Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

Agenda

Planning Board Tuesday, April 16, 2019

City Hall Conference Room 5:30 PM Workshop/6:00 PM Regular Meeting

5:30 PM: Workshop 1. Continued Discussion: Private Roads 6:00 PM: Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order 2. Review Minutes of Previous Meeting: April 2, 2019 3. New Business, Tabled Items & Public Hearings –

a. 50 Moody Street (Map 42 Lot 1): Preliminary Subdivision Review to create 3 lots Applicant: Sweetser Zone: B-8

b. 52 Glenwood Avenue (Map 27 Lot 58): Conditional Use – Home Occupation for massage therapy use Applicant: Solanlly Edwards Zone: R-2

4. Updates from City Planner 5. Old Business 6. Other Discussion 7. Adjournment

No new business will be taken up after 9:00 PM. No business shall be conducted by the Board after 10:00 PM.

Planning Board

Meeting Packet – April 16, 2019 Table of Contents

Regular Meeting Items: Page # 1. Minutes of April 2, 2019 Meeting 3 2. 50 Moody Street: Preliminary Subdivision Review

a. Memo from City Planner 7 b. Letter from Sweetser & Application Materials 15 c. Attachments 25 d. Plans 80

3. 52 Glenwood Avenue: Home Occupation Application a. Memo from City Planner 83 b. Letter from Applicant & Application Materials 91 c. GIS, Drawings and Plans 101

4. Updates from City Planner: Memo 106

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

Minutes Planning Board

Tuesday, April 2, 2019 5:30 PM Workshop/6:00 PM Regular Meeting

City Hall Conference Room (First Floor)

Present for the Board: Chair Neil Shuster; Matt Provencal; Joyce Leary Clark; Jeff Brochu; Alyssa Bouthot Absent for the Board: Vice Chair Don Girouard; Peter Scontras Also Present: Roger Gay, City Council Liaison; Dave Pendleton, Deputy Fire Chief; Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner

Workshop – 5:30 PM

1. Review of Private Roads: Tim Murphy, City Attorney, answered the Board’s questions about liability and notice requirements if the Board is to consider ordinance changes to allow small subdivisions to be developed on private roads.

Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM

1. Call to Order: Chair Shuster called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 2. Minutes of March 19, 2019 Meeting: Joyce Leary Clark asked for the hyphen to be removed

from her last name. Joyce Leary Clark made a motion to approve the March 19th minutes with one amendment to her last name. Jeff Brochu seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

3. New Business, Tabled Items & Public Hearings: a. Baxter Lane: Request for Recommendation for City Street Acceptance Applicant: Mike Eon

Mike Eon, of Mike Eon Associates, was present for this discussion. Overview: Emily Cole-Prescott provided some background information on this request, which was sent to former Planner Zach Mosher in October 2018. Mike Eon, developer of the eleven-lot subdivision at 300 Bradley Street, received subdivision approval on September 6, 2016. Since Mike Eon’s request in October 2018, he has worked with City Staff to address outstanding concerns. There are currently four constructed homes on Baxter Lane. Emily Cole-Prescott explained that there is a Public Works policy that requests 70-80% of the lots be constructed before street acceptance. Discussion: Mike Eon noted that he will have five homes constructed with a foundation for the sixth home on the street. He has also offered to retain a portion of his existing letter of credit with the City until six homes are fully constructed. Emily Cole-Prescott noted that aside from the 70-80%, policy which is unwritten, Joe Laverriere has reviewed the deeds and as-built documentation

2

submitted and finds both satisfactory. Other Departments were asked to review the request and responded with no issues. Emily Cole-Prescott noted that Tim Murphy, City Attorney, is currently completing final legal review on the deed, and the Planning Board may review this for the request, pending final legal review by both parties. Public Hearing: Jeff Brochu moved to open the public hearing. Alyssa Bouthot seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Roger Gay, City Council Liaison, indicated that he will check into the 70-80% completion policy. No other member of the public chose to speak. Jeff Brochu moved to close the public hearing. Alyssa Bouthot seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Action: Jeff Brochu moved, pursuant to Chapter 186 of the City’s Ordinances, that the Planning Board forward a positive recommendation for Baxter Lane street acceptance to the City Council, contingent upon final legal review agreeable to both parties. Joyce Leary Clark seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

b. Eloise’s Place (Map 101 Lot 31-2): Final Subdivision Plan Review Applicant: CVS Foundations LLC Zone: C-1

Bill Thompson, of BH2M Engineering, was present to discuss this application. Overview: Emily Cole-Prescott introduced the application, indicating that this request is for final plan review for a five-lot subdivision off of Lincoln Road. The Board granted preliminary approval for this subdivision on February 5, 2019, and since that time, Walter Pelkey of BH2M has submitted a final plan application with revisions and a copy of the Maine DEP Construction General Permit. Since the initial application, the plan has undergone several revisions, and at the time of preliminary plan approval, was a phased project. A condition of preliminary plan approval was to relabel phase two lot 5, so the plan has now been amended as a five-lot subdivision. Application Completeness: Emily Cole-Prescott indicated that between the documentation submitted for preliminary plan review and the updated submissions for final plan review, the application is considered complete in Staff’s opinion. Alyssa Bouthot moved to find the application for final plan approval for Eloise’s Place complete. Matt Provencal seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Discussion: Bill Thompson presented the most recently designed road plan to serve the subdivision, which was submitted to the Planning & Development Department on Monday (04/01) evening. Per this most recent plan, the road has now been raised, and other engineering comments have been addressed. Public Hearing: Jeff Brochu moved to open the public hearing. Matt Provencal seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. No member of the public chose to speak during the public hearing. Jeff Brochu moved to close the public hearing. Matt Provencal seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

3

Discussion & Action: Jeff Brochu noted concern about the new revisions to the plan, and the fact that because of timing of the submission, the plan revisions were not able to be vetted by City staff. Matt Provencal noted concerns about the road design relative to City street standards. After further discussion, Alyssa Bouthot moved that the Board grant approval for the final subdivision plan [for Eloise’s Place] based on the following findings of fact and conditions of approval, dated April 2, 2019. Joyce Leary Clark seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1, with Jeff Brochu opposed. At this time, the Board recessed for five minutes, and then reconvened.

