i. call to order - saco, maine workshop packet.pdf · 12/10/2018 · saco city council workshop ....

SACO CITY COUNCIL & SCHOOL BOARD JOINT WORKSHOP

MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018 6:30

CITY HALL AUDITORIUM

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. AGENDA

A. Discussion with Attorney Linda McGill: State Statutes for P3

Municipalities and Education regarding personnel matters

B. Budget Timeline & Process Discussion

C. Future Meeting Topics

1. Homeless Children in Saco

2. Private Dormitories

3. Charter Change to Line Up Council and School Board Elections

IV. COUNCIL & SCHOOL BOARD DISCUSSION AND COMMENT

V. ADJOURNMENT

Hearing Assistance Devices are available at the back of the Auditorium. If you are interested in addressing the Mayor and Council in the public comments session, please add your name to the roster

at the back of the room.

1

SACO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP

MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018

CITY HALL AUDITORIUM

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PUBLIC COMMENT

III. AGENDA

A. Convenient MD Discussion P9

B. Saco TIF District Overview P11

C. Cell Tower at 642-644 Main Street P12

D. Discrepancy Between Contract Zone and Zoning P39

Ordinance in the Park North Subdivision

E. Firearms Ordinance Discussion P60

F. Housing Moratorium

G. Policy on Headcount Changes/Budget Amendments P63

H. Discussion on Council Meetings & Workshops

P61

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE

V. COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND COMMENT

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Hearing Assistance Devices are available at the back of the Auditorium. If you are interested in addressing the Mayor and Council in the public comments session, please add your name to the roster

at the back of the room.

2

KEB

Saco School Department

COMPLAINTS ABOUT SCHOOL PERSONNEL

This policy is intended (1) to create a climate in the schools whereby persons are encouraged to bring complaints to the attention of school officials for resolution, and (2) to explain the responsibilities of school officials in handling complaints. The Board believes that constructive criticism, when it is motivated by a sincere desire to improve the quality of our educational programs, assists school personnel to perform their responsibilities more effectively. At the same time, the Board places trust in its employees and desires to support their actions in such a manner that employees not be subjected to unnecessary, spiteful, or frivolous complaints.

Complaints will be referred to the proper school decision maker for resolution at the lowest possible level. Generally, the first step will be to discuss the matter directly with the employee against whom the complaint is registered. If this is clearly inappropriate because of the nature or severity of the complaint, the person making the complaint may request a conference with the principal/immediate supervisor to discuss the complaint. The principal/ immediate supervisor or his/her designee will look into the complaint and communicate with the person making the complaint. Privacy rights of all parties to the complaint will be respected.

If a complaint cannot be resolved at a lower level, it may be presented to the Superintendent. The person requesting the Superintendent’s review must submit the complaint in writing, setting forth the specific facts on which the complaint is based and attaching all documents in support of the complaint. The Superintendent will provide a copy of the written complaint to the person against whom the complaint is made.

If a complaint remains unresolved at the Superintendent’s level, the person making the complaint may request to the Board Chair that the matter be placed on the Board’s agenda. The Board Chairperson will decide whether the complaint will be placed on a Board agenda. If a complaint is placed on an agenda, the Superintendent will invite the complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made to attend the meeting in executive session and will provide the Board members with a copy of the complaint and supporting documents.

The Board will determine the procedural rules for any meeting to hear a complaint. Any such meeting will be held in executive session. No recording of the meeting will be permitted. If an individual or a group submits a complaint that is placed on the Board agenda, a delegation of no more than two individuals must be designated to represent the group or individuals to present the complaint to the Board. The same applies for the person(s) against whom the complaint is made.

This complaint policy may not be used by employees for employment matters. Such matters need to be processed through the appropriate grievance procedure, if any.

Cross Reference: BEDH – Public Participation at Board Meetings BEC – Executive Session

Adopted: 2/28/18

JOINT WORKSHOP ITEM: ADecember 10, 2018

3

12/6/2018 Title 20-A, §6101: Record of directory information

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/20-a/title20-asec6101.html 1/2

Maine Revised StatutesTitle 20-A: EDUCATION

Part 3: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONChapter 221: SCHOOL RECORDS, AUDITS AND

REPORTSSubchapter 3: EMPLOYEE AND APPLICANT RECORDS

§6101. Record of directory informationThe following provisions apply to employee records. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

1. Contents. A school administrative unit shall maintain a record of directory information on each employee asfollows:

A. Name; [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

B. Dates of employment; [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

C. Regular and extracurricular duties, including all courses taught in that school administrative unit; [1981,c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

D. Post-secondary educational institutions attended; [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

E. Major and minor fields of study recognized by the post-secondary institutions attended; and [1997, c.452, §1 (AMD).]

F. Degrees received and dates awarded. [1997, c. 452, §1 (AMD).]

G. [1997, c. 452, §2 (RP).]

[ 1997, c. 452, §§1, 2 (AMD) .]

2. Access. The following provisions apply to access of employee records.

A. The record of directory information shall be available for inspection and copying by any person. [1981, c.693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

B. Except as provided in paragraph A, information in any form relating to an employee or applicant foremployment, or to the employee's immediate family, must be kept confidential if it relates to the following:

(1) All information, working papers and examinations used in the examination or evaluation of allapplicants for employment;

(2) Medical information of any kind, including information pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of mentalor emotional disorders;

(3) Performance evaluations, personal references and other reports and evaluations reflecting on thequality or adequacy of the employee's work or general character compiled and maintained foremployment purposes;


4

12/6/2018 Title 20-A, §6101: Record of directory information

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/20-a/title20-asec6101.html 2/2

(4) Credit information;

(5) Except as provided by subsection 1, the personal history, general character or conduct of the employeeor any member of the employee's immediate family;

(6) Complaints, charges of misconduct, replies to complaints and charges of misconduct and memorandaand other materials pertaining to disciplinary action;

(7) Social security number;

(8) The teacher action plan and support system documents and reports maintained for certificationpurposes; and

(9) Criminal history record information obtained pursuant to section 6103. [1995, c. 547, §4(AMD).]

C. Any written record of a decision involving disciplinary action taken with respect to an employee by thegoverning body of the school administrative unit shall not be included within any category of confidentialinformation set forth in paragraph B. [1981, c. 693, §§5, 8 (NEW).]

[ 1995, c. 547, §4 (AMD) .]

3. Commissioner's review. The commissioner shall have access to any of the records or documents designatedas confidential in this section for carrying out the commissioner's duties pursuant to section 13020. Copies of anysuch records or documents shall simultaneously be provided to the employee.

The commissioner shall also have access to support system documents for carrying out the commissioner'scertification and support system approval duties pursuant to chapter 502 and to other confidential employeerecords for carrying out the commissioner's school approval duties pursuant to chapter 206.

[ 1987, c. 620, §2 (AMD) .]

SECTION HISTORY1981, c. 693, §§5,8 (NEW). 1983, c. 470, §5 (AMD). 1983, c. 806, §60 (AMD). 1983, c. 862, §58(AMD). 1985, c. 506, §A37 (AMD). 1987, c. 620, §§1,2 (AMD). 1995, c. 547, §§2-4 (AMD). 1997,c. 452, §§1,2 (AMD).

The Revisor's O�ce cannot provide legal advice or interpretationof Maine law to the public.

If you need legal advice, please consult a quali�ed attorney.

O�ce of the Revisor of Statutes (mailto:[email protected]) • 7State House Station • State House Room 108 • Augusta, Maine 04333-0007

Page composed on 12/03/2018 05:34:58.


5

mailto:[email protected]

12/6/2018 Title 30-A, §2702: Personnel records

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/30-a/title30-Asec2702.html 1/3

Maine Revised StatutesTitle 30-A: MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES

Part 2: MUNICIPALITIESSubpart 3: MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

Chapter 123: MUNICIPAL OFFICIALSSubchapter 6: MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT

§2702. Personnel records1. Confidential records. The following records are confidential and not open to public inspection. They are not

"public records" as defined in Title 1, section 402, subsection 3. These records include:

A. Except as provided in this paragraph, applications, resumes, letters and notes of reference, working papers,research materials, records, examinations and any other documents or records and the information theycontain, solicited or prepared either by the applicant or the municipality for use in the examination orevaluation of applicants for positions as municipal employees.

(1) Notwithstanding any confidentiality provision other than this paragraph, applications, resumes andletters and notes of reference, other than those letters and notes of reference expressly submitted inconfidence, pertaining to the applicant hired are public records after the applicant is hired.

(2) Telephone numbers are not public records if they are designated as "unlisted" or "unpublished" in anapplication, resume or letter or note of reference.

(3) This paragraph does not preclude union representatives from access to personnel records which maybe necessary for the bargaining agent to carry out its collective bargaining responsibilities. Any recordsavailable to union representatives which are otherwise covered by this subsection shall remainconfidential and are not open to public inspection; [1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD);1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD); 1989, c. 402, §3 (RPR).]

B. Municipal records pertaining to an identifiable employee and containing the following:

(1) Medical information of any kind, including information pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of mentalor emotional disorders;

(2) Performance evaluations and personal references submitted in confidence;

(3) Information pertaining to the creditworthiness of a named employee;

(4) Information pertaining to the personal history, general character or conduct of members of anemployee's immediate family; and

(5) Complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusationsand any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action. If disciplinary action istaken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision iscompleted if it imposes or upholds discipline. The decision must state the conduct or other facts on the


6



(a) The final written administrative decision that is not appealed pursuant to a grievance arbitrationprocedure; or

(b) If the final written administrative decision is appealed to arbitration, the final written decision ofa neutral arbitrator.

A final written administrative decision that is appealed to arbitration is no longer confidential 120 daysafter a written request for the decision is made to the employer if the final written decision of the neutralarbitrator is not issued and released before the expiration of the 120 days; and [1997, c. 770, §3(AMD).]

C. Other information to which access by the general public is prohibited by law. [1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2(NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); 1989,

c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]

[ 1997, c. 770, §3 (AMD) .]

1-A. Investigations of deadly force or physical force by law enforcement officer. The name of a lawenforcement officer is not confidential under subsection 1, paragraph B, subparagraph (5) in cases involving:

A. The use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer; or [1991, c. 729, §7 (NEW).]

B. The use of physical force by a law enforcement officer resulting in death or serious bodily injury. [1991,c. 729, §7 (NEW).]

In cases specified in paragraphs A and B, regardless of whether disciplinary action is taken, the findings of anyinvestigation into the officer's conduct are no longer confidential when the investigation is completed and a decisionon whether to bring criminal charges has been made, except that if criminal charges are brought, the findings of theinvestigation remain confidential until the conclusion of the criminal case.

[ 1991, c. 729, §7 (NEW) .]

2. Employee right to review. On written request from an employee or former employee, the municipal officialwith custody of the records shall provide the employee, former employee or the employee's authorizedrepresentative with an opportunity to review the employee's personnel file, if the municipal official has a personnelfile for that employee. These reviews shall take place during normal office hours at the location where the personnelfiles are maintained. For the purposes of this subsection, a personnel file includes, but is not limited to, any formal orinformal employee evaluations and reports relating to the employee's character, credit, work habits, compensationand benefits which the municipal official may possess. The records described in subsection 1, paragraph B, may alsobe examined by the employee to whom they relate, as provided in this subsection.

[ 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); 1989, c. 6, (AMD); 1989, c.9, §2 (AMD); 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD) .]


basis of which disciplinary action is being imposed and the conclusions of the acting authority as to the reasons for that action. If an arbitrator completely overturns or removes disciplinary action from an employee personnel file, the final written decision is public except that the employee's name

must be deleted from the final writteMn adeicinsieo n Raned vkiepst ecodn fiSdetnatiatl.u Itf tehse employee whose name was deleted from the final written decision discloses that the employee is the person who is the subject of the final written decision, the entire final written report, with regard to that employee, is public.

For purposes of this subparagraph, "final written decision" means:

7



Maine Revised Statutes

3. Constitutional obligations of a prosecutor. Notwithstanding this section or any other provision of law, thissection does not preclude the disclosure of confidential personnel records and the information contained in thoserecords to the Attorney General, a deputy attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a district attorney, adeputy district attorney, an assistant district attorney or the equivalent departments or offices in a federaljurisdiction that are related to the determination of and compliance with the constitutional obligations of the Stateor the United States to provide discovery to a defendant in a criminal matter. A person or entity participating ingood faith disclosure under this subsection or participating in a related proceeding is immune from criminal andcivil liability for the act of disclosure or for participating in the proceeding.

[ 2013, c. 201, §3 (NEW) .]

SECTION HISTORY1987, c. 737, §§A2,C106 (NEW). 1989, c. 6, (AMD). 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD). 1989, c. 104, §§C8,10(AMD). 1989, c. 402, §3 (AMD). 1991, c. 229, §3 (AMD). 1991, c. 729, §7 (AMD). 1997, c. 770,§3 (AMD). 2013, c. 201, §3 (AMD).

The Revisor's O�ce cannot provide legal advice or interpretationof Maine law to the public.

If you need legal advice, please consult a quali�ed attorney.

O�ce of the Revisor of Statutes (mailto:[email protected]) • 7State House Station • State House Room 108 • Augusta, Maine 04333-0007

Page composed on 12/03/2018 05:37:42.


8


TO: City Council and Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

FROM: Denise Clavette, Planning & Development Director

DATE: December 6, 2018

RE: Mammoth Acquisitions, LLC ConvenientMD Proposal 506 Main Street (Tax Map 40, Lot 57)

The applicant(s) Mammoth Acquisitions, LLC, along with executives from ConvenientMD, engineers and attorney Natalie Burns, will be joining you at your workshop Monday, December 10, 2018. The workshop will be an opportunity for both the City Council and members of ConvenientMD’s team to discuss the Contract Zone Amendment and proposed alternatives and revisions to the submitted CZA.

