Planning & Economic Development Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Bob Hamblen Interim City Planner

BHamblen@sacomaine.org 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

BHamblen@sacomaine.org 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

BHamblen@sacomaine.org 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