c. 4 Cascade Road (Map 62 Lot 1-4): Preliminary Plan Review for Re-subdivision to create one lot Applicant: Amari Holdings LLC Zone: MU-3 & Contract Zone

Bill Thompson, BH2M Engineering, was present for discussion of this application. Overview: Emily Cole-Prescott introduced the application. Walter Pelkey and Nate Libby have been working on a site plan review application for a proposed 6,000 square ft. structure and associated site improvements on what currently exists as Lot C5-2. The site plan review application included an amended subdivision plan showing Lot C5-2 divided into two parcels. This divided parcel line was also shown on the site plans submitted for the Board’s review. This division meets the definition of “re-subdivision” found in the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore, requires a subdivision process of preliminary plan review and subsequent final plan review. As such, Walter Pelkey has submitted an application for the amended subdivision and copies of relevant documentation from the site plan review application have been added to this application to fulfill supporting documentation requirements. Before continued review of the site plan may occur, the Board must first review the amended subdivision plan. The proposed lot division meets the minimum lot size and dimensions specified in the Cascade Contract Zone (Contract Zone Agreement by and between Park North Development LLC and the City of Saco). Because this property is part of the existing contract zone, the applicant will be required to also obtain the Council’s approval on the re-subdivision, which is a four-step Council meeting process (workshop, first reading, public hearing, and final reading). This item may be conditioned by the Board, to remain in compliance with the contract zone agreement. This site is also subject to a Site Location of Development Permit, which is administered by the DEP. The applicant will be required to record this amendment and obtain approval from the DEP. Application Completeness: Emily Cole-Prescott reported that the applicant has either submitted, or responded to, the submission requirements outlined in Section 5.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant has requested that financial and technical capacity be reviewed upon final plan review, and a waiver is therefore requested for preliminary plan review only. The applicant will be required to submit financial and technical capacity upon final plan review. Joyce Leary Clark moved to waive section 5.2.3(10), only for the Board’s review of the preliminary plan, not for final plan review. Jeff Brochu seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Joyce Leary Clark moved to find the application complete for preliminary subdivision plan review for the division of one lot. Alyssa Bouthot seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

4

Discussion: Bill Thompson presented the preliminary plan. Public Hearing: Jeff Brochu moved to open the public hearing. Matt Provencal seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. No one chose to speak about the application. Jeff Brochu moved to close the public hearing. Matt Provencal seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Traffic: Jeff Brochu noted the memo submitted about traffic for the site, indicating that features of the originally approved Traffic Movement Permit for Park North and the Cascades have not been completed. Emily Cole-Prescott indicated that per her knowledge, a new Traffic Movement Permit application has been submitted, and results of what improvements will be required are pending this approval. Also, she indicated that the DOT considers this new TMP application to encompass all of the original sites in both Park North and the Cascades. There is currently a condition of approval included in this documentation that indicates the TMP will need to be in place before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for any new structures on site. Nate Libby noted concerns about the TMP, and asked how this was not previously enforced. Emily Cole-Prescott noted that she cannot speak to the previous years, but since she has been here, there have been many meetings and work to have a new TMP in place. Chair Shuster also explained that it was unexpected that the TMP had sunset, and there is now work ongoing to resolve this matter. Action: Jeff Brochu moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for Map 64 Lot 1-4 for the creation of one additional lot per the enclosed findings of fact and conditions of approval dated April 2, 2019. Joyce Leary Clark seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

4. Updates from City Planner: Emily Cole-Prescott indicated that she works with four ideas in

mind: Process, Collaboration, Communication and Transparency. She said Saco already does a great job with planning by incorporating staff members. a. Process: Matt Provencal asked that the submission timelines be considered, as the Board

had previously discussed with Denise Clavette. For instance, perhaps a longer timeline (rather than three weeks before) would be helpful to the applicants, Board, and Planning & Development Department. This is particularly important for revised submissions, which should have a one or two-week deadline before the Board meeting. Jeff Brochu agreed with this suggestion, and other Board members noted value in reworking deadlines. E. Cole-Prescott noted timing for applicants, as waiting until a next meeting can hold someone up longer than two weeks with their projects. She will return to the Board with a proposal which will incorporate suggestions from City staff, for the Board’s review and consideration.

b. Transparency: Emily Cole-Prescott noted that she will be coordinating posting approval letters on the Department’s website for greater transparency on what the Board and staff approves. Also, she will start reporting staff level approvals and updates from Council meetings relative to Planning matters, especially contract zones decisions.

5. Adjournment: Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

TO: Planning Board FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner CC: Jon Mistos, Sweetser Senior Director of Facilities DATE: April 8, 2019 (April 16, 2019 Meeting) RE: Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review: Sweetser (Map 42 Lot 1)

Overview: Sweetser currently owns a 362-acre parcel (map 42 lot 1) and is now looking to divide lots from the current parcel to result in a total of three lots. The first lot will contain 30.53 acres of land with frontage on Pendleton Drive and Industrial Park Road, and this lot currently is undeveloped forest land. The second lot will create a 42-acre parcel. The City of Saco is currently under purchase and sale agreement to purchase the second, 42-acre parcel for future development as a new Public Works facility. This second lot is currently not developed, and the Public Works Department will be presenting a site plan application for consideration at an upcoming Board meeting. Lot 3 will be considered the remaining land of Sweetser, and will be 264.3 acres. Department Reviews: The following Departments have reviewed and offered comments on the proposed preliminary subdivision plan: Code Enforcement: Director Dick Lambert has indicated that lot 2 is not shown with frontage

and will therefore remain un-buildable until frontage is achieved for the parcel. Fire Department: Deputy Fire Chief Dave Pendleton had indicated no concerns at this time. Although lot two is proposed without frontage, the Public Works Department has submitted a site plan review application for the new Public Works Facility, which will be heard at an upcoming meeting. A new entrance is proposed off Spring Hill Road for the facility. The proposed site plan has been added to this application packet for purposes of example only. Application Completeness: The applicant has requested several waivers, because the proposal at this time is to retain lots one and three as vacant land. The proposal for lot two includes future development as a new Public Works facility, so the Public Works Department will be presenting a separate application for site plan review and development on the proposed lot 2. Additionally, because the size of the lots is so large, there are not expected to be concerns with the division of the lot lines. However, any future development on any of the lots would be required to obtain applicable approvals through the Planning Board before any proposed development occurs. Here is the list of waivers which the applicant has requested, enumerated in Attachment A of the application: Scale of Plan: The ordinance requests a scale of 1”=100’ but with the size of the site the

applicant is requesting a waiver to 1”=200’. If the Board supports the request, a suggested motion is: “I move to grant the applicant a waiver to the scale requirement listed in section 5.2.2.”