The ConvenientMD team presented their points on the merits of their request, with several people (other than members of their team) speaking in support of the project, and some against the contract zone. At the Council’s public hearing on December 3rd, City Councilors and the public raised questions about the location of Convenient MD at 506 Main Street and the proposed use in this section of Main Street, indicating that locating a restaurant in the existing site should be considered, and that further exploration of a new site be considered as well.

While the proposed use is permitted in the B-2d zone, Mammoth Acquisitions LLC on behalf of tenant, Convenient MD, has requested contract zone review of the indicated proportions for structure height, signage and front setback. While the Council has received this documentation in other formats, Staff is providing it as an overview of the currently requested items.

The following table provides a brief outline of the proposal by applicant Mammoth Acquisitions LLC, under Section 230-1405 (F) of the Zoning Ordinances: Item Allowed in B-2D District 1 Proposal 2

Structure Height 35’ 43’ Signage 150 s.f. 3 400 s.f. Front Setback 40’ 15’

In response to concerns that a restaurant would be a more suitable business to be located at the Rosa Linda site, rather than a medical urgent care facility, testimony from Mark Malone, Malone Commercial Brokers iterated otherwise. Mark discussed that he had been working with ConvenientMD since 2012, aware of a neighboring restaurant property having been for sale for several years; and that ConvenientMD

1 §230, Table 412-1 2 Letter from D. Stairs of Stantech with attachments, dated 10/22/18 3 §230-707, Signs

WORKSHOP ITEM: ADecember 10, 2018

9


https://ecode360.com/attachment/SA1647/SA1647-230a%20Table%20412-1.pdf

https://ecode360.com/32492879

had done extensive research, market analysis and traffic counts to date. All the results substantiated the business’s need and preference to be near 506 Main Street. In addition, Mark stated that though the research the company had done about locating in Saco, demonstrated its business viability in the vicinity of 506 Main Street, the site represented a “compromise” to Convenient MD’s normal model, which is generally to locate on the corner of highly visible and trafficked intersections.

A question was asked about the consideration to locate on a parcel owned by the Maine Department of Transportation, and ConvenientMD was asked if MDOT had been contacted to see if there was any interest in selling the MDOT parcel near the I-195 on-ramp. The request was denied at that time. City staff followed up this week with MDOT, and it was verified that the parcel in question is not an option for selling to ConvenientMD.

Let us know if you have any additional questions or need more information prior to the workshop.

A Public Hearing was held for “Contract Zone for Convenient MD at 506 Main Street” on December 3rd. See packet by following this link.

WORKSHOP ITEM: ADecember 10, 2018

10

https://cms.revize.com/revize/saco/12.3.18%20Council%20Packet.pdf

TO: City Council

CC: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator

FROM: Denise Clavette, Planning & Development Director Emily Cole-Prescott, Economic Development Specialist


RE: De-MysTIFying Tax Increment Financing (TIFs): Overview of Tax Increment Financing & a Look at New Expanded TIF Districts, Development Programs & Properties

The Planning and Development Department has been working on an analysis of Saco’s TIF Districts, over the last several months. This process required a comprehensive review of the Development Programs, Credit Enhancement Agreements, geographic boundaries, TIF revenue and tax projections for a variety of terms and program types.

Saco’s historically diverse programs exhibit various development patterns and initiatives throughout the City and years of TIF program development. The Department’s goal is to better align the development programs throughout the City to broaden what development programs may fund while having similar development programs for tracking and accounting ease for better collaboration throughout City Departments.

In addition, the Department has been working with consultant law firm Bernstein Shur to revise the development programs, to prepare for Council review, public hearings, and if approved at the local level, submission to the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD).

The De-Mystifying Tax Increment Financing Overview presentation comprehensively outlines the Department’s work to date, in anticipation of detailed amendment applications to Council for review during the month of January 2019.

The Department is seeking the Council’s support to move forward with the TIF strategies as outlined in the accompanying presentation; and welcomes questions, request for additional information and feedback prior to moving forward.

Link to TIF presentation

WORKSHOP ITEM: B December 10, 2018

Denise M. Clavette, Director

11



https://www.sacomaine.org/DeMystifying%20TIFs_Jump%20Start_City%20Council%20Presentation_2018_1210.pptx

AGENDA ITEM:

STAFF RESOURCE:

WORKSHOP ITEM COMMENTARY

(First Reading) Contract Zone – Wireless Telecommunication Facility at 644 Main Street

Zach Mosher, City Planner

COUNCIL RESOURCE: Councilor William Doyle

BACKGROUND: Applicant L&M Properties, Inc., proposes to erect a 130 foot tower on a fenced 100’X100’ portion of the property at 644 Main Street. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities are not an allowed use in the B-2b zone. The applicant hopes to lease space on the tower tomultiple carriers. A contract zone (CZ) is the only option that wouldallow a cell tower to be built and operated in this location. There isprecedent for cell towers being allowed via contract zoning; there areWCF’s on Industrial Park Road, Rte. One and Flag Pond Road.WCFs are conditional uses in the I-1 and I-3 zones (Mill BrookBusiness Park). Elsewhere, such facilities would be subject tocontract zoning.

The applicant was approved for a CZ at this location for the construction of an identical wireless facility in May 2014. In January 2015, the applicant obtained site plan approval from the Planning Board. The applicant did not obtain necessary approvals and permits from the City within the allotted timeframe of the contract zone provisions, which nullified the contract zone.

This item was again reviewed by the Planning Board at its Oct. 16 meeting. The Board arrived at a positive finding on each of the four standards found in Sec. 230-1405 (E), and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council

EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Contract Zone document2. Application materials3. Minutes, October 16, 2018 Planning Board meeting

RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the amendment as recommended by the Planning Board.

SUGGESTED MOTION: “I move to approve the First Reading and adopt the findings in the contract zone document entitled “Contract Zone Agreement By and between L&M Properties, Inc. and the City of Saco,” dated September 23, 2018; and to schedule a Public Hearing for December 17, 2018, for the property identified as Tax map 42, Lot 9-1, as authorized by Section 1405 of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to 30A M.R.S.A. Section 4352(8).”

12

Proposed Contract Zone Agreement by and between

L&M Properties, Inc., and the City of Saco, Maine

Wireless Telecommunication Tower and Facilities

Submitted to Saco Planning Department September 23, 2018

THE CITY OF SACO, MAINE HEREBY ORDAINS:

I. That the zoning ordinance of the City of Saco, Maine, dated January 2, 1985 ishereby amended by adopting the proposed change in use as further described in thefollowing contract between the City of Saco, and L & M Properties, Inc.

This contract amends the Saco Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a 130-footWireless Telecommunication Facility on a parcel abutting 644 Main Street, identified asTax Map 42, Lot 9-1, subject to the following conditions and restrictions, as provided for inSection 1403 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance:

1. L&M Properties, Inc., (the Applicant) and/or its affiliates, proposes to constructa single Wireless Telecommunication Facility in the form of a monopole towerone hundred and thirty (130) feet high on a parcel identified as Tax Map 42, Lot9-1 (Subject Property), abutting the parcel at 644 Main Street.

2. The Subject Property has an area of 3.37 acres and is regarded by the City asa Lot of Record, having existed in its current ownership since March 2001,

3. The Subject Property is located in the Highway Business B2-B District. TheSubject Property is a vacant lot of record owned by the applicant.

4. The abutting parcel, Tax Map 42, Lot 10, is owned by the same owner under adifferent entity name, Leon Foster, which will be encumbered by an access andutility easement as well as a restriction from development easement asdetermined by 105% of the Tower height or 136.5 Feet as created from theproposed tower centerline.

5. The City of Saco does not prohibit more than one principal commercial orbusiness use from co-existing on a single conforming lot of record.

6. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities are defined by the Saco ZoningOrdinance and recognized as a conditional us in certain districts. Said Facilitiesare not an allowed use in the B2-B District.

8. Due to the ownership of the parcel, and its location along US Route 1 andInterstate I-195 corridor, and that there is an apparent lack of reception andcoverage for receiving data via wireless devices, the Applicant believes that theproposed site is an ideal location for a Wireless Facility.

13

9. The Applicant thereby requests that the City of Saco establish a Contract Zonespecifically and exclusively for the Subject Property in order to allow theinstallation, and operation of a Wireless Telecommunication Facility.

II. This Contract amends the Saco Zoning Ordinance as follows:

1. A single Wireless Telecommunication Facility, specifically a one hundred thirtyfoot monopole tower and supporting infrastructure, including a pre- fabricatedsupport structure for housing the electronic and/or mechanicalinstrumentation, and a backup generator at the tower’s base sited within afenced enclosure as shown on a site plan submitted by the applicant, shall beregarded as an allowed use on the Subject Property.

2. The proposed Tower location is approximately 50 feet from a property lineseparating the subject parcel from land owned by Leon Foster (644 Main Streetparcel). Given the possibility of a Tower accident and fall, and resulting propertydamage and/or personal injury, the City requests, and it will be part of thisagreement, that the applicant shall secure from Mr. Foster a negative, no buildeasement/covenant over a portion of the parcel found at 644 Main Street. The nobuild restrictive easement shall cover that portion of 644 Main Street that lieswith a 136.5 foot radius fall zone (130 foot Tower height plus a 5% added buffer)measured out from the base of the Tower. The easement must be reviewed andapproved by the City in advance; it must be binding upon Mr. Foster and his heirs,successors and assigns; it will be recorded by the City; and this condition must bemet before a building permit for the Tower can be issued. The failure to deliver asatisfactory easement prior to construction shall constitute a default of thisAgreement. Upon compliance with this request, Section 230- 728. E. 2 of the SacoZoning Ordinance is waived as to setbacks, including the condition that noeasement exceed 30% of a Towers’ height.

III. This Contract Zone is subject to the following conditions and restrictions as provided forin Section 1403 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance:

1. The Wireless Telecommunication Facility is subject to review under the provisionsof Section 728, and Article 11, Site Plan Review of the Saco Zoning Ordinance,

2. Except as addressed in this Contract Zone document, the property shall adhereto all other applicable provisions of the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance.

3. All details as shown on the final plan approved by the Planning Board are herebyincorporated into this contract by reference. The site shall be developed inconformance with those plans. Minor changes may be approved by the staff of theCity of Saco. Any changes determined by the staff to be “major” shall constitute a

14

change to the contract, and then the developer shall also be required to obtain City Council approval for the changes.

4. This Contract Zone Agreement affects the parcel of land identified as Tax Map 42, lot9-1 on the City of Saco Tax Maps. Recognition is given that the abutting parcel,identified as Tax Map 42, Lot 10, will be subject to an easement pertaining to accessand a “fall-down zone,” which will be a necessary component for the project.

5. This contract and its provisions shall apply exclusively to the contract zonerequest submitted by L&M Properties, Inc.

6. This Document and the Contract Zone it creates shall not be transferableprior to development as proposed by the Applicant.

7. Failure of the Applicant to secure site plan approval from the Planning Board, andany and all permits or approvals that may be required by the City, or otherregulatory agencies including but not limited to the Federal Aviation Administrationand/or Federal Communications Commission within one year of the approval of thisContract by the City of Saco Council shall render this Contract null and void. In theevent that permits or approvals are delayed due to circumstances beyond theApplicant, this one year deadline may be extended by one year upon writtenrequest by the Applicant.

8. Breach of these conditions and restrictions by the developer shall constitute abreach of the Contract. Said breach of the Contract shall constitute a zoningviolation subject to enforcement by the City of Saco.

9. The Applicant, and its successors and assigns,, shall provide the City of Saco’s Fireand Police Departments with a co-location position on the proposed tower, at nocharge, along with space in the support structure or area within the fencedenclosure also at no charge for as long as the tower stands. Notwithstanding thepreceding, the cost of any necessary equipment shall be borne by the City. TheCity’s use shall be reasonably accommodated on the tower and not undulyrestricted by location or height but in no event shall its Tower location be below110 feet.

10. The Applicant shall provide a signed statement obligating the owner of theFacility and its successors and assigns to:

a. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to any request for informationfrom a potential co-location applicant, in exchange for a reasonable fee notin excess of the actual cost of preparing a response;

b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use of the facility by the thirdparties, thereby agreeing not limit the number of wireless carriersutilizing the Facility to less than the carrying capacity of the Facility;

15

c. Allow shared use of the facility if any applicant agrees in writing topay reasonable charges for co-location;

d. Require no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based oncommunity rates and generally accepted accounting principles. This chargemay include, but is not limited to a pro-rata share of the cost of planning theproject administration, site design, construction, financing, return on equity,depreciation, and all of the costs adapting the Facility or equipment toaccommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference.

e. The above conditions shall not apply to the City of Saco’s use of the tower.

IV. By Vote of the Saco Planning Board on October 16, 2018 the following findings arehereby adopted:

A. Map 42, lot 9-1 possesses an unusual nature and location for the following reasons:1. The Property in question is owned by the applicant, and is adjacent to US Route 1, andI-195 corridor. The Telecommunications industry typically seeks WirelessTelecommunications Facilities along transportation corridors, such as the Maine Turnpikeand US Route 1, or areas demanding high volumes of wireless data, or internet access, suchas downtown areas, Business and Commercial Districts, or such as the Northern Route 1Business District and the edge of the Downtowns Saco District. Subject Property is wellsituated for the proposed use.

2. The Subject Property is unique in its location from its abutters. Abutters and/or nearbyproperties include the Eastern Trail, Sweetser Home, and the owner’s adjacent lot ofresidential rentals, and business buildings. The site also abuts residential uses andproperties on Moody Street, but will be well buffered from their view.

3. The parcel is burdened with a tributary of the Goosefare Brook, which traverses themiddle of the parcel making the parcel rear unlikely for development given the terrainand wetlands necessary to cross, and for that reason is limited in possible uses.

B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City of Saco Comprehensive Plan,based on the following Chapter 6 Land Use Policy and Goals:

-To increase the commercial tax base of the City.

-To strengthen Saco’s role as a service center for the region, including theindustrial, commercial, office, health and medical, tourism and hospitality,education and retail.

