Code Enforcement Officer administers and enforces
the Zoning Ordinance (“Unless otherwise specifically stated”).
16. Terminology: mobile home park vs. manufactured home park
Attorney Jim Katsiaficas offers the following comments: In Title
30-A MRS Section 4358, State law regulates “Manufactured Housing”
meaning mobile homes and modular homes, but also requires
municipalities to have areas set aside for the location and
expansion of “mobile home parks.” Therefore, the City should
continue to use the term of “mobile home parks.”
17. Replacement of "removed" nonconforming structures
Attorney Jim Katsiaficas offers the following comments: Maine
DEP has prepared “Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning
Ordinances” – a model shoreland zoning ordinance with which
municipalities must be at least as stringent in their own shoreland
zoning ordinances, which must be reviewed and approved by DEP. DEP
includes the term “removed” when addressing the Reconstruction or
Replacement of nonconforming structures, and so it is used in
Saco’s Zoning Ordinance.
PB_Workshop Agenda_2020_0922.pdfPlanner's Memo 092220.pdfDon
Girouard ZOR Topics List_rev 092220.pdf