2

Location of significant site features: The ordinance requires that all site features, including stone walls, fences, large trees, wood areas, etc. be included on the preliminary subdivision plan. The applicant has depicted the outlines of existing buildings on the property per section 5.2.2(6), but requests a waiver to locating additional significant site features because of the large sizes of the proposed lots. If the Board agrees with this waiver request, a suggested motion is: “I move to grant a waiver to section 5.2.2(6) only for the mapping of significant site features that are not currently indicated on the plan.”

Existing topography and wetlands: The ordinance requires that topography with two-foot contours of existing and proposed grades to include the demarcation of wetlands, 100-year flood elevations, and flood hazard areas be identified. The applicant has requested a waiver of this ordinance standard, citing the large lot sizes proposed and the lack of future development. The applicant has indicated that any future site development would require this topography, wetlands and flood plain review. If the Board agrees with the waiver request, a suggested motion is: “I move to grant a waiver to section 5.2.2(7).”

The applicant has responded to or submitted materials for the other application submission items. Attachment D indicates the applicant’s responses to the submission requirements. If the above waivers are granted, Staff considers this application to be complete. If the Board agrees, a suggested motion is: “I move that the Planning Board find this application for preliminary subdivision plan review complete, noting the waivers that have been granted.” Public Hearing: The Board should receive public comment on the preliminary plan application. A suggested motion is: “I move to open the public hearing.” Once public comment is received, a suggested motion is: “I move to close the public hearing.” Discussion: This proposal is to create three lots, two of which there is no development proposed at this time. Any future development will be required to complete site plan review at the time of development, and will be required to design the site to meet applicable standards for the proposal. Likewise, additional Board review will be required if the applicant plans to alter the proposed boundaries of the existing lots. The proposed conditions of approval are written to indicate this requirement, and the proposed findings of fact indicate the scope of items which the Board has reviewed. Additionally, since this is the preliminary plan phase, the Board may ask the applicant to return with additional items for the final plan review. Some of the written conditions indicate such, for example, to return with the final plan indicating the tax map and lot numbers from the Assessing Department. To review this application, the Board should consider the following standards found in the Subdivision Regulations: 1.1.1 Pollution. The proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. In

making this determination, it shall at least consider: A. The elevation of the land above sea level and its relation to the flood plains; B. The nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; C. The slope of the land and its effect on effluents; D. The availability of streams for disposal of effluents; and E. The applicable state and local health and water resource rules and regulations;

3

1.1.2 Sufficient water. The proposed subdivision has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision;

1.1.3 Municipal water supply. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on an existing water supply, if one is to be used;

1.1.4 Erosion. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land’s capacity to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results;

1.1.5 Traffic. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed;

1.1.6 Sewage disposal. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate sewage waste disposal and will not cause an unreasonable burden on municipal services if they are utilized;

1.1.7 Municipal solid waste disposal. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the municipality’s ability to dispose of solid waste, if municipal services are to be utilized;

1.1.8 Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the municipality, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline;

1.1.9 Conformity with local ordinances and plans. The proposed subdivision conforms with a duly adopted subdivision regulation or ordinances, comprehensive plan, development plan or land use plan, if any. In making this determination, the municipal reviewing authority may interpret these ordinances and plans;

1.1.10 Financial and technical capacity. The subdivider has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards of this section;

1.1.11 Surface waters; outstanding river segments. Whenever situated entirely or partially within the watershed of any pond or lake or within 250 feet of any wetland, great pond or river as defined in Title 38, Chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the quality of that body of water or unreasonably affect the shoreline of that body of water. A. When lots in a subdivision have frontage on an outstanding river segment, the proposed

subdivision plan must require principal structures to have a combined lot shore frontage and setback from the normal high-water mark of 500 feet.

1) To avoid circumventing the intent of this provision, whenever a proposed subdivision adjoins a shoreland strip narrower than 250 feet which is not lotted, the proposed subdivision shall be reviewed as if lot lines extended to the shore.

2) The frontage and setback provisions of this paragraph do not apply either within areas zoned as general development or its equivalent under shoreland zoning, Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, or within areas designated by ordinance as densely developed. The determination of which areas are densely developed must be based on a finding that existing development met the definitional requirements of section 4401, subsection 1, on September 23, 1983;

1.1.12 Groundwater. The proposed subdivision will not, alone or in conjunction with existing activities, adversely affect the quality or quantity of groundwater;

1.1.13 Flood areas. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and information presented by the applicant whether the subdivision is in a flood-prone area. If the subdivision, or any part of it, is in such an area, the subdivider shall determine the 100-year food elevation and flood hazard

4

boundaries within the subdivision. The proposed subdivision plan must include a condition of plan approval requiring that principal structures in the subdivision will be constructed with their lowest floor, including basement, at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation;

1.1.14 Freshwater wetlands. All freshwater wetlands within the proposed subdivision have been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application, regardless of the size of the wetlands. Any mapping of freshwater wetlands may be done with the help of the local soil and water conservation district;

1.1.15 River, stream or brook. Any river, stream or brook within or abutting the proposed subdivision has been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application. For purposes of this section, “river, stream or brook” has the same meaning as in Title 38, section 480-B, subsection 9;

1.1.16 Storm water. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate stormwater management; 1.1.17 Spaghetti-lots prohibited. If any lots in the proposed subdivision have shore frontage on a

river, stream, or brook, great pond or coastal wetland as these features are defined in Title 38, section 480-B, none of the lots created within the subdivision have a lot depth to shore frontage ratio greater than 5 to 1;

1.1.18 Lake phosphorous concentration. The long-term cumulative effects of the proposed subdivision will not unreasonably increase a great pond’s phosphorous concentration during the construction phase and life of the proposed subdivision; and

1.1.19 Impact on adjoining municipality. For any proposed subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries, the proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of existing public ways in an adjoining municipality in which part of the subdivision is located.