-To assure that new commercial and industrial development occurs in a way that isvisually and environmentally sound and That protects established residentialneighborhoods.

16

-To maintain the vitality of Downtown Saco and expand its role as a commercial,office, retail, educational and cultural, residential, and service center. To assurethat the City’s public facilities are adequate to support residential and non-residential development in any areas where the City desires growth.

-To accommodate the growth of commercial and industrial activities in designatedgrowth areas where public services and facilities are or can be provided.

-The City should also maintain the Route One Corridor from Thornton Academynorth to the I-195 Spur as a commercial district recognizing the established patternof commercial use in this area. The City should continue its efforts in this area toimprove visual attractiveness, traffic flow, vehicular access, and pedestrian safety.

The installation of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at the Subject Parcel adjacent to US Route 1 and I-195 will serve the telecommunication needs for the citizens, business owners and visitors of Saco. The location and proposed use of this site is consistent with the existing zoning for the B2-B Business district. The current zoning will allow for TV and Radio Tower facilities and broadcasting equipment as a conditional use, but not Telecommunications which is a similar use which is actually less intensive and less visually intrusive than wireless uses.

The location of the proposed facility will reduce the immediate need to locate other Wireless telecommunications Facilities between the Downtown and Northern Business Districts. The facility will not produce noise, dirt, light glare, smoke, sewerage, vibration, fumes, odor, or promote danger from fire, and will fit harmoniously in the location and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor will impose safety or health risks. It will have minimal visual impact to residences with the provisions of wooded buffers and will protect those neighbors which are fearful from impacts of business. The installation of the facility will provide a useful transitional buffer and promote privacy between the boundaries of the Residential and Business districts.

The immediate vicinity of the Route 1 and 1-195 Corridor will promote excellent coverage adjacent businesses, downtown areas, and customers further improving the desire for citizens, or business owners to utilize these areas for investment. The demand for cellular and wireless data services in such an area is consistent with this heavily travelled and commercially active area. The development will have no further impacts on traffic, or other public services, and will provide space for City emergency broadcasting services if so desired.

C. The proposed use is consistent with but not limited to existing uses and permitteduses allowed conditionally in the B2-B zone. Existing uses include Overheadtransmission lines for Central Maine Power, retail businesses, financial institutions,professional offices, hotels and lodging. Permitted uses include Essential services,public utility buildings, Repair services, (as conditional uses Contractors, Light

17

industrial uses, Radio and TV Transmission towers, High Voltage Transmission lines, and outdoor recreational facilities, etc.

D. The Conditions and restrictions noted in the above are adequate to meetintent of the Saco Zoning Ordinance.

Based on the above findings, conditions, and the restrictions listed above the City Council hereby incorporates this Contract Zone agreement into the Saco Zoning Ordinance by reference.

By signing this contract, both parties agree to abide by all the conditions and restrictions contained herein.

Adopted by the Saco City Council on _________________ , 2018.

City of Saco L & M Properties, Inc.

By: By: Leon M. Foster Its Duly Authorized: City Administrator Its Duly Authorized: President

WORKSHOPITEM: C December 10, 2018

Exhibit: 1

18

PLANNING BOARD MEMORANDUM

To: Saco Planning Board

From: Zach Mosher, City Planner

Re: Contract Zone Review for Wireless Facility at 644 Main St

Date: October 16, 2018

I. PROPOSAL – Michael Beale, on behalf of applicant Leon Foster, is proposing a contract zone for the

construction of a 130’ Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) monopole tower on an undeveloped

parcel. The site would be accessed from the parcel at 644 Main Street, and be installed on the parcel

identified as Tax Map 42, Lot 9-1 – directly abutting 644 Main, and owned by L&M Properties, Inc. Each

parcel is owned by Leon Foster, or a corporation through which Mr. Foster conducts business. The tower,

or Wireless Telecommunication Facility as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, would operate within a

fenced 100’ x 100’ area, much as others the Board has reviewed, and will provide for multiple carriers.

The applicant was approved for a contract zone (CZ) at this location for the construction of an identical

wireless facility in May 2014. In January 2015, the applicant obtained site plan approval from the Planning

Board. However, the applicant did not obtain necessary approvals and permits from the City within the

allotted timeframe of the contract zone, which nullified the contract zone.

Current zoning does not allow cell towers. Cell towers are not an allowed use in the B-2b zone, though

as the applicant points out, Radio or TV Transmission Towers are, as a conditional use. The company has

identified the area as important to improving its coverage, and is willing to move forward with a proposed

contract zone.

The draft CZ agreement is simple and straightforward, proposing only to amend Section 410-6B to allow

a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on the subject property.

If the proposal succeeds with the Council, the applicant would return to the Board for site plan review

and be subject to the standards found in Section 230-728.

When Sec. 728 was adopted by the Council in 2002, consideration was given to where the City zoned

for cell towers. It was agreed that the Turnpike corridor made sense: Wireless Telecommunication

Facilities are conditional uses in the I-1 and I-3 zones (Mill Brook Business Park). Elsewhere, such

19


facilities would be subject to contract zoning. Therefore, contract zoning is almost a routine route for

cell tower approval in Saco.

Determination of Completeness – The application has been found to be complete as per Section

1403-3. A suggested motion: “I move to find the application for site plan review to be complete.”

III. DEPARTMENT REVIEW

Police Department - No comment

Fire Department – No comment

Public Works / Engineering Department – No comment

Planning Department – Planning is supportive of the subdivision application.

Code Enforcement /City Attorney – The city attorney reviewed the contract zone on October

3rd 2018. His comments related to the fall down zone being more clearly defined as well as

providing greater substance around the city’s possible use of the tower. The applicant reviewed

those comments and incorporated the information into the draft contract zone application in your

packet.

IV. PLANNING BOARD ACTION- The Planning Board is asked to review the proposed contract zone

using Section 230-1405 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the following criteria to forward a recommendation

to the City Council:

F. Recommendation. Before forwarding a recommendation on a contract zoning amendment to

the City Council, the Planning Board shall make a finding on each of the four standards in this

subsection. A favorable recommendation to the Council requires a positive finding on all four

standards. If the Planning Board makes a negative finding on any of the standards, its

recommendation shall be negative. The Planning Board shall base its recommendation on

whether:

[Amended 12-20-1993]

(1) The rezoning is for land with an unusual nature or location;

(2) The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;

(3) The rezoning is consistent with, but not limited to, the existing uses and permitted

uses within the original zone; and

(4) The conditions proposed are sufficient to meet the intent of this section.

VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION – If the Planning Board is agreeable to the contract zone, a

suggested motion:

20

https://ecode360.com/32494467#32494467

https://ecode360.com/32494468#32494468

https://ecode360.com/32494469#32494469

https://ecode360.com/32494470#32494470

A suggested motion: “I move that the Planning Board forward a positive (negative)

recommendation to the City Council for a proposed contract zone that would allow a Wireless

Telecommunication Facility to be installed and operate on the parcel at 642 and 644 Main Street.”

__________________________

Zach Mosher

City Planner

21

September 5, 2018

Mr. Zach Mosher Planner Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, ME 04072

RE: Application - Wireless Telecommunication Facility Tax Map 42, Lot 9-1

Dear Mr. Mosher:

Sebago Technics delivered the plan set on or about August 29, 2018, for a renewal of the site plan for the proposed monopole tower at 642 Main Street (formerly named 0 Portland Road) abutting 644 Main Street, both properties owned by Leon Foster.

I emailed the application for site plan review on August 3, 2018.

A check for $375.00 will be sent to your office from Leon Foster’s Florida home by tomorrow.

I look forward to the hearing on September 18.

Please call me should you have any questions.

Thank you.

Regards,

Michael Rogers Agent for Leon Foster 207.318.9984 [email protected]

c: L. Foster

22


N/FL & M PROPERTIES, INC.

10482/442.63 ACRES

N/FL & M PROPERTIES, INC.

8586/105N/FSWEETSER3800/177

N/FTHE BANK OF MAINERIVERGREEN BANK

14769/802

N/FTHE ENERGY EAST FOUNDATION,

INC.11241/48

U.S.

RO

UTE

ON

EM

AIN

STR

EET

ROSS ROAD

N/FBANGOR SAVINGS BANK

15224/640

N/FROBERTA BEVANS

15451/273

N/FBRADFORD W. &

CECELIA C.HOYT

15733/800

N/FCAROL A. GORDON

7942/86

N/FTODD & DENISE

WHITAKER13049/222

N/FGRANITE STATE GASTRANSMISSION, INC.

4547/232

N/FLEON M. FOSTER

5086/345

137.

63'

FORMER

BOSTON &

MAINE R

AILROAD

PROPOSED 130'TALL MONOPOLE

L & M PROPERTIES, LLC

SACO, MAINE

SITE NAME:TOWER TYPE:SITE ADDRESS:

LESSOR:

MAP NO. / LOT NO.DEED BOOK / PAGEAPPLICANT:

CONTACT:

LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:GROUND ELEVATION:ZONING:SITE SIZE (S.F. / Ac.):

650 MAIN STREET TOWER

650 MAIN STREETSACO, MAINE 04072

MAP 42, LOT 9-110482/44L & M PROPERTIES, INC.P.O. BOX 1036SACO, MAINE 04072

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC DBA AT&T MOBILITY

HIGHWAY BUSINESS 2B DISTRICT

PROJECT SUMMARY

COUNTY: YORKDESCRIPTIONSHEET NO. REV.DATE

SHEET INDEX

N 43.51531944W 70.43165278

T-1 TITLE SHEET B8-28-18

C-1

C-2

D-1

OVERALL SITE ANDLAYOUT PLANTOWER ELEVATIONAND ANTENNA PLAN

83.0 FT.± (NAVD 88)

130' MONOPOLE

L & M PROPERTIES, INC.P.O. BOX 1036SACO, MAINE 04072

2.63 ACRES WITH 10,000 SF LEASE

CONSTRUCTIONDETAILS550 COCHITUATE RD

FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701

PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER

EROSION CONTROL& NOTES 8-28-18 B

B8-28-18

B8-28-18

B8-28-18

75 John Roberts Rd. - Suite 1ASouth Portland, ME 04106

Tel. 207-200-2100

250 Goddard Rd. - Suite BLewiston, ME 04240

Tel. 207-783-5656DATE: STATUS:REV. BY:

SCALE DATEPROJECT NO. FIELD BOOK DESIGN CHKD DRAWNTHIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SEBAGO TECHNICS, INC. ANY ALTERATIONS, AUTHORIZED OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY TO SEBAGO TECHNICS, INC.

SHEET NUMBER:

JRS JRS/CLBELECTRONIC SAP14009

T-1AS SHOWN 10-10-14

TITLE SHEETFOR:

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER650 MAIN STREETSACO, MAINE

U.S. ROUTE 112-2-14A JRS SUBMIT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CITY

OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=150'

S-1 BOUNDARY/EXISTINGCONDITIONS PLAN B8-28-18

650 MAIN STREET

D-2

8-28-18B JRS SUBMITTED FOR PLANNING BOARD RE-APPROVAL

8-28-18

December 10, 2018Exhibit Item: 2

WORKSHOP ITEM: C

25


WORKSHOP ITEM: C

26

N

GRI

D

PROPERTY LINE/R.O.W.

LEGEND

SETBACK

MONUMENT

IRON PIPE/ROD

BENCHMARK

BUILDING

WETLANDS

EDGE WETLAND

STREAMEDGE PAVEMENT

EDGE CONCRETEEDGE GRAVEL

CONTOURS120 118 120

SPOT GRADE 120.00120.00

CHAIN LINK FENCEUNDERGROUND UTILITY

UTILITY POLE

GUY WIRE

EXISTING PROPOSED

UGU

TRANSFORMER PAD T


Tel. 207-200-2100




SHEET NUMBER:


C-1AS SHOWN 10-10-14

OVERALL SITE AND LAYOUT PLANFOR:


U.S ROUTE 112-2-14A JRS SUBMIT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CITY

(IN FEET)1 INCH = FT.

0GRAPHIC SCALE

402020 10

20

1. THE RECORD OWNER OF THE PARCEL IS L & M PROPERTIES, INC. BY DEED DATED MARCH 5, 2001 AND RECORDED AT THE YORKCOUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN BOOK 10482, PAGE 44.

2. THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN AS LOT 9-1 ON THE CITY OF SACO ASSESSORS MAP 42 AND IS LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS 2BDISTRICT.

3. SPACE AND BULK CRITERIA FOR THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS 2B DISTRICT ARE AS FOLLOWS:ORDINANCE ACTUAL

MIN. LOT AREA: 20,000 2.43 Acres BUILDING COVERAGE OF LOT: 50% 0.9%

MIN. STREET FRONTAGE: 200 FEET CONTRACT ZONEMIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK: 75 FEET CONTRACT ZONEMIN. SIDE YARDS: 20 FEET 29 FEETMIN. REAR YARDS: 20 FEET 146 FEETMAX. BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEET 130'

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS:

MAXIMUM HEIGHTS: ONE HUNDRED NINETY (190) FEET

YARD SETBACKS: MINIMUM 105% OF TOWER HEIGHT. FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES UNLESS SECURED BY EASEMENT. SAID EASEMENTSHALL NOT EXCEED 30% OF OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT.

4. TOTAL AREA OF THE PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY 2.63 ACRES. THE PROPOSED LEASE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

5. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED UPON A FIELD WORK PERFORMED BY SEBAGO TECHNICSIN APRIL 2014 AND OCTOBER 2014.

6. PLAN ORIENTATION IS GRID NORTH, MAINE STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, WEST ZONE 1802-NAD83, ELEVATIONS DEPICTEDHEREON ARE NAVD88, BASED ON DUAL FREQUENCY GPS OBSERVATIONS.

7. UTILITY INFORMATION DEPICTED HEREON IS COMPILED USING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LOCATED IN THE FIELD AND MAY NOTNECESSARILY REPRESENT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. CONTRACTORS AND/OR DESIGNERS NEED TO CONTACT DIG-SAFE SYSTEMS, INC.(1-800-DIG-SAFE) AND FIELD VERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND/OR EXCAVATION.

8. A PORTION OF THE LOCUS PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG GOOSEFARE BROOK AS DEPICTED HEREON DOES FALL WITHIN A SPECIALFLOOD HAZARD AREA A, NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DETERMINED, AS DELINEATED ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR THECITY OF SACO, MAINE, YORK COUNTY, COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 2301550043D, HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 5,2006. THE PORTION OF THE LOCUS TO BE DEVELOPED FALLS WITHIN AN AREA IDENTIFIED AS AN UNSHADED ZONE X, AREASDETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN.

9. A WETLAND DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED ON THIS PROJECT SITE IN APRIL 2014 BY GARY M. FULLERTON, CERTIFIED SOIL SCIENTISTOF SEBAGO TECHNICS, INC. THIS DELINEATION CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS AND METHODS OUTLINED IN THE 1987 WETLANDSDELINEATION MANUAL AND REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT AUTHORED AND PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ALLWETLAND FLAGS WERE LOCATED USING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) TECHNOLOGY. ALL GPS LOCATED POINTS HAVE AVARYING DEGREE OF ACCURACY AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL FIELD LOCATION. THEREFORE, ALL WETLAND FLAGSWITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA MUST BE SURVEY LOCATED PRIOR TO ENGINEERING DESIGN OR ACCURATE LOCATION.

10. ALL STOCKPILES OF SOIL OR AGGREGATE MATERIALS ON SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH SILT BARRIERS DURING CONSTRUCTION.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. REQUEST A WAIVER TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE PLAN, SECTION 1104.09

2. REQUEST A WAIVER TO PROVIDE A HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT, SECTION 1104.16

3. REQUEST A WAIVER TO PROVIDE A LIGHTING PLAN, SECTION 1104.18

WAIVER REQUEST:

PLANNING BOARDCITY OF SACOAPPROVAL-

DATE


8-28-18

Exhibit Item: 2

WORKSHOPITEM: C December 10, 2018

27

0°

90°270°

NOT TO SCALEANTENNA PLAN VIEW

130'

SHELTER

TOWER ELEVATION

NOTE:

1. TOWER ELEVATION SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO TOWERMANUFACTURER DRAWINGS AND OWNER INFORMATION FOR EXISTING ANTENNA ANDEQUIPMENT LOCATIONS AND LOADINGS, AND SHALL REFER TO STRUCTURALRECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED BY OTHERS FOR MOUNTING INSTALLATION FORPROPOSED WIRELESS ANTENNA AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.

2. THE CITY OF SACO PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS WILL HAVE RESERVED A LOCATION ONTHE TOP OF THE TOWER TO INSTALL ANTENNA EQUIPMENT AND WILL BE PROVIDEDGROUND SPACE TO PROCURE EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 728.A.6 OF THELAND USE ORDINANCE FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES. THE CITY SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF ALL APPARATUSES ON THE TOWER ORWITHIN THE TOWER FACILITIES.

NOT TO SCALE

30°

ALPH

A 1

270°GAMMA 3

150°

BETA 2

RAD PROPOSED AT&T CENTERLINEEL. 211.5

TOP OF MONOPOLE EL. 213.5

FUTURE RAD PROPOSED AT&TCENTERLINE EL. 201.5



GROUND EL. 83.5

ANTENNA, TYP.


Tel. 207-200-2100



SCALE DATEPROJECT NO. FIELD BOOK DESIGN CHKD DRAWNTHIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SEBAGO TECHNICS, INC. ANY ALTERATIONS, AUTHORIZED OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE AT THE USER'S SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY TO SEBAGO TECHNICS, INC.JRS JRS/CLBELECTRONIC SAP14009

C-2AS SHOWN 10-10-14

TOWER ELEVATION PLANFOR:


U.S. ROUTE 112-2-14A JRS SUBMIT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CITY

1. THIS PLAN IS PROVIDED FOR PERMITTING ONLY. A LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSHALL PROVIDE SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS MEETING ALL APPLICABLE BUILDINGCODES.

2. THE 130' MONOPOLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE TIA/EIA-222-G STANDARDSFOLLOWING THE CATEGORY 1 STRUCTURE STANDARDS.

3. THE MONOPOLE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET A WIND SPEED OF 100 MPH ANDWINTER ICE CONDITIONS OF 0.50 INCHES OF RADIAL ICE WITH 40 MPH WIND SPEED.

4. THE MONOPOLE SHALL BE MADE WITH GALVANIZED STEEL.

NOTES:

PROPOSED LIGHTNING RODPROPOSED LOCATION OF FUTURECITY OF SACO


8-28-18

Exhibit Item: 2

WORKSHOP ITEM: C December 10, 2018

28

SLOPES DITCHES

NOTES:

FLOW

FLOW

FLOW

FLOW

A

B

LATERALJOINT

1. BURY THE TOP END OF THE MESH MATERIAL IN A 6"TRENCH AND BACKFILL AND TAMP TRENCHINGSECURE END WITH STAPLES AT 6" SPACING, 4" DOWNFROM EXPOSED END.

2. FLOW DIRECTION JOINTS TO HAVE UPPER END OFLOWER STRIP BURIED WITH UPPER LAYERSOVERLAPPED 4" AND STAPLED. OVERLAP B OVER A.

3. LATERAL JOINTS TO HAVE 4" OVERLAP OF STRIPS.STAPLE 18" ON CENTER.

4. STAPLE OUTSIDE LATERAL EDGE 2" ON CENTER.5. WIRE STAPLES TO BE MIN OF #11 WIRE 6" LONG AND

1-1/2" WIDE.6. USE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN DS 150 OR

APPROVED EQUAL.

EROSION CONTROL BLANKETNOT TO SCALE

LAYING THE FABRIC FLAP ON UNDISTURBED GROUND AND PILING AND TAMPING FILL AT BACKFILL THE TRENCH AND TAMP THE SOIL. TOE-IN CAN ALSO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY4. LAY THE TOE-IN FLAP OF FABRIC ONTO THE UNDISTURBED BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH,

3. DRIVE POSTS INTO THE GROUND UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 2" OF FABRIC IS LYING ON THE

2. UNROLL A SECTION AT A TIME AND POSITION THE POSTS AGAINST THE BACK (DOWNSTREAM)

1. EXCAVATE A 6"x 6" TRENCH ALONG THE LINE OF PLACEMENT FOR THE FILTER BARRIER.

5. JOIN SECTION AS SHOWN ABOVE.

6. BARRIER SHALL BE MIRAFI SILT FENCE OR EQUAL.

THE BASE, BUT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN INTERCEPTION DITCH.

WALL OF THE TRENCH.

TRENCH BOTTOM.

INSTALLATION:

FILTER BARRIERNOT TO SCALE

SECTION B

NATIVE SOIL

SPACING6' MAX.POST COUPLER

BACKFILL

TOP VIEW

FABRICFILTER

SECTION A

B

POSTS

SECTION A

SECTION B

A

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYCLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENTWITH ADDITIONAL STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/ORPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSINGWHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO

5. MAINTENANCE- THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION

4. WIDTH- NOT LESS THAN FULL WIDTH OF ALL POINT OF INGRESS

NOTES:

1 1/2"). USE CRUSHED STONE.

3. THICKNESS- NOT LESS THAN EIGHT (8) INCHES.

2. LENGTH- AS SHOWN ON PLANS, MIN. 50 FEET.

MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.

OR EGRESS.

NOT TO SCALE

1. STONE SIZE- AASHTO DESIGNATION M43, SIZE NO. 2 (2 1/2" TO

AND PUBLIC R.O.W.BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEPROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION

GROUNDEXISTING

PUBL

IC R

IGHT

-OF-

WA

Y

PLAN

PROFILE

8" MIN.

50' MIN.

BELOW STONEFILTER FABRIC

RIGHT-OF-WAYPUBLIC

TYPICAL TRENCH SECTIONNOT TO SCALE

WIDTH TO TOP OFPIPE SIZE AS

STONE PIPE BEDDING3/4" CRUSHED

NOTED ON PLANS

1/2

O.D

. +

6"

SELECT BACKFILL

SELECT BACKFILL

ENGINEERAS DIRECTED BY THE

ACCORDANCE

+12

"1/

2 O

.D.

MAINTAIN TRENCH

TO PIPE DEPTH

POSSIBLE

VARIABLEDEPTH IN

OR SELECT BACKFILLEXCAVATED MAT'LBACKFILL WITH

AS REQUIREDPAVEMENT BUILDUP

SAFETY REQUIREMENTSWHERE EXTRAWIDTH IS

MAY BE SLOPEDBACK TO MEET

SIDE OF TRENCH

PAVED AREAS UNPAVED AREASFINISH GRADE

LOAM AND SEED

PIPE AND TRENCH℄

GATE GROUNDINGNOT TO SCALE

TOWER LEG GROUNDINGNOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALEGROUNDING ROD

NOT TO SCALEGROUND ROD INSPECTION WELLNOT TO SCALE

FENCE GROUNDING

INSPECTION PITGROUND BAR COUNTERPOISE

CAD WELD TYPE CONNECTION

BELOW FINISH GRADE# 2 SOLID TINNED COPPER WIRE 2';

GROUND ROD W/CABLE CONNECTION

CABLE TO GROUND ROD "T" MOUNT

CABLE TO CABLE "T" MOUNT

GT

TA

CAD WELD

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

GROUNDING LEGEND

CW

GROUNDING NOTES1. ALL DETAILS SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC ONLY. ACTUAL GROUNDING INSTALLATION AND

CONSTRUCTION MAY VARY DUE TO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH NORTHEAST WIRELESS THE SPECIFIC GROUNDING

SYSTEM APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE BASED ON BEDROCK DEPTH AND SOIL CONDITIONS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ONE OF THESE SYSTEMS:A. COPPER GROUND ROD SYSTEM.B. COPPER PLATE GROUND SYSTEM.C. CHEMICAL GROUNDING ROD SYSTEM.

3. ALL EXTERIOR GROUNDING AND TOP OF GROUNDING RODS SHALL BE BURIED TO AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 4.5 FEET BELOW FINISH GRADE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THEELECTRIC METER GROUNDING ROD.

4. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS EXTENDING UNDERGROUND SHALL BE #2 SOLIDTINNED COPPER.

5. GROUND SYSTEM MUST BE TESTED AND SHALL HAVE A RESISTANCE OF 5 OHMS OR LESS.SUBMIT AN INDEPENDENT "FALL POTENTIAL" TESTING REPORT.

6. NOTIFY NORTHEAST WIRELESS IF THERE ARE ANY DIFFICULTIES INSTALLING GROUNDINGSYSTEM DUE TO SITE SOIL CONDITIONS.

7. CHEMICAL GROUNDS SHALL BE XIT, CHEM-ROD OR APPROVED EQUAL WHEN REQUIRED.8. ALL UNDERGROUND GROUNDING CONNECTORS ARE TO BE CADWELDED. ABOVE

GRADE GROUNDING SHALL BE EITHER CADWELDED OR MECHANICAL AS SPECIFIED ONDRAWINGS.

9. ALL GROUNDS ARE TO BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 2'-0" FROM SHELTER OR TOWER.

5/8"Ø x 10' LONGCOPPERCLAD STEELGROUND ROD

#2 BARE SOLID TINNEDCOPPER GROUND WIRE

TOWER LEG

CADWELD

30"

12"

30"

GRADE

#2 BARE SOLID TINNEDCOPPER GROUND WIRE

CADWELD


2'-6

"M

IN


CADWELD

GROUND WIRE #2 BARESOLID TINNED COPPER

TENSION WIRE

#2 AWG BARE SOLID WIRE (TYP)

GROUND CLAMPS, 2 REQUIREDO-Z.GEDNEY TYPE CGCOORDINATE PROPER SIZE WITHFENCE CONTRACTOR

CRIMP-ON CONNECTOR (TYP)8 REQUIRED, BURNDY CAT.#YGHC26C2 OR EQUAL

BARBED WIRE

TOP RAIL

FENCE FABRICDARK GREEN VINYL SLATSSHALL BE INSERTED IN FENCEFABRIC TO SCREEN COMPOUND

FENCE POST

PRECAST CONCRETECOVER

12" Ø PVC PIPE

CADWELD FORGROUND WIRE

GROUND WIRE FROMMAIN DISCONNECT

5/8" Ø x 10'-10" LONGCOPPERCLAD STEELGROUND ROD

CADWELD

GRADE

30"

#2 BARE SOLIDTINNED COPPERGROUND WIRE

#2 AWG BARE SOLIDTINNED COPPER, CADWELDTO GROUND LOOP

1" EXTRAFLECIBLECOPPER BRAID

NOTE:TYPICAL BOTH LEAFS

GROUND CLAPMSO-Z/GEDNEY TYPEABG COORDINATEPROPER SIZE WITHFENCE CONTRACTOR

GROUND CONNECTIONAT POST

NOT TO SCALETYP. COMPOUND SECTION

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

1. FENCE FABRIC SHALL INCLUDE DARK GREEN VINYL SLATS TO BE WOVEN THROUGH THEMESH TO SCREEN FROM EXTERIOR VIEW.

12" -3/4 CRUSHED STONE

12" AGGREGATE SUBBASE COURSE- GRAVEL(M.D.O.T. SPEC 703.06 (b), TYPE D

COMPACTED SUBBASE

7'-0

" MIN

.W

/ 12

" BA

RBED

WIR

E3'

-6" M

IN.