Staff has prepared the following findings of fact and conditions of approval for the Board’s consideration:

Saco Planning Board Findings of Fact

Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review Map 42 Lot 1 April 16, 2019

1. The applicant and owner is Sweetser (John Mistos), 50 Moody Street, Saco, ME 04072. 2. The surveyor for the project is Dow & Coulombe, Inc., 13 Park Street, Saco, ME 04072. 3. The proposal is to create two new lots for a total of three lots from 50 Moody Street (Map 42

Lot 1). Lot one is proposed to be approximately 30.53 acres; lot two to be approximately 42 acres and lot 3 to be approximately 264.33 acres. Lot 3 is to remain existing as land of Sweetser, with no current plan for development of the parcel, and no change to the site planned at this time, its current use. Lot 2 is under purchase and sale to be developed as the new Saco Public Works facility, with site plan review to be done with the Board at an upcoming meeting. Lot 1 is not proposed for development at this time.

4. The property is located in the B-8 zone with portions of the property as indicated on the submitted survey in Resource Protection, that adjoins Goosefare Brook. A section of the Resource Protection zone also surrounds Phillips Spring. The proposed lots more than meet the setback requirements of the B-8 zone. The Resource Protection area is shown on the plans and setbacks to the Resource Protection will need to be followed with any proposed, future

5

development, which any further subdivision or site plan development will require Planning Board’s review.

5. Sweetser has presented right, title and interest through the submission of a number of deeds filed on the York County Registry, as follows. These deeds also serve as the record for the existing easements through the existing 362-acre parcel:

a. Book 684; Page 34, recorded in 1915 b. Book 632; Page 86, recorded in 1915 c. Book 1167; Page 127, recorded in 1950 d. Book 1173; Page 163, recorded in 1950 e. Book 1425; Page 83, recorded in 1960 f. Book 1230; Page 108, recorded in 1953 g. Book 1689; Page 410 (hand-written date of 1965) h. Book 1418; Page 56, recorded in 1959 i. Book 1400; Page 584, recorded in 1959 j. Book 1378; Page 245, recorded in 1958 k. Book 2837; Page 179, recorded in 1981 l. Book 2843; Page 1, (hand-written date of 1981, deed indicates easement) m. Book 3837; Page 273, recorded in 1979 n. Book 3800; Page 177, recorded in 1986 o. Book 5063; Page 315, recorded in 1989 p. Book 9036; Page 335, dated 1998 q. Book 9037; Page 1, recorded in 1998 (also references easement)

6. The applicant has submitted the following plans with the application, prepared by Dow & Coulombe, Inc., by Michael J. Coloumbe, Land Surveyor:

a. Sheet 1 of 2: Preliminary Plan showing Sweetser Saco Subdivision dated 03/01/19; revised through 03/18/19

b. Sheet 1 of 2: Preliminary Plan showing Sweetser Saco Subdivision dated 03/01/19; revised through 03/18/19

7. This is a somewhat unusual preliminary subdivision application, as the plan is to retain lot 3 and not develop lots one and three at this time. This review is based solely on the information provided, that there is no proposed development at this time. The Board has granted several waivers for this application review, with the understanding that any future developer will be required to obtain applicable subdivision review and site plan review on lots one, two and three. The Board also understands that Lot 2 will be developed under site plan review application which has been submitted to the Planning & Development Department, and will be sent to the Planning Board for future review. Therefore, although Lot 2 does not have frontage, the Board plans to review the site plan application at the same meeting when the final plan is under review for this subdivision, which will address frontage for the proposed lot.

The Planning Board has considered the following criteria from the Subdivision Regulations, and before granting approval for the preliminary plan has determined that: 1.1.1 Pollution. The proposed subdivision will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination, it shall at least consider: A. The elevation of the land above sea level and its relation to the flood plains; B. The nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal; C. The slope of the land and its effect on effluents;

6

D. The availability of streams for disposal of effluents; and E. The applicable state and local health and water resource rules and regulations; 1.1.2 Sufficient water. The proposed re-subdivision has sufficient water available for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision; No concerns have been reported. Much of the land is to remain undeveloped at this time. 1.1.3 Municipal water supply. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on an existing water supply, if one is to be used; No water connection is proposed at this time. 1.1.4 Erosion. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or a reduction in the land’s capacity to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results; 1.1.5 Traffic. The proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed; There is no development proposed with this application. The Saco Public Works facility is planning to develop lot 2 under site plan review, and will therefore be required to review traffic as part of that application. Any future property owners of the remaining land of Sweetser will be required to review traffic impacts to the site(s) under site plan review and/or subdivision review. 1.1.6 Sewage disposal. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate sewage waste disposal and will not cause an unreasonable burden on municipal services if they are utilized; Lot two will be developed under site plan review. The remaining land to be owned by Sweetser will remain vacant until such time that development is proposed. 1.1.7 Municipal solid waste disposal. The proposed subdivision will not cause an unreasonable burden on the municipality’s ability to dispose of solid waste, if municipal services are to be utilized; There is currently no plan to use the municipal solid waste disposal, and therefore, this application does not raise concerns. 1.1.8 Aesthetic, cultural and natural values. The proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, historic sites, significant wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the municipality, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas or any public rights for physical or visual access to the shoreline; 1.1.9 Conformity with local ordinances and plans. The proposed subdivision conforms with a duly adopted subdivision regulation or ordinances, comprehensive plan, development plan or land use plan, if any. In making this determination, the municipal reviewing authority may interpret these ordinances and plans; 1.1.10 Financial and technical capacity. The subdivider has adequate financial and technical capacity to meet the standards of this section; The remaining land is to remain vacant and not be developed at this time. Lot 2 is under purchase and sale with the City of Saco, to serve as the new Public Works facility. Financial and technical capacity will be reviewed and verified upon future development. 1.1.11 Surface waters; outstanding river segments. Whenever situated entirely or partially within the watershed of any pond or lake or within 250 feet of any wetland, great pond or river as defined in Title 38, Chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the quality of that body of water or unreasonably affect the shoreline of that body of water. A. When lots in a subdivision have frontage on an outstanding river segment, the proposed subdivision plan must require principal structures to have a combined lot shore frontage and setback from the normal high-water mark of 500 feet. 1) To avoid circumventing the intent of this provision, whenever a proposed subdivision adjoins a shoreland strip narrower than 250 feet which is not lotted, the proposed subdivision shall be reviewed as if lot lines extended to the shore.