10'-10" MA.SECTIONS

GATE FRAME2" Ø SCH. 40

14'-0" GATES

PLUNGER BARW/ LATCH & STOP

4" Ø SCH. 40 END POSTS@ COMPOUND GATES

3 ROWS ALUMINIZEDBARDED WIRE

1 1/2" Ø NPS TOP RAIL& BRACE SCH. 40 (TYP)

2 1/2" Ø NPS LINEPOST (TYP FOR FENCE INSTALL)

2" GALV. MESH #9 GS.FABRIC (TYP)DARK GREEN VINYL IN FENCESHALL BE INSERTED IN FENCEFABRIC TO SCREEN COMPOUND

BOTTOM TENSION WIRE#7 GA. - ALUMINIZED COIL WIRE

FINISH GRADE

TOWER GROUND RINGBONDING CONDUCTORS

FENCE

SERVICE ENTRANCE GROUND ROD ATSERVICE PEDESTAL

FENCE POST

ICE BRIDGE POSTGROUND ROD (TYPICALACTUAL NUMBER ASREQUIRED BYSPECIFICATIONS

PLATFORM

INSPECTION WELL


Tel. 207-200-2100




SHEET NUMBER:


D-1NTS 10-10-14

CONSTRUCTION DETAILSFOR:


U.S ROUTE 112-2-14A JRS SUBMIT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CITY8-28-18B JRS SUBMITTED FOR PLANNING BOARD RE-APPROVAL

8-28-18


WORKSHOP ITEM: C

29

EROSION CONTROL MEASURESPRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE

PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, SEDIMENT BARRIERS (SILT FENCE) WILL BE STAKED/INSTALLED ACROSS THE SLOPE(S), ON THE CONTOUR AT ORJUST BELOW THE LIMITS OF CLEARING OR GRUBBING, AND/OR JUST ABOVE ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE OR WATERCOURSE TO PROTECT AGAINSTCONSTRUCTION RELATED EROSION. THE PLACEMENT OF SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED IN BESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS IN THIS PLAN SET. THIS NETWORK IS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THECONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL EXPOSED SLOPES HAVE AT LEAST 85%-90% VIGOROUS PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. TEMPORARY EROSIONCONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS ATTAINED.

PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING OR GRUBBING, A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE PROPOSED ENTRANCES ANDEXISTING ROADWAY TO AVOID TRACKING OF MUD, DUST AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITE.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A DETAILED SCHEDULE AND MARKED UP PLAN INDICATING AREAS AND COMPONENTS OF THE WORKAND KEY DATES SHOWING DATE OF DISTURBANCE AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THEMUNICIPAL STAFF. THREE COPIES OF THE SCHEDULE AND MARKED UP PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE MUNICIPALITY THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULEDPRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE 14 DAY LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE IN THE SCHEDULE ADDRESSING TEMPORARY ANDPERMANENT VEGETATION MEASURES.

CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE

AREAS UNDERGOING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL ONLY EXPOSE THAT AMOUNT OF MINERAL SOIL NECESSARY FOR PROGRESSIVE AND EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION. AN AREA CONSIDERED OPEN IS ANY AREA NOT STABILIZED WITH PAVEMENT, VEGETATION, MULCHING, EROSION CONTROL MATS, RIPRAP OR GRAVEL BASE ON AROAD . OPEN AREAS SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL AS SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AND AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THIS EROSIONCONTROL PLAN WITHIN 14-DAYS OF DISTURBANCE. AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 100' OF STREAMS SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL WITHINSEVEN (7) DAYS. REFER TO WINTER EROSION CONTROL NOTES FOR THE TREATMENT OF OPEN AREAS AFTER OCTOBER 1ST OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR.

THE CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL ANY ADDED MEASURES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONTROL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION FROM THE SITE DEPENDENT UPON THEACTUAL SITE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS. CONTINUATION OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS ON ADDITIONAL AREAS SHALL NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE EXPOSED SOILSURFACE ON THE AREA BEING WORKED HAS BEEN STABILIZED, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE AREAS WITHOUT EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION.

EROSION CONTROL APPLICATIONS & MEASURES

THE PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED IN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ANDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND DETAILS IN THE PLAN SET.

1. TEMPORARY MULCHING:

ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH MATERIALS SPECIFIED BELOW PRIOR TO ANY STORM EVENT. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT FINAL GRADED WITHIN 14DAYS SHALL BE MULCHED. ALSO, AREAS, WHICH HAVE BEEN TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY SEEDED, SHALL BE MULCHED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SEEDING.EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE USED AT THE BASE OF GRASSED WATERWAYS AND ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%. MULCH ANCHORINGSHOULD BE USED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 5% AFTER SEPTEMBER 15TH OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR (SEE WINTER EROSION CONTROL NOTES).TYPES OF MULCH:HAY OR STRAW: SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 75 LBS/1,000 S.F. (1.5 TONS PER ACRE).EROSION CONTROL MIX: SHALL BE PLACED EVENLY AND MUST PROVIDE 100% SOIL COVERAGE. EROSION CONTROL MIX SHALL BE APPLIED SUCH THAT THETHICKNESS ON SLOPES 3:1 OR LESS IS 2 INCHES PLUS 1/2 INCH PER 20 FEET OF SLOPE UP TO 100 FEET. THE THICKNESS ON SLOPES BETWEEN 3:1 AND 2:1 SHALL BE 4INCHES PLUS 1/2 INCH PER 20 FEET OF SLOPE UP TO 100 FEET. THIS SHALL NOT BE USED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 2:1.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET: SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT CONTINUOUS CONTACT BETWEEN THE MAT AND THE SOIL IS OBTAINED. INSTALL BLANKETS ANDSTAPLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

2. SOIL STOCKPILES:

STOCKPILES OF SOIL OR SUBSOIL SHALL BE MULCHED WITH HAY OR STRAW AT A RATE OF 75 LBS/1,000 S.F. (1.5 TONS PER ACRE) OR WITH A FOUR-INCH LAYER OFWOOD WASTE EROSION CONTROL MIX. THIS WILL BE DONE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF STOCKING AND RE-ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO ANY RAINFALL. ANY SOIL STOCKPILEWILL NOT BE PLACED (EVEN COVERED WITH HAY OR STRAW) WITHIN 100 FEET FROM ANY NATURAL RESOURCES.

3. NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION:

ANY AREAS WITHIN 100 FEET FROM ANY NATURAL RESOURCES, IF NOT STABILIZED WITH A MINIMUM OF 75% MATURE VEGETATION CATCH, SHALL BE MULCHED USINGTEMPORARY MULCHING (AS DESCRIBED IN PART 1. OF THIS SECTION) WITHIN 7 DAYS OF EXPOSURE OR PRIOR TO ANY STORM EVENT. SEDIMENT BARRIERS (ASDESCRIBED IN PART 4. OF THIS SECTION) SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN ANY NATURAL RESOURCE AND THE DISTURBED AREA.PROJECTS CROSSING THE NATURAL RESOURCE SHALL BE PROTECTED A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 100 FEET ON EITHER SIDE FROM THE RESOURCE.

4. SEDIMENT BARRIERS:

PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHALL BE STAKED ACROSS THE SLOPE(S), ON THE CONTOUR AT OR JUST BELOW THE LIMITSOF CLEARING OR GRUBBING, AND/OR JUST ABOVE ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE OR WATERCOURSE TO PROTECT AGAINST CONSTRUCTION RELATED EROSION.SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL EXPOSED SLOPES HAVE AT LEAST 85%-90% VIGOROUS PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER TOPREVENT EROSION.

SILT FENCE: SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 36 INCHES. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT SILTFENCE BE REMOVED BY CUTTING THE FENCE MATERIALS AT GROUND LEVEL SO AS TO AVOID ADDITIONAL SOIL DISTURBANCE.

HAY BALES: SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. BALES SHALL BE WIRE-BOUND OR STRING-TIED AND THESE BINDINGS MUST REMAIN PARALLEL WITHTHE GROUND SURFACE DURING INSTALLATION TO PREVENT DETERIORATION OF THE BINDINGS. BALES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN A MINIMUM 4 INCH DEEP TRENCHLINE WITH ENDS OF ADJACENT BALES TIGHTLY ABUTTING ONE ANOTHER.

EROSION CONTROL MIX: SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. THE MIX SHALL CONSIST PRIMARILY OF ORGANIC MATERIAL AND CONTAIN AWELL-GRADED MIXTURE OF PARTICLE SIZES AND MAY CONTAIN ROCKS LESS THAN 4 INCHES IN DIAMETER. THE MIX COMPOSITION SHALL MEET THE STANDARDSDESCRIBED WITHIN THE MDEP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. NO TRENCHING IS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF THIS BARRIER.

CONTINUOUS CONTAINED BERM: SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. THIS SEDIMENT BARRIER IS EROSION CONTROL MIX PLACED WITHIN ASYNTHETIC TUBULAR NETTING AND PERFORMS AS A STURDY SEDIMENT BARRIER THAT WORKS WELL ON HARD GROUND SUCH AS FROZEN CONDITIONS, TRAVELEDAREAS OR PAVEMENT. NO TRENCHING IS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF THIS BARRIER.

5. TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS:

SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE PLACED WITHIN DITCHES/ SWALES AS SPECIFIED ON THE DESIGN PLANS IMMEDIATELYAFTER FINAL GRADING. CHECK DAMS SHALL BE 2 FEET HIGH. TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS MAY BE REMOVED ONLY AFTER THE ROADWAYS ARE PAVED AND THEVEGETATED SWALE ARE ESTABLISHED WITH AT LEAST 85%-90% OF VIGOROUS PERENNIAL GROWTH. THE AREA BENEATH THE CHECK DAM MUST BE SEEDED ANDMULCHED IMMEDIATELY AFTER REMOVAL OF THE CHECK DAM.

STONE CHECK DAMS: SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF 2 TO 3 INCH STONE AND PLACED SUCH THAT COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE SWALE IS OBTAINED AND THAT THECENTER OF THE DAM IS 6 INCHES LOWER THAT THE OUTER EDGES.

HAY BALE CHECK DAMS: WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF HAY BALES AS CHECK DAMS.

MANUFACTURED CHECK DAMS: MANUFACTURED CHECK DAMS, AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS, MAY BE USED IF AUTHORIZED BY THE PROPER LOCAL,STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATING AGENCIES. THESE UNITS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

6. STORMDRAIN INLET PROTECTION:

INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE PLACED AROUND A STORMDRAIN DROP INLETOR CURB INLET PRIOR TO PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF THE IMMEDIATE AND UPSTREAMDISTURBED AREAS. THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER THAT WILL FACILITATE CLEAN-OUT AND DISPOSAL OF TRAPPED SEDIMENTS AND MINIMIZEINTERFERENCE WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ANY RESULTANT PONDING OF WATER FROM THE PROTECTION METHOD MUST NOT CAUSE EXCESSIVEINCONVENIENCE OR DAMAGE TO ADJACENT AREAS OR STRUCTURES.

HAY BALE DROP INLET PROTECTION: WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THE USE OF HAY BALES AS INLET PROTECTION.

CONCRETE BLOCK AND STONE INLET SEDIMENT FILTER (DROP OR CURB INLET): SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS. THE HEIGHT OF THE CONCRETEBLOCK BARRIER CAN VARY BUT MUST BE BETWEEN 12 AND 24 INCHES TALL. A MINIMUM OF 1 INCH CRUSHED STONE SHALL BE USED.

MANUFACTURED SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND FILTER (DROP OR CURB INLET): MANUFACTURED FILTERS, AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAIL ON THE PLANS, MAY BE USED IFINSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

7. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT:

PRIOR TO CLEARING AND/OR GRUBBING THE SITE A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WHEREVER TRAFFIC WILL EXIT THECONSTRUCTION SITE ONTO A PAVED ROADWAY IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONTO PUBLICROADWAYS. THE ENTRANCES AND ADJACENT ROADWAY AREAS SHALL BE PERIODICALLY SWEPT OR WASHED TO FURTHER MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF MUD, DUSTOR DEBRIS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN AREAS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS AND AS DETAILED ONTHE PLANS.

8. DUST CONTROL:

DUST CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ACHIEVED BY THE USE OF A WATERING TRUCK TO PERIODICALLY SPRINKLE THE EXPOSED ROADWAY AREAS ASNECESSARY TO REDUCE DUST DURING THE DRY MONTHS. APPLYING OTHER DUST CONTROL PRODUCTS SUCH AS CALCIUM CHLORIDE OR OTHER MANUFACTUREDPRODUCTS ARE ALLOWED IF AUTHORIZED BY THE PROPER LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERAL REGULATING AGENCIES. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY TO MITIGATE DUST AND SOIL LOSS FROM THE SITE.

9. TEMPORARY VEGETATION:

TEMPORARY VEGETATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE FINAL GRADING FOR PERIODS UP TO 12 MONTHS. THIS PROCEDURESHOULD BE USED EXTENSIVELY IN AREAS ADJACENT TO NATURAL RESOURCES. SEEDBED PREPARATION AND APPLICATION OF SEED SHALL BE CONDUCTED ASINDICATED IN THE PERMANENT VEGETATION SECTION OF THIS NARRATIVE. SPECIFIC SEEDS (FAST GROWING AND SHORT LIVING) SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THEMAINE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP MANUAL DATED 3/2003 OR LATER. ALTERNATIVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHOULD BE USED IF SEEDING CANNOT BE DONE BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR.

10. PERMANENT VEGETATION:

REVEGETATION MEASURES SHALL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING OF AREAS TO BE LOAMED AND SEEDED. THE APPLICATION OFSEED SHALL BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN APRIL 1ST AND OCTOBER 1ST OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR, PLEASE REFER TO THE WINTER EROSION CONTROL NOTES FORMORE DETAIL. REVEGETATION MEASURES SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:

SEEDBED PREPARATION:

A. FOUR (4) INCHES OF LOAM SHALL BE SPREAD OVER DISTURBED AREAS AND SMOOTHED TO A UNIFORM SURFACE. LOAM SHALL BE FREE OF SUBSOIL, CLAYLUMPS, STONES AND OTHER OBJECTS OVER 2 INCHES OR LARGER IN ANY DIMENSION, AND WITHOUT WEEDS, ROOTS OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL.