7

2) The frontage and setback provisions of this paragraph do not apply either within areas zoned as general development or its equivalent under shoreland zoning, Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2-B, or within areas designated by ordinance as densely developed. The determination of which areas are densely developed must be based on a finding that existing development met the definitional requirements of section 4401, subsection 1, on September 23, 1983; 1.1.12 Groundwater. The proposed subdivision will not, alone or in conjunction with existing activities, adversely affect the quality or quantity of groundwater; The large size of the lots, coupled with the fact that site plan review will be required for any future development does not cause concern for groundwater at this time. 1.1.13 Flood areas. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and information presented by the applicant whether the subdivision is in a flood-prone area. If the subdivision, or any part of it, is in such an area, the subdivider shall determine the 100-year food elevation and flood hazard boundaries within the subdivision. The proposed subdivision plan must include a condition of plan approval requiring that principal structures in the subdivision will be constructed with their lowest floor, including basement, at least one foot above the 100- year flood elevation; 1.1.14 Freshwater wetlands. All freshwater wetlands within the proposed subdivision have been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application, regardless of the size of the wetlands. Any mapping of freshwater wetlands may be done with the help of the local soil and water conservation district; A soils map of the site has been provided, but the applicant has requested a waiver of wetland delineation, citing the large size of the lots. 1.1.15 River, stream or brook. Any river, stream or brook within or abutting the proposed subdivision has been identified on any maps submitted as part of the application. For purposes of this section, “river, stream or brook” has the same meaning as in Title 38, section 480-B, subsection 9; 1.1.16 Storm water. The proposed subdivision will provide for adequate stormwater management; Stormwater will be addressed for each of the lots upon development with site plan review. At this time, it is not known what facilities will be required, and will be based on proposed development of the site. 1.1.17 Spaghetti-lots prohibited. If any lots in the proposed subdivision have shore frontage on a river, stream, or brook, great pond or coastal wetland as these features are defined in Title 38, section 480-B, none of the lots created within the subdivision have a lot depth to shore frontage ratio greater than 5 to 1; 1.1.18 Lake phosphorous concentration. The long-term cumulative effects of the proposed subdivision will not unreasonably increase a great pond’s phosphorous concentration during the construction phase and life of the proposed subdivision; and 1.1.19 Impact on adjoining municipality. For any proposed subdivision that crosses municipal boundaries, the proposed subdivision will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of existing public ways in an adjoining municipality in which part of the subdivision is located.

Saco Planning Board

Conditions of Approval Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review

Map 42 Lot 1 April 16, 2019

1. All details will conform to City of Saco standards, including but not limited to the City of Saco

Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.

8

2. Approval of the preliminary plan is conditioned upon compliance by the applicant with any and all oral commitments regarding the project which were specifically made by the applicant to the Board in the course of its deliberations.

3. This approval is governed by the action taken by the Saco Planning Board for the preliminary subdivision plan application.

4. No deviations from the approved plans are permitted without prior approval from the Planning Board for major changes, and from the City Planner for minor changes. The determination of major or minor shall be made by the City Planner.

5. The applicant shall adhere to all outstanding comments from City Staff or consultants utilized by the City during review of the project. Failure to provide an adequate response to requests made during Planning Board review may result in denial or tabling.

6. A Letter of Credit and inspection account following Saco’s normal process will be required for any and all future development.

7. This preliminary subdivision review was narrowed in scope. Any and all future work and any and all future subdivision amendments will require Planning Board review, under applicable subdivision and site plan review ordinance standards and regulations. Because of the size of the land and the unknown plans of future development for the lots, any future development of the lots which will now remain undeveloped, will be required to obtain Planning Board review and approval. As such, stormwater management, wetland delineation, and all applicable sections of Saco’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinances will need to be addressed.

8. Two mylar sets and three paper sets of the final plans must be submitted to the Planning & Development Department, signed by the Planning Board and recorded at the York County Registry of Deeds. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Department.

9. All plans and specifications shall be provided on disk in an AutoCAD format. The final plan shall be submitted in digital format as a single composite electronic file. The plan may be submitted on a disc, via e-mail, or other format acceptable to the City Planner, and shall be compatible with commonly used CAD and/or GIS software. See Section 6.2.6 of the Subdivision Regulations for further detail.

10. No filling or alteration of wetlands on individual lots shall be done without the appropriate state or local approvals. Before any site may be developed, a wetland delineation will need to be performed and the lot reviewed for the site development proposed under site plan review.

11. The applicant will provide statements from both Maine Water and Saco’s Water Resource Recovery Department to ensure that lots one and three can be served by public water and public sewer before final plan review.

12. A note shall be added to the final plan that financial and technical capacity shall be reviewed upon future development of the lots.

13. The applicant will add the applicable Tax Map and Lot numbers to all of the parcels, and shall confirm the numbering with City Staff for final plan review.

If the Board agrees with the drafted Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval, a suggested motion is: “I move to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for Map 42 Lot 1 for three lots per the enclosed findings of fact and conditions of approval.”

PROPOSED 25' WIDE

BUFFER ALONG REMAINING

LAND OF SWEETSER

PROPOSED 25' WIDE

BUFFER ALONG REMAINING

LAND OF SWEETSER

32

30

4

9

40

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

X X X

X X X

X

17

16

8

WETLAND IMPACT #1

3019.28 SF

WETLAND IMPACT #2

1584.76 SF

WETLAND IMPACT #3

1874.15 SF

WETLAND IMPACT #5

4478.11 SF

WETLAND IMPACT #4

1013.48 SF

X

1

0

0

0

T

P

-

1

1

0

0

1

T

P

-

2

1

0

0

2

0

.

0

0

T

P

-

3

1

0

0

4

T

P

-

5

1

0

0

5

T

P

-

6

1

0

0

6

T

P

-

7

1

0

0

7

T

P

-

8

WETLAND

IMPACT #4a

49.58 SF

N: 255341.2076

E: 2881014.8775

N: 255078.3874

E: 2881368.3322

N: 255862.2646

E: 2881395.9700

N: 254429.2638

E: 2882254.7767

STABILIZED

CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE

PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

PR

OP

OS

ED

S

AL

T /

SA

ND

S

HE

D

PR

OP

OS

ED

DR

Y S

TO

RA

GE

GUSF 1

GUSF 2

GUSF 4

G

U

S

F

5

GRAVEL

WETLAND

2

GRAVEL

WETLAND

2

GRAVEL

WETLAND

1

STABILIZED

CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE

100' STREAM BUFFER TO REMAIN IN

NATURAL STATE WITH NO CUTTING OF

VEGETATION, NO DEVELOPMENT OR NEW

STRUCTURES, AND NO PLACING, STORING,

OR DUMPING OF MATERIALS WITHOUT

ADDITIONAL PERMITS FROM THE MDEP

GU

SF

3

I-1

Z

ON

E

B-8

Z

ON

E

1 inch = ft.

( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE

0100 50 100 200 400

100

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PR

OJE

CT

T

IT

LE

SH

EE

T T

IT

LE

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

DESIGNED BY

JOB NUMBER

CHECKED BY

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NUMBER

RE

V.

R1

R2

R3

R4

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

R5

R6

R7

P:\1

06

02

-S

AC

O\0

02

-IN

D P

AR

K E

XP

-P

UB

LIC

W

OR

KS

B

LD

G-S

MT

\0

2-C

AD

_D

RA

WIN

GS

\C

IV

IL

\D

SG

N_

DW

GS

\1

06

02

.0

02

-C

-S

P.D

WG

, 4

/2

/2

01

9 1

0:5

8 A

M

Brew

er

465 S

outh M

ain S

treet

PO

B

ox 639

Brew

er, M

E

T.207-989-4824

F.207-989-4881

Machias

61 D

ublin S

treet

PO

B

ox 587

Machias, M

E

T.207-255-3270

F.207-255-8367

Presque Isle

549 M

ain S

treet

PO

B

ox 827

Presque Isle, M

E

T.207-764-8412

F.207-764-8414

Bar H

arbor

1366 S

tate H

wy 102

Bar H

arbor, M

E

T.207-288-0587

F.207-288-0588

Waterville

44 M

ain S

treet

Suite 204

Waterville, M

E

T.207-680-2202

F.207-680-2204

Lew

iston

640 M

ain S

treet

Lew

iston, M

E

T.207-795-6009

F.207-795-6128

Engin

eers

Envir

onme

ntal S

cienti

stsSu

rveyo

rs

ISSUE STATUS

DA

TE

DR

AW

N B

YC

HE

CK

ED

B

Y

SA

CO

IN

DU

ST

RIA

L P

AR

K &

N

EW

P

UB

LIC

W

OR

KS

F

AC

IL

IT

Y

SA

CO

, M

AIN

E

PR

OP

OS

ED

S

IT

E P

LA

N

1"=100'

2019-02-18

BLQ JDM

BLQ JDK

10602.002

C102

SIT

E P

LA

N R

EV

IE

W

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

20

19

-0

4-0

2B

LQ

JD

K

Pnt Desc Grid Northing Grid Easting Longitude Latitude

1000 TP-1 255242.7787' 2881069.2491' W70° 26' 13.09" N43° 31' 59.93"

1001 TP-2 255051.6281' 2881238.6880' W70° 26' 10.78" N43° 31' 58.05"

1002 TP-3 254897.5760' 2881372.5197' W70° 26' 08.95" N43° 31' 56.53"

1003 TP-4 254894.9068' 2881501.3724' W70° 26' 07.20" N43° 31' 56.51"

1004 TP-5 254648.5238' 2881347.3083' W70° 26' 09.28" N43° 31' 54.07"

1005 TP-6 254483.4396' 2881198.2164' W70° 26' 11.30" N43° 31' 52.43"

1006 TP-7 254537.3096' 2880822.7142' W70° 26' 16.40" N43° 31' 52.95"

1007 TP-8 254708.7850' 2880717.0246' W70° 26' 17.84" N43° 31' 54.64"

04/02/2019

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

TO: Planning Board CC: Solanlly Edwards, Applicant FROM: Emily Cole-Prescott, City Planner DATE: April 8, 2019 RE: 52 Glenwood Avenue (Map 27 Lot 58): Home Occupation/Minor Conditional Use Application: Massage Therapy

Overview: Applicant Solanlly Edwards has requested review of a home occupation/minor conditional use application to establish a massage therapy business in her home at 52 Glenwood Avenue. This is a two-step approval process, the second of which is the City Council’s review of the applicant’s massage therapist/establishment license application. The property is in the R-2 zoning district, where home occupations are listed as conditional uses. The applicant has indicated that one room and a bathroom on the first floor of her house will be used for the business, and she plans to be the only employee working about ten hours a week by appointment only. The applicant has demonstrated that there is enough parking on site to accommodate such use by providing a sketch showing how up to four cars can park on site in 9’ by 18’ parking spaces. Application Completeness: Home occupation applications are processed with the following application submissions:

☒ The applicant shall submit building and site plans in 10 copies, drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals 20 feet. The building plans shall show, at a minimum, the first-floor plan and all elevations, with indication of the proposed construction material. The applicant plans to run this business out of the existing home with no proposed renovations to the structure. As such, the applicant has provided hand-drawn plans indicating dimensions of the structure, and locations of the floor plan of the first floor of the home. Building plans from 2014 when the home had been originally constructed are also included for reference. The site plan shall include the following information:

☒ A map of the site with reference to surrounding areas and existing street locations. A GIS plan has been provided, showing the general area.

☒ The name and address of the owner and conditional use permit applicant, together with evidence of sufficient right, title or interest in the premises to permit the applicant to undertake the use for which conditional use permit approval has been requested.