B. SOILS TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF SOIL STRIPPING TO DETERMINE FERTILIZATION REQUIREMENTS. SOILS TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN PROMPTLY AS TO NOTINTERFERE WITH THE 14-DAY LIMIT ON SOIL EXPOSURE. BASED UPON TEST RESULTS, SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL PRIOR TO FINALSEEDING. IN LIEU OF SOIL TESTS, SOIL AMENDMENTS MAY BE APPLIED AS FOLLOWS:

ITEM APPLICATION RATE

10-20-20 FERTILIZER 18.4 LBS./1,000 S.F.(N-P205-K20 OR EQUAL)

GROUND LIMESTONE (50% 138 LBS./1,000 S.F.CALCIUM & MAGNESIUM OXIDE)

C. WORK LIME AND FERTILIZER INTO THE SOIL AS NEARLY AS PRACTICAL TO A DEPTH OF 4 INCHES WITH PROPER EQUIPMENT. ROLL THE AREA TO FIRM THE SEEDBEDEXCEPT ON CLAY OR SILTY SOILS OR COARSE SAND.

APPLICATION OF SEED:

A. SEEDING: SHALL BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN APRIL 1ST AND OCTOBER 1ST OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR. GENERALLY A SEED MIXTURE MAY BE APPLIED ASFOLLOWS: (MDEP SEED MIX 2 IS DISPLAYED)

SEED TYPE APPLICATION RATECREEPING RED FESCUE 0.46 LBS/1,000 S.F. (20 LBS/ACRE)REDTOP 0.05 LBS/1,000 S.F. ( 2 LBS/ACRE)TALL FESCUE 0.46 LBS/1,000 S.F. (20 LBS/ACRE)

TOTAL: 0.97 LBS/1,000 S.F. (42 LBS/ACRE)

NOTE: A SPECIFIC SEED MIXTURE SHOULD BE CHOSEN TO MATCH THE SOILS CONDITION OF THE SITE. VARIOUS AGENCIES CAN RECOMMEND SEEDMIXTURES. MDEP RECOMMENDED SEED MIXTURES ARE IN THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP MANUAL DATED 3/2003 OR LATER.

B. HYDROSEEDING: SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON PREPARED AREAS WITH SLOPES LESS THAN 2:1. LIME AND FERTILIZER MAY BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THESEED. RECOMMENDED SEEDING RATES MUST BE INCREASED BY 10% WHEN HYDROSEEDING.

C. MULCHING: SHALL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEED IS APPLIED. REFER TO THE TEMPORARY MULCHING SECTION OF THIS NARRATIVE FOR DETAILS.

SODDING:

FOLLOWING SEEDBED PREPARATION, SOD CAN BE APPLIED IN LIEU OF SEEDING IN AREAS WHERE IMMEDIATE VEGETATION IS MOST BENEFICIAL SUCH AS DITCHES,AROUND STORMWATER DROP INLETS AND AREAS OF AESTHETIC VALUE. SOD SHOULD BE LAID AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW, STARTING AT THELOWEST ELEVATION. SOD SHOULD BE ROLLED OR TAMPED DOWN TO EVEN OUT THE JOINTS ONCE LAID DOWN. WHERE FLOW IS PREVALENT THE SOD MUST BEPROPERLY ANCHORED DOWN. IRRIGATE THE SOD IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. IN MOST CASES, SOD CAN BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN APRIL 1ST ANDNOVEMBER 15TH OF THE CONSTRUCTION YEAR, HOWEVER, REFER TO THE WINTER EROSION CONTROL NOTES FOR ANY ACTIVITIES AFTER OCTOBER 1ST.

TRENCH DEWATERING AND TEMPORARY STREAM DIVERSION:

WATER FROM CONSTRUCTION TRENCH DEWATERING OR TEMPORARY STREAM DIVERSION WILL PASS FIRST THROUGH A FILTER BAG OR SECONDARY CONTAINMENTSTRUCTURE (E.G. HAY BALE LINED POOL) PRIOR TO DISCHARGE. THE DISCHARGE SITE SHALL BE SELECTED TO AVOID FLOODING AND SEDIMENT DISCHARGES TO APROTECTED RESOURCE. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FILTER BAG OR CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE BE LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF A PROTECTED NATURAL RESOURCE.

STANDARDS FOR TIMELY STABILIZATION:

STANDARD FOR THE TIMELY STABILIZATION OF DISTURBED SLOPES -- THE CONTRACTOR WILL CONSTRUCT AND STABILIZE STONE-COVERED SLOPES BY NOVEMBER 15.THE CONTRACTOR WILL SEED AND MULCH ALL SLOPES TO BE VEGETATED BY SEPTEMBER 15. THE MDEP WILL CONSIDER ANY AREA HAVING A GRADE GREATER THAN15% (6.67H:1V) TO BE A SLOPE. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO STABILIZE ANY SLOPE TO BE VEGETATED BY SEPTEMBER 15, THEN THE CONTRACTOR WILL TAKE ONE OFTHE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO STABILIZE THE SLOPE FOR LATE FALL AND WINTER.

A. STABILIZE THE SOIL WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION AND EROSION CONTROL MATS -- BY OCTOBER 1 THE CONTRACTOR WILL SEED THE DISTURBED SLOPEWITH WINTER RYE AT A SEEDING RATE OF 3 POUNDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET AND APPLY EROSION CONTROL MATS OVER THE MULCHED SLOPE. THECONTRACTOR WILL MONITOR GROWTH OF THE RYE OVER THE NEXT 30 DAYS. IF THE RYE FAILS TO GROW AT LEAST THREE INCHES OR COVER AT LEAST75% OF THE DISTURBED SLOPE BY NOVEMBER 1, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL COVER THE SLOPE WITH A LAYER OF WOOD WASTE COMPOST ASDESCRIBED IN ITEM 2(C.) OF THIS STANDARD OR WITH STONE RIPRAP AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 2(D.) OF THIS STANDARD.

B. STABILIZE THE SLOPE WITH SOD -- THE CONTRACTOR WILL STABILIZE THE DISTURBED SLOPE WITH PROPERLY INSTALLED SOD BY NOVEMBER 15. PROPERINSTALLATION INCLUDES THE APPLICANT PINNING THE SOD ONTO THE SLOPE WITH WIRE PINS, ROLLING THE SOD TO GUARANTEE CONTACT BETWEENTHE SOD AND UNDERLYING SOIL, AND WATERING THE SOD TO PROMOTE ROOT GROWTH INTO THE DISTURBED SOIL. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT USELATE-SEASON SOD INSTALLATION TO STABILIZE SLOPES HAVING A GRADE GREATER THAN 33% (3H:1V).

C. STABILIZE THE SLOPE WITH WOOD WASTE COMPOST -- THE CONTRACTOR WILL PLACE A SIX-INCH LAYER OF WOOD WASTE COMPOST ON THE SLOPE BYNOVEMBER 15. PRIOR TO PLACING THE WOOD WASTE COMPOST, THE APPLICANT WILL REMOVE ANY SNOW ACCUMULATION ON THE DISTURBEDSLOPE. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT USE WOOD WASTE COMPOST TO STABILIZE SLOPES HAVING GRADES GREATER THAN 50% (2H:1V) OR HAVINGGROUNDWATER SEEPS ON THE SLOPE FACE.

D. STABILIZE THE SLOPE WITH STONE RIPRAP -- THE CONTRACTOR WILL PLACE A LAYER OF STONE RIPRAP ON THE SLOPE BY NOVEMBER 15. THE APPLICANTWILL HIRE A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE STONE SIZE NEEDED FOR STABILITY AND TO DESIGN A FILTER LAYER FORUNDERNEATH THE RIPRAP.

STANDARD FOR THE TIMELY STABILIZATION OF DISTURBED SOILS -- BY SEPTEMBER 15 THE CONTRACTOR WILL SEED AND MULCH ALL DISTURBED SOILS ON AREASHAVING A SLOPE LESS THAN 15%. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO STABILIZE THESE SOILS BY THIS DATE, THEN THE CONTRACTOR WILL TAKE ONE OF THE FOLLOWINGACTIONS TO STABILIZE THE SOIL FOR LATE FALL AND WINTER.

A. STABILIZE THE SOIL WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION -- BY OCTOBER 1 THE CONTRACTOR WILL SEED THE DISTURBED SOIL WITH WINTER RYE AT A SEEDINGRATE OF 3 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET, LIGHTLY MULCH THE SEEDED SOIL WITH HAY OR STRAW AT 75 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET, ANDANCHOR THE MULCH WITH PLASTIC NETTING. THE APPLICANT WILL MONITOR GROWTH OF THE RYE OVER THE NEXT 30 DAYS. IF THE RYE FAILS TOGROW AT LEAST THREE INCHES OR COVER AT LEAST 75% OF THE DISTURBED SOIL BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL MULCH THE AREAFOR OVER-WINTER PROTECTION AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 3(C.) OF THIS STANDARD.

B. STABILIZE THE SOIL WITH SOD -- THE APPLICANT WILL STABILIZE THE DISTURBED SOIL WITH PROPERLY INSTALLED SOD BY OCTOBER 1. PROPERINSTALLATION INCLUDES THE APPLICANT PINNING THE SOD ONTO THE SOIL WITH WIRE PINS, ROLLING THE SOD TO GUARANTEE CONTACT BETWEEN THESOD AND UNDERLYING SOIL, AND WATERING THE SOD TO PROMOTE ROOT GROWTH INTO THE DISTURBED SOIL.

C. STABILIZE THE SOIL WITH MULCH -- BY NOVEMBER 15 THE APPLICANT WILL MULCH THE DISTURBED SOIL BY SPREADING HAY OR STRAW AT A RATE OF ATLEAST 150 POUNDS PER 1000 SQUARE FEET ON THE AREA SO THAT NO SOIL IS VISIBLE THROUGH THE MULCH. PRIOR TO APPLYING THE MULCH, THEAPPLICANT WILL REMOVE ANY SNOW ACCUMULATION ON THE DISTURBED AREA. IMMEDIATELY AFTER APPLYING THE MULCH, THE APPLICANT WILLANCHOR THE MULCH WITH PLASTIC NETTING TO PREVENT WIND FROM MOVING THE MULCH OFF THE DISTURBED SOIL.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

SITE IMPROVEMENTS WILL MOST LIKELY BEGIN IN SPRING 2015 DEPENDING UPON FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE IS ANTICIPATED FOR THECONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS.

SCHEDULE

1. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME: 2 MONTHS

*2. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PLACED. WEEK 1

3. SITE EXCAVATION/TRENCHING. WEEK 1

4. TOWER COMPOUND CONSTRUCTION. WEEK 2 - 4

5. CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATION. WEEK 4

6. TOWER CONSTRUCTION. WEEK 4 - 6

7. SHELTER INSTALLATION. WEEK 4 - 6

8. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, CABINET PLACEMENT WEEK 3 - 4AND ANTENNA/ICE BRIDGE INSTALLATION,

9. MULCH SPREAD FOR WINTER SEPTEMBER 15 OFEROSION CONTROL. CONSTRUCTION YEAR

10. START FINAL SEEDING ON WEEK 6 - 8PREPARED AREAS WHERE REQUIRED.(DURING GROWING SEASON)

11. REMOVAL OF EROSION CONTROL UPON FINAL PROJECTDEVICES. COMPLETION

** DATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER, DEPENDING ON CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS.

INSPECTIONS/MONITORING:

1. MAINTENANCE MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED AS NEEDED DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION CYCLE. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, SNOW STORM OR PERIOD OFTHAWING AND RUNOFF, OR AT LEAST EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A VISUAL INSPECTION OF ALL INSTALLED EROSION CONTROLMEASURES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM REPAIRS AS NEEDED TO ALLOW CONTINUED PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURE. THECONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY REGULATING AGENCIES WITH WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION DESCRIBING DATES OF INSPECTIONS AND NECESSARYFOLLOW-UP WORK TO MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PLAN.

2. FOLLOWING THE TEMPORARY AND/OR FINAL SEEDINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE WORK AREA SEMIMONTHLY UNTIL THE SEEDINGS HAVE BEENESTABLISHED. ESTABLISHED MEANS A MINIMUM OF 85%-90% OF AREAS VEGETATED WITH VIGOROUS GROWTH. RESEEDING SHALL BE CARRIED OUT BY THECONTRACTOR WITH FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS IN THE EVENT OF ANY FAILURES UNTIL VEGETATION IS ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED.

MEET GRADESLOPE TO

SLOPE= 2:1

FINISH GRADE

PIPE DIA = D

FINISH GRADE

NOT TO SCALERIPRAP APRON

SECTION VIEW

RIPRAP THICKNESS = SEE SCHEDULE

600X OR EQUALGEOTEXTILE FABRIC MIRAFI

D50= SEE SCHEDULE

APRON LENGTH L =

PLAN VIEW

2:1 M

AX

FLAT

2:1

W2

2:1 MAX

1. RIPRAP TO BE PROCESSED ANGULAR ROCK

2. RIPRAP GRADIATION SHALL BE A WELLGRADED MIX FROM ABOUT 1.5 TIMES D SIZE TO25 PERCENT OF THE D SIZE

3. THE RIPRAP STONES SHALL BE CAREFULLYPLACED FROM THE TOE OF THE SLOPE UPWARD

4. STONES SHALL BE LOWERED TO THE SLOPEAND NOT BE ALLOWED TO DROP MORE THAN 12"ONTO THE GEOTEXTILE

5. THE FINISHED SURFACE SHALL BE A RELATIVELYSMOOTH, UNIFORMLY SLOPED SURFACE

NOTES

APR

ON

WID

TH =

SEE

SC

HED

ULE

PIPE DIA = D

MAX

LVARIES

W1 APRON WIDTHSEE SCHEDULE

1 PIPE DIAMETER

RECEIVING ELEVATION

TOP OF RIP RAP FLUSHWITH PIPE INVERT

SEE SCHEDULE

TYPICAL RIPRAP APRON SCHEDULECULVERT APRON LENGTH RIPRAP WIDTH

12 8 9

DIAMETER- D (IN.) - L (FT.) -W1 (FT)

WIDTH-W2 (FT) D50 (IN.)