☒ A plan of the area showing lot line dimensions, applicable zone or zones, and the normal high-water mark, if applicable. A GIS plan showing zones and the general area is attached.

☒ The location of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, streets, easements, driveways, entrances and exits on the site and within 100 feet thereof. A GIS plan showing zones and the general area is attached. N/A – All setbacks from bodies of water and lot lines.

2

☒ Parking, loading and unloading areas shall be indicated with dimensions, traffic patterns, access aisles and curb radii. The applicant has demonstrated how up to four cars can park in the existing driveway.

☐ The location and design of existing and proposed stormwater systems, sanitary waste disposal systems and potable water supply, and methods of solid waste storage and disposal. The Board may waive this item, as there is no change to the existing site.

☐ A landscaping and buffering plan showing what will remain and what will be planted, indicating botanical and common names of plants and trees, dimensions, approximate time of planting and maintenance plans. The Board may waive this item, as there is no change to the existing site.

☐ Lighting details indicating type of fixtures, location, radius and intensity of light. The Board may waive this item, as there is no change to the existing site. N/A – The location, dimensions and details of signs.

☒ The proposed use of all floor area. In Staff’s opinion, the application may be found complete provided three waivers are issued: 1. Section 230-901(B)(1)(k) – The location and design of existing and proposed stormwater systems, sanitary

waste disposal systems and potable water supply, and methods of solid waste storage and disposal. 2. Section 230-901(B)(1)(l) – A landscaping and buffering plan showing what will remain and what will be

planted, indicating botanical and common names of plants and trees, dimensions, approximate time of planting and maintenance plans.

3. Section 230-901(B)(1)(m) – Lighting details indicating type of fixtures, location, radius and intensity of light. Staff is suggesting these waivers because the applicant has not proposed any exterior renovations to the site, and has demonstrated that all of the business operations will remain inside of the home, with the exception of parking. If the Board agrees with the above waivers, a suggested motion is: “I move to waive sections 230-901(B)(1)(k, l & m) because there are no exterior renovations proposed to the structure to support the proposed home occupation.” Department Reviews: The Public Works Department and Police Department responded with no concerns about the application. The Code Enforcement Department had no concerns, but indicated what future signage restrictions would be applicable. Public Hearing: The Board may receive public comment on this application. A suggested motion is: “I move to open the public hearing for the home occupation/minor conditional use application for 52 Glenwood Avenue.” After public comment is received, a suggested motion is: “I move to close the public hearing for the home occupation/minor conditional use application for 52 Glenwood Avenue.” Discussion and Review of Standards: Home occupation standards are found in Section 230-711(A) of the Zoning Ordinance:

1) The occupation or profession shall be carried on wholly within the principal building or within a building or other structure accessory thereto.

2) Not more than one employee outside the family shall be employed in the home occupation. 3) There shall be no exterior display, no exterior sign except as permitted by § 230-707 of this chapter, no

exterior storage of materials, and no other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character of the building.

3

4) No nuisance, offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, or electrical disturbance shall be generated.

5) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in such volumes that it will create hazardous conditions in the neighborhood.

6) In addition to the off-street parking provided to meet the normal requirement of the dwelling, off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the standards of this chapter.

7) The home occupation shall not utilize more than the equivalent of 25% of the total floor area of the dwelling unit.

8) A home occupation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Art studio or other crafts studio. b. Dressmaking or similar shop. c. Hairdressing shop. d. Teaching or tutoring facility. e. Office of a physician; dentist, optometrist, lawyer, engineer, architect, accountant, or similar

professional. f. Office of a real estate broker or agent. g. Office of an insurance agent or broker.

Conclusion and Suggested Motion: Staff has provided the following Findings of Fact, for the Board’s consideration:

Saco Planning Board Findings of Fact

Minor Conditional Use/Home Occupation 52 Glenwood Avenue (Map 27 Lot 58)

April 16, 2019

1. The applicant is Solanlly Edwards, 52 Glenwood Avenue, Saco, ME 04072. 2. The property owners are Solanlly Edwards and Brandon Edwards, 52 Glenwood Avenue, Saco,

ME 04072. 3. The applicant has established right, title and interest in the property per Warranty Deed filed in

the York County Registry in Book 16839 Page 254. 4. The property is located at 52 Glenwood Avenue, identified as Tax Map 27 Lot 58. The property

is in the R-2 zoning district, which allows for home occupations in the zone, with conditional use review.

5. The applicant proposes a home occupation of massage therapy run out of her home where she plans to see clients for up to ten hours per week, by appointment only. The applicant plans to use one bedroom and a bathroom on the first floor of her home in support of the home occupation, which she has demonstrated is less than 25% of the total floor area of the existing structure. The applicant has also demonstrated that there is sufficient parking on site to support the business. The applicant does not plan any exterior or interior renovations of the existing structure to support the home occupation.

6. The Planning Board first heard this application on April 16, 2019, at which meeting the Board found the application to be complete and held a public hearing.

7. Review is based on the application materials submitted to the Planning & Development Department, and the presentation of information to the Planning Board.

8. The applicant does not plan any interior or exterior modifications to the existing site or structure.

4

9. Following review of the application for the home occupation at 52 Glenwood Avenue, the Planning Board makes these findings based on the review criteria found in Section 230-711 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance:

a. Section 230-711(A)(1): The massage therapy home occupation will be carried on wholly within the principal, residential structure on the property.

b. Section 230-711(A)(2): Only one employee, the owner of the property, will work at the home occupation, seeing massage therapy clients on a part-time (up to ten hours) basis by appointment only.

c. Section 230-711(A)(3): No exterior indication of the home occupation is included with this application. The use is not expected to alter the residential character of the neighborhood.

d. Section 230-711(A)(4): No nuisance, offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare or electrical disturbance are proposed with this application.

e. Section 230-711(A)(5): This home occupation will be by appointment only for a limited number of hours per week, therefore, traffic volumes are not expected to substantially increase to cause hazardous conditions.

f. Section 230-711(A)(6): The applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient space on site to support parking.

g. Section 230-711(A)(7): According to the Vision property card, the gross area of the structure is 2,296 square feet. A rough calculation of the total floor area of the house comes to 2,040 square feet. The proposal is to use approximately 206.25 square feet of the existing structure (comprised of one room and a bathroom) for the home occupation. Therefore, the proposal is to use approximately 10% of the floor area for the home occupation, well below the 25%.

h. Section 230-711(A)(8): The use of the home occupation for massage therapy seems to fit well with other similar uses, such as a hairdressing shop, or dressmaking shop, where clients are seen on a part-time basis for a brief period and by appointment only.

With these Findings and the accompanying Conditions of Approval, the Saco Planning Board hereby finds that the applicant has satisfied the applicable requirements set forth in the ordinance Section 230-901 and Section 230-711.

5

Saco Planning Board Conditions of Approval

Minor Conditional Use/Home Occupation 52 Glenwood Avenue (Map 27 Lot 58)

April 16, 2019

1. The applicant shall adhere to Saco’s Zoning Ordinances. 2. The business is limited to one employee working by appointment-only. 3. This approval is conditioned upon the applicant’s obtaining City Council’s review and approval

of a massage therapist/establishment license. If the Board agrees with the findings of fact and conditions of approval, a suggested motion is: “I move that the Board grant approval for a home occupation/minor conditional use for massage therapy to Solanlly Edwards at 52 Glenwood Avenue per the findings of fact and conditions of approval dated April 16, 2019.”

Location 52 GLENWOOD AVE Mblu 027/ / 058/ 000/000

Acct# S2220R Owner EDWARDS BRANDON

Assessment $205,800 PID 1593

Building Count 1 User Field 4

User Field 5 topoTopography

Utility Public Sewer,Public Water Location

Street/Road

Owner EDWARDS BRANDON

Co-Owner EDWARDS SOLANLLY

Address 52 GLENWOOD AVE

SACO, ME 04072

Sale Price $210,000

Certificate

Book & Page 16839/0254

Sale Date 06/20/2014

Instrument 00

Year Built: 2014

Living Area: 1,290

Replacement Cost: $142,124

Building Percent

Good:

98

Building Photo

52 GLENWOOD AVE

Current Value

Assessment

Valuation Year Improvements Land Total

2018 $142,400 $63,400 $205,800

Owner of Record

Ownership History

Ownership History

Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date

EDWARDS BRANDON $210,000 16839/0254 00 06/20/2014

VACATION PROPERTIES INC $50,000 16621/0323 00 06/12/2013

LAPOINTE BATO $0 0UNK/0UNK 1A 10/02/1964

SHABAN BATO (HEIRS) $0 1430/0482 07/01/1960

Building Information

Building 1 : Section 1

Replacement Cost

Less Depreciation: $139,300

Building Attributes

Field Description

Style Cape Cod

Model Residential

Grade: AVERAGE +10

Stories: 2

Occupancy 1

Exterior Wall 1 Vinyl Siding

Exterior Wall 2

Roof Structure: Gable/Hip

Roof Cover Asph/F Gls/Cmp

Interior Wall 1 Drywall/Sheet

Interior Wall 2

Interior Flr 1 Carpet

Interior Flr 2 Laminate Floor

Heat Fuel Gas

Heat Type: Radiant

AC Type: None

Total Bedrooms: 3 Bedrooms

Total Bthrms: 2

Total Half Baths: 0

Total Xtra Fixtrs: 0

Total Rooms: 5

Bath Style: Modern

Kitchen Style: Good

Num Kitchens

Cndtn

Usrfld 103

Usrfld 104

Usrfld 105

Usrfld 106

Usrfld 107

Num Park

Fireplaces

Usrfld 108

Usrfld 102

Usrfld 100

Legend

(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/SacoMEPhotos//\00\01\37

\93.jpg)

Building Layout

(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/SacoMEPhotos//Sketches/1593_1593.jpg)

Building Sub-Areas (sq ft)

Code DescriptionGross

Area

Living

Area

BAS First Floor 780 780

FHS Half Story, Finished 1,020 510

FGR Garage, Framed 240 0

WDK Deck, Wood 256 0

2,296 1,290

Legend

Extra Features

Extra Features

Land Use

Use Code 1010

Description SINGLE FAM MDL-01

Zone R-2

Neighborhood 315

Alt Land Appr No

Category

Land Line Valuation

Size (Acres) 0.18

Frontage

Depth

Assessed Value $63,400

Legend

(c) 2019 Vision Government Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

No Data for Extra Features

Land

Outbuildings

Outbuildings

Code Description Sub Code Sub Description Size Value Bldg #

SHD1 SHED FAIR 64.00 S.F. $700 1

SHD1 SHED FAIR 40.00 S.F. $400 1

SHD2 SHED AVERAGE 120.00 S.F. $2,000 1

Valuation History

Assessment

Valuation Year Improvements Land Total

2017 $129,900 $63,400 $193,300

2016 $131,000 $53,100 $184,100

2015 $129,300 $53,100 $182,400

2014 $50,100 $53,100 $103,200

Valuation History

Exemptions

Exemption Year Code Description Amount

2016 24 HOMESTEAD $20,000

52 Glenwood Avenue

GIS Map for reference:

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Emily Cole-Prescott City Planner

Eprescott@sacomaine.org

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext.357

TO: Planning Board FROM: Emily Cole Prescott, City Planner CC: Denise Clavette, Director DATE: April 12, 2019 RE: Updates Here are some updates to keep the Board informed about ongoing planning work within the Department: Planning Approvals: Emily Roy, as part of the new website, has created a location on the website

to have Planning Approvals. We will now be uploading all approval documents to the website so everyone can view. We will post approvals from March 2019 forward.

GIS Layers: The City is working on its GIS systems, and the Public Works & Planning Departments have been collaborating on several projects for the long-term sustainability and usability for Saco’s residents.

Processes: The PDRC is looking at some planning & land use related processes, the central of which is deadlines for Planning Board. I have asked for Staff’s input on deadline scenarios to ensure reasonable time period for reviews on both the applicant’s and staff’s sides.

Packet Improvements: We have been making small improvements to the packets for each meeting. Any input is welcome.

This is a compilation of only some of the improvements on the planning side of the office. There are various ongoing projects throughout the entire Department.