RIPRAP THICKNESS

(IN.)

3 146

OR 1'-6" MIN

15

18

2436

4248

10

13

1829

3339

4

5

69

1112

6

7

811

1216

14

16

1825

2736

12

15

2032

3743


Tel. 207-200-2100




SHEET NUMBER:


D-2NTS 10-10-14

EROSION CONTROL DETAILSFOR:


U.S ROUTE 112-2-14A JRS SUBMIT SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO CITY8-28-18B JRS SUBMITTED FOR PLANNING BOARD RE-APPROVAL

8-28-18

WORKSHOP ITEM: C December 10, 2018

Exhibit Item: 2

30

Saco Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018

City Hall Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 5:30 PM

WORKSHOP: 5:30PM 1. Contract Zone proposal for 506 Main St. Applicant is Mammoth Acquisitions, LLC. Tax Map

40, Lot 57. Zoned B2-c.

Natalie Burns, Esq., and Darrin Stairs, PE on behalf of applicant MammothAcquisitions, LLC is seeking to workshop a contract zone proposal that would result in theremoval of the existing Rosa Linda’s restaurant, and construction of a new buildingproposed for a “Hospital and Clinic for Humans,” a permitted use in the B-2c zone. The newstructure is proposed to be an urgent care facility, Convenient MD. The request for a CZ isto allow less parking spaces from the requested 52 down to 30 spaces. As well as reducingthe front setback from 40ft to 15ft. Also requested is the height of the building from 35ft to43ft. As well as more signage requested than what the ordinance states.

2. Sketch plan review of a proposed 6,000s.f. commercial building at the corner of Rt. 1 andCascade Rd. Applicant is Nate Libby. Tax Map 62, Lot 1-2. Zoned R-3.

Walter Pelkey of BH2M Engineers LLC, on behalf of applicant Amari Holdings LLC (Mr. Nate Libby), requests feedback for a 6,000 sf retail building located at the corner of Rt 1 and Cascade Rd (Tax Map 62, Lot 1-2). The applicant proposes to construct a 6,000 sf commercial building (retail use) at the site of Evolution Gym, a 9,600 sf facility that was approved by the Planning Board in 2016. The parcel is zoned MU-3 and is also part of the Cascade Contract Zone. Retail uses are permitted in this contract zone.

No minutes were taken for the two workshop items. Although Board discussion of these items can be heard of the audio on the City’s website.

REGULAR MEETING 6:00 PM

Planning Board Members Present: Neil Schuster, Chair, Alyssa Bouthot, Joyce Leary Clark, Matt Provencal, Rene Ittenbach, Vice Chair; Peter Scontras; Don Girouard

31

Staff Members Present: Joseph Laverriere, City Engineer; Zach Mosher, City Planner;

NOTE: Meeting is audio recorded. These audio records will be posted on the City’s website and available for public review within one week of the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS AND PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Minutes of October 2 and October 16, 2018

Because of the late submission of the October 2nd minutes, the Board decided to defer the review of the minutes to the next meeting.

2. Site Plan review for the construction of a Single-Family Residence at 15 Oceanside. Applicant isGeorge and Nancy Driscoll. Tax Map 11, Lot 116-1. Zoned R-1c and Shoreland Overlay.

Don: brought to the Boards attention that he is an abutter to the Driscoll’s and had recused himself at the meeting when the Driscoll’s had applied for a contract zone just about a year ago, and he took the position as an abutter. So he asked the Board to consider whether he should participate as a Board member on this review.

Neither the Board or the applicant had any objection.

Zach Mosher: Dow and Coulombe, on behalf of applicant Nancy Driscoll, seeks site plan approval for a contract zone approved on November 20, 2017. The project is now subject to site plan review, the focus of which is the split of a residential parcel into two parcels, with the less-developed parcel proposed as the site of a new single-family dwelling.

Longer-serving Board members will recall that the primary purpose of the approved contract zone was to reconfigure the parcel identified as Tax Map 11, Lot 116 into two buildable parcels. The Driscoll’s existing residence remains on Map 11, Lot 116. The remainder of the parcel is now identified as Map 11, Lot 116-1.

The existing Driscoll parcel (pre-contract zone) is 0.246 acre (10,743 s.f.), and as such is a conforming lot in terms of area in the R-1c district. It is also located in the Shoreland Overlay district. See the attached contract zone agreement for modifications to the lot and yard requirements that detail the area, frontage and width of each of the smaller lots resulting from the CZ-sanctioned lot split.

The proposal requires review by the Maine DEP, including a Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Sand Dune permit. See attached letter from Mark Stebbins of the DEP, which also mentions the Permit by Rule application that was submitted by the applicant on July 6, 2018, for which permission was sought to remove an existing shed and patio from Lot 116-1. The Sand Dune permit has not yet been issued, and in the event that an eventual buyer may have their own ideas of an acceptable building design, the plan is for that eventual buyer to obtain the Dune permit. The draft Conditions of Approval address this requirement. The

32

structure is required to meet current Shoreland Zoning regulations and floodplain regulations, as the proposed structure is currently located mostly in the AO, and partly within the VE flood zones.

DEPARTMENT REVIEW –

Police Department – No comment.

Fire Department – No comment.

Code Enforcement – As Dick Lambert notes, the future buyers of Lot 116-1 will dictate the final design of the new dwelling. A 20’ x 42’ footprint is shown on the plan, but if the buyers prefer something different, they will be required to return to the Board for review.

Engineering Department / Planning Department – Planning wanted to make sure the applicant understand whether it was allowable to park cars above the proposed subsurface wastewater location.

Mike Coulombe, Dow & Coulombe, representing the Driscoll’s: As part of the Contract Zone Agreement that was approved between the Driscoll’s and the City of Saco in 2017, the Driscoll’s are required to apply for a site plan review to the Planning Board. This parcel is located within the R-1c and the Shoreland Zone Overlay. Per the CZA minimum lot and yard requirements were modified to accommodate the dimensions of the subject parcel. As Zach noted, this parcel is located mostly within an AO Zone on the Flood Maps, and partly within the VE Zone, therefore, the parcel will be serviced by public water and with on-site subsurface wastewater disposal system. The chamber system is designed to support the weight of vehicles parked over the system, as well as pavement. The building footprint proposed is 20ft by 42ft. The Driscoll’s intend to sell the parcel without constructing a building, and therefore will leave a final building design to the discretion of the purchaser of the parcel.

Don: Whoever purchases this parcel, is going to have to meet the conventional setbacks of the zoning ordinance, because the contract doesn’t make those provisions.

Peter moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Rene, and so moved 7-0

Neil: The Board received 2 emails from abutters. One from Laury Delham, and one from Dennis LeClair expressing their concerns.

Rene moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Peter, and so moved 7-0

WAIVERS – The applicant is requesting several waivers regarding site plan review as not applicable to this project due to its limited nature and scope. Specifically, the applicant is requesting waivers from the items in Sec. 230-1104: (4) (5) (6) (7) (9) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (22). Staff is supportive of these waiver requests as they are not applicable to this site plan review.

The Board discussed the waivers

33

Matt: Just because the Board is waiving these items, doesn’t mean that we are waiving the requirements to DEP and Dick Lambert in the Code office.

Matt: “Move that Board grant waiver for the following items in Sec. 230-1104: (4) (5) (6) (7) (9) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20).” Seconded by Rene, and so moved 7-0

Don: “Move to approve the request from applicant Nancy Driscoll for site plan review of a proposed single-family dwelling at 15 Oceanside Drive, subject to the Conditions of Approval dated October 16, 2018” with the added condition that the septic system design of risers and covers be installed to comply with applicable FEMA zoning, seconded by Rene, and so voted 7-0.

3. Fourth Subdivision Amendment proposal for Saco Factory West. Applicant is ROTMlofts, LLC. Tax Map 37, Lot 1.

Zach Mosher: Tom Federle, on behalf of applicant ROTM Lofts, LLC, proposes a subdivision amendment that would allow Building #7 on Saco Island and only the land directly underneath (smaller building behind Run of the Mill brew pub) to be conveyed to another owner, Ryan Fitzpatrick. Existing easements for this building will not change. The property will still have easements and other benefits including allowance for overhangs or other encroachments onto the land of ROTM Lofts, the current owner of this building and Run of the Mill Brew Pub. This proposed conveyance will create an additional lot; therefore, a subdivision amendment application reviewed by the Planning Board is required. No other exterior changes are proposed.

Except for a small portion of the building used by the brew pub as a seasonal kitchen, Building 7 is currently empty. The new owner will allow the kitchen to continue operation, as the current applicant is not proposing any interior or exterior changes at this time. Any interior revisions would be proposed by the next owner. As mentioned, the request now is to just separate ownership.

Under the original redevelopment plan for the island, site plan and subdivision approvals were granted for SI Development, LLC on Saco Island on July 17, 2007. The project included perhaps 2/3 of the island: portions of Building 1, Buildings 3, 4, and 7 on the west side of the island, and a proposal for thirty condominium units on the easterly side of the island/Main Street. The DEP reviewed and approved the Site Location of Development permits for the project – one for the east side, one for the west -- the Saco River Corridor Commission also issued an approval, as did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Tom Federle, lawyer on behalf of ROTM Lofts, LLC. As Zach has mentioned, this is the 4th amendment. We are separating the ownership of Building #7 and the land underneath the building.

34

Nothing on the ground is changing. There are no setback requirements. There are easements around the perimeter of the building that will remain. The only thing that is changing is the ownership, which means we must create a lot, that will be conveyed into the new ownership. And by creating that new lot, means an amendment to the subdivision. No changes are being made to the plan. The only change is that the previous owner was Saco Island West, who sold it to ROTM Lofts, LLC, who in turn is selling Bldg. #7 to Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Matt moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Alyssa, and so moved 7-0 No comments from the public Matt moved to closed the public hearing, seconded by Alyssa, and so moved 7-0

Determination of Completeness

Peter: “I move to find the application for the subdivision amendment complete.”, seconded by Matt, and so voted 7-0.

DEPARTMENT REVIEW




Code Enforcement – Code Enforcement does not have any concerns with the amendment as proposed here.

Joyce: “I move that the Board approve the amended subdivision plan submitted by Tom Federle for the purpose of splitting Building 7 off from the remainder of Saco Island West to Ryan Fitzpatrick, based on the application submitted and on the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval dated July 17, 2007, and as noted below:

1) The application meets the requirements of Articles 1, and 7 of the Saco Subdivisionregulations

2) The applications meets the requirements of the Conditions of Approval below (datedOctober 2, 2018)

3) The application recognizes that the original Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact(July 17, 2007) remain as part of the record and in effect.”

Seconded by Rene, and so moved 7-0.

1. Contract Zone Review for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) at 644 MainSt. Applicant is L&M Properties. Tax Map 42, Lot 9-1. Zoned B-2B.

35

Zach Mosher: Michael Beale, on behalf of applicant Leon Foster, is proposing a contract zone for the construction of a 130’ Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) monopole tower on an undeveloped parcel. The site would be accessed from the parcel at 644 Main Street, and be installed on the parcel identified as Tax Map 42, Lot 9-1 – directly abutting 644 Main, and owned by L&M Properties, Inc. Each parcel is owned by Leon Foster, or a corporation through which Mr. Foster conducts business. The tower, or Wireless Telecommunication Facility as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, would operate within a fenced 100’ x 100’ area, much as others the Board has reviewed, and will provide for multiple carriers.

The applicant was approved for a contract zone (CZ) at this location for the construction of an identical wireless facility in May 2014. In January 2015, the applicant obtained site plan approval from the Planning Board. However, the applicant did not obtain necessary approvals and permits from the City within the allotted timeframe of the contract zone, which nullified the contract zone.

Current zoning does not allow cell towers. Cell towers are not an allowed use in the B-2b zone, though as the applicant points out, Radio or TV Transmission Towers are, as a conditional use. The company has identified the area as important to improving its coverage, and is willing to move forward with a proposed contract zone.

The draft CZ agreement is simple and straightforward, proposing only to amend Section 410-6B to allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on the subject property.

If the proposal succeeds with the Council, the applicant would return to the Board for site plan review and be subject to the standards found in Section 230-728.

When Sec. 728 was adopted by the Council in 2002, consideration was given to where the City zoned for cell towers. It was agreed that the Turnpike corridor made sense: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities are conditional uses in the I-1 and I-3 zones (Mill Brook Business Park). Elsewhere, such facilities would be subject to contract zoning. Therefore, contract zoning is almost a routine route for cell tower approval in Saco.

DEPARTMENT REVIEW:




Planning Department – Planning is supportive of the subdivision application.

Code Enforcement /City Attorney – The city attorney reviewed the contract zone on October 3rd 2018. His comments related to the fall down zone being more clearly defined as well as providing greater substance around the city’s possible use of the tower. The applicant reviewed those comments and incorporated the information into the draft contract zone application in your packet.

36

PLANNING BOARD ACTION- The Planning Board is asked to review the proposed contract zone using Section 230-1405 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the following criteria to forward a recommendation to the City Council: F. Recommendation. Before forwarding a recommendation on a contract zoning amendment to the CityCouncil, the Planning Board shall make a finding on each of the four standards in this subsection. Afavorable recommendation to the Council requires a positive finding on all four standards. If the PlanningBoard makes a negative finding on any of the standards, its recommendation shall be negative. ThePlanning Board shall base its recommendation on whether:

(1) The rezoning is for land with an unusual nature or location;(2) The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;(3) The rezoning is consistent with, but not limited to, the existing uses and permitted useswithin the original zone; and(4) The conditions proposed are sufficient to meet the intent of this section.

Michael Rogers, agent for the applicant: This property was approved for a cell tower back in 2014. The reason this did not get developed was that AT&T cut their program, and decided not to move forward. So Mr. Foster was left without a tenant. He now has a National carrier who would like to locate here, with a possible second carrier. So, Mr. Foster would like to move forward with an approval. There would be no changes to the Site plan. The current structure on the property has been locked up and should/will be demolished.

Peter: It speaks of any interruptions in frequency, but for some reason the tower gets destroyed. The tower tells me it’s just that tower. It really should say THAT TOWER OR SUBSIQUENT TOWERs should be replaced. Don: If the tower is destroyed for some reason or technology changes, The City should have the privilege of having it there. Also, should the vacant building be removed before any construction of the tower? Board decided that could be added as a condition at Site Plan review.

Don moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Peter, and so voted 7-0. Roger Gay, City Councilor, Ward 2: asked how tall the cell tower would be? The Board answered 130’. Alyssa moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Peter, and so voted 7-0.

Determination of Completeness – The application has been found to be complete as per Section 1403-3.

Rene: “I move to find the application for the contract zone review to be complete.”, seconded by Alyssa, and so moved 7-0

Rene: “I move that the Planning Board forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the four criteria for the proposed contract zone that would allow a Wireless Telecommunication Facility to be installed and operate on the parcel at 642 and 644 Main Street.”, seconded by Alyssa, and so moved 7-0.

37

https://ecode360.com/32494467#32494467

https://ecode360.com/32494468#32494468

https://ecode360.com/32494469#32494469

https://ecode360.com/32494470#32494470

Respectfully submitted by,

Maggie Edwards

Board Secretary

38

Administration Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Phone: (207) 282-4191

WORKSHOP ITEM: D December 10, 2018

Kevin L. Sutherland City Administrator

[email protected] facebook.com/sacomaine

Twitter.com/sacomaine Instagram.com/saco.maine

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Lovell and City Council FROM: Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator DATE: November 8, 2018 RE: Language in Park North Contract Zone vs. City Zoning Code

There is language in the Park North Contract Zone agreement between Park North Development, LLC and Preston Properties, LLC and the City of Saco (first approved in 2005, amended in 2013 and 2016) that has staff and the Planning Board unsure how to proceed.

The Planning Board has now approved 8 subdivision amendments to the overall Park North Subdivision, the most recent on Nov 6. The contract zone language in item III, Sec.11 states: “Revisions to the Lot designations, lines or layouts within any Parcel may be made by the Applicant with the approval of the Planning Board but without further approval or consent of the City Council.” As far as staff is aware, this is the only contract zone (CZ) in the City of Saco that grants any amendment authority to the Planning Board.

In Article 3, Sec. 11 the Park North CZ says: “All details shown on the plans and application materials submitted to date and during the course of site plan and subdivision review by the Planning Board are hereby incorporated into this contract by reference.” Staff understands this to mean that any change to the subdivision plan is a change to the contract zone itself. This is also Tim Murphy’s understanding.

Sec. 1405 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance provides only the Council the ability to amend a contract zone, however the Planning Board has approved 8 subdivision amendments so far based on the information in the contract zone.

The Planning Board approved the original overall subdivision in January 2008 and here is a list of proposed amendments to the plan approved by the Planning Board to date:

39


https://facebook.com/sacomaine

https://twitter.com/sacomaine?lang=en

https://www.instagram.com/saco.maine/?hl=en

https://ecode360.com/32494439

1. Amendment – Division of Lot C1, resulting in the creation of Lot C5 at the corner ofCascade Road and Rte. One, approved 1/22/08

2. Amendment – Further division of Lot C1, resulting in the creation of Lot C6, approved1/20/09. Applicant Wagner Drywall received site plan approval for the commercial buildingthat now houses a day care and other uses.

3. Amendment – Creation of Lots C4A, C4B and 22. The latter was carved out of the existingLot 18 at the corner of Portland Road and Main Road (now Waterfall Drive) and is nowoccupied by the former Ocean Communities credit union building. Lots C4A and C4B werecreated from the existing parcel that lies between Cascade Road and Old Cascade Road. It isdescribed in the parcel deed for the Cascade Inn as a separate parcel from the larger, formerInn property. Zones C4A and C4B have since been developed with single family dwellings.

4. Amendment – Easements associated with a force main and the pump station for Lots C1,C5 and C6 were created.

5. Amendment – Updating dimensional regulations in parcels 2, 3, and 4 of the contract zoneagreement. The space and bulk regulations in Parcel 4 necessitated a change to thesubdivision plan for Parcel 4.

6. Amendment – Modified the residential area of Lot 18.

7. Amendment• The 1st part proposes to alter phases 3 and 5 within the residential portion of the

development which will consist of consolidating the proposed right-of-way of BearsDen Rd (not currently built), the previously proposed Open Space 1, lot C4 and lotCA-5 to accommodate 17 duplexes.

• The 2nd part proposes to subdivide lot 18 (at the corner of Waterfall Dr andPortland Rd) to create an approx. 6 acre parcel for future development of a 72-unitapartment building. (Condition of approval number 16 from the original approvalstated in part that “development of individual parcels for residential or commercialbuildings and uses shall be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board.” Assuch, a site plan application for the proposed apartment building will be submitted tothe Board)..)

40

8. Amendment - This amendment consolidates Lots 6 through 15 (located in the north easternportion of the parcel), the previously proposed right-of-way for Minor Park Road, thepreviously proposed right-of-way for approximately 1,100 feet of Dawn Marie Drive and theparcel formerly containing Stormwater Detention Area 2. The purpose of this change is toaccommodate the out-sale of approximately 27.52 acres to Maine State Department ofDefense. As a result of this out-sale, it is necessary to reconfigure the roadway alignmentsand intersection of Dawn Marie Drive & East View Parkway. Additionally, former lot 5 andthe parcel containing Stormwater Detention Area 1 are proposed to be adjusted. Inconjunction with these changes, the applicant is proposing to subdivide Lots 2 through 4 tocreate six lots.

Working in concert with the developer, I am bringing this to Council as staff and I believe the Council needs to at the least be made aware of these prior amendments, to retroactively approve them (should the Council deem this necessary), and to finally consider changes to our ordinance and amend the language in the contract zone that would provide greater clarity for any future amendments to the plan.

Staff has also included a memo that addresses the applicant’s standing in regards to the requirements listed in the Park North contract zone and that is included in the attachments. Included with that memo is a compliance summary that staff asked the applicant to provide outlining their standing as well as a more formalized map of existing and proposed trails and sidewalks in the overall Park North development.

Attachments include:

Exhibit 1: Council amended Park North Contract Zone

Exhibit 2: Map of Subdivision Plan

Exhibit 3: Map of Planning Board Approved 8th amendment Exhibit 4: Memo - Contract Zones: Park North and Cascades Exhibit 5: Park North Contract Zone Requirements Exhibit 6: Overall Park North sidewalk and trail map

41

Contract Zone Agreement

By and Between Park North Development, LLC and Preston Properties, LLC as Applicants

and the City of Saco

December 20, 2005 Amended September 3, 2013 Amended October 17, 2016

THE CITY OF SACO HEREBY ORDAINS:

1

I. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saco, dated January 2, 1985 and amended through March 4, 2013 is hereby amended as further described in this Agreement by and between Park North Development, LLC and Preston Properties, LLC (collectively referred to as the "Applicants") and the City of Saco.

1. The Applicants propose a mixed-use development on the parcels at 1031 Portland Road and Eastview Parkway (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property consists of two parcels identified on City of Saco tax maps as Tax Map 63, Lot 6 (cun-ently owned by Park North Development, LLC) and Tax Map 64, Lot 6-1 ( cun-ently owned by Preston Properties, LLC) excepting only the portions of such parcels that are located within the Resource Protection District. The "Subject Property" for purposes of this Contract Zone Agreement shall not include these areas located within the Resource Protection District.

2. The Subject Property is an approximately 236 acre contiguous tract of largely undeveloped land with the exception of a multi-tenanted commercial building on the parcel identified as Map 64, Lot 6-1 at the corner of Eastview Parkway and Portland Road.

3. Map 63, Lot 6 is owned by Park North Development, LLC by virtue of a Quitclaim Deed with Covenant dated April 14, 2005, a copy of which has been submitted by the Applicant. Said deed is recorded in Book 14436, Page 83 at the York County Registry of Deeds.

4. Map 64, Lot 6-1 is owned by Preston Properties, LLC by virtue of three deeds each dated December 24, 2003, copies of which have been submitted by the Applicant. Said deeds are recorded in Book 13817, Page 172, Book 13817, Page 174 and Book 13817, Page 176 at the York County Registry of Deeds.

5. Evidence of right, title and interest is established by virtue of the above referenced deeds.

6. The Subject Property is in the Business Park (BP) zoning district.

42

2

7. The Applicant has submitted a copy of Articles of Organization of Limited Liability Company filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, dated June 5, 2000, (for Preston Properties, LLC) and January 28, 2004 (for Park North Development, LLC) as both being authorized to do business or carry on activities in the State of Maine. Timothy H. Norton, 53 Exchange Street, Portland, Maine 04101 is named as Registered Agent for both Preston Properties, LLC and Park North Development, LLC.

8. The Subject Property has an area of 236 +/- acres. The Subject Property is proposed to be divided into four ( 4) Parcels with each Parcel to be further divided into multiple Lots as shown on a Plan dated November 7, 2005, prepared by Sebago Technics, One Chabot Street, Westbrook, Maine 04098 (the "Plan")(as the same may be revised with the approval of the Council), for the purpose of constructing a multi-use development. In order to facilitate the multi use nature of the project, each Parcel shall have distinct space and bulk and use restrictions as set forth below.

9. The Applicant proposes certain uses that are allowed and consistent with the current zoning of the Subject Property. The Applicant further proposes certain additional uses, such as residential and multi-family housing and retail uses that are not allowed uses given the current zoning of the Subject Property. The Applicant has therefore made application for a Contract Zone under the provisions of Article 14 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance.

10. The Applicant recognizes that no public sewer system is readily available within the Portland Road right of way to service the Subject Parcel but the Applicant is aware that the City of Saco anticipates that Village Works, LLC, developer of a parcel of property on Cascade Road near the Subject Property may be extending the public sewer system across that property. The Applicant proposes to make provision for the extension of the City of Saco sewer system from its anticipated terminus at the southwesterly boundary of the Subject Property. If the Village Works, LLC development does not materialize than the Park North Development, LLC will pursue the extensions independently in order to accommodate this development.

II. This contract amends the Saco Zoning Ordinance as follows:

1. This Agreement supersedes Article 4. District Regulations of the Saco Zoning Ordinance. District Regulations applicable to the Subject Property shall instead be governed by the terms of this Agreement.

2. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Section 10.12 or Section 11.14 of the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Saco, the Applicant shall be authorized to implement a Low Impact Design stormwater management system for the Subject property. This system shall comply with existing City and State water quality and quantity standards.

3. The definitions of Front, Side and Rear Yards shall remain the same as in the Saco Zoning Ordinance. The following shall apply as the exclusive Space and

43

3

Bulk Requirements applicable to the Subject Property Section and 412 shall be deemed amended accordingly but only as to the Subject Property:

PARCELl:

Minimum Lot Size: 7,500 Square Feet

Minimum Street Frontage: 50 feet

Minimum Front Yard: 50 feet for the front yard facing Route 1 if any, 20 feet for all other front yards

Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district; 10 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation district

Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district; 10 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation district

Maximum Building Height: 60 feet

Maximum Lot Coverage: 40%

Minimum Lot Area/D.U. 1,250 s.f.

Density: NIA

PARCEL2:



Minimum Front Yard: 75 feet for the front yard facing Route 1 if any, 30 feet for all other front yards


Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district; 15 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation disttict



Density: NIA

I

I I I

I ii I

,I ,,

I

44

4

PARCEL3:



Minimum Front Yard: 20 feet (0 feet between units in a multi unit building)

Minimum Side Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district, 10 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation district (0 feet between units in a multi unit building)

Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district, 10 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation district (0 feet between units in a multi unit building)



Density: Not more than 120 units

Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 3 ,000 Square feet * total acreage of parcel divided by the nu1nbcr of units proposed

Minimum Net Residential Density for multi-family dwellings 1,250_s.f. per unit

PARCEL4:



Minimum Front Yard: 10 feet (0 feet between units in a multi unit building)

Minimum Side Yard: 10 feet (0 feet between units Ill a multi unit building)

Minimum Rear Yard: 10 feet (0 feet between units in a multi unit building)



Density: Not more than 300 units

Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 12,500 s.f. *total lot acreage divided by the total number of units proposed

Minimum Net Residential Density 1 lot or unit per 7,500 s.f.

45

5

4. The pennitted and conditional uses otherwise applicable to the Subject Property pursuant to Section 410 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance (including Sections 410-1 through 410-18) (the "Use Restrictions") are hereby superseded and rendered inapplicable to the Subject Property and in their place, the following shall apply as the exclusive Use Restrictions applicable to the Subject Property and Section 410 shall be deemed amended accordingly but only as to the Subject Property:

PARCEL 1:

PERMITTED USES:

1. Reserved. 17. Multi-family housing, no units within 600 feet of Rte. One right of way.

18. Health care clinics for humans 2. One caretaker's apartment within a 19. Hospitals

non-residential use 20. Essential Services 3. Hotels and Motels 21. Animal hospitals and veterinarian 4. Retail Businesses and Uses with no offices

more than 80,000 s.f. of floor area 5. Accessory retail sales of goods 22. Any use permitted in the Resource

manufactured on the premises Protection District 6. Artist and crafts person studios 23. Accessory Uses 7. Eating establishments 24. Municipal Uses 8. Eating and Drinking establishments 25. Public Utility Building 9. Health and Fitness Clubs 26. Quasi-public Uses 10. Private Clubs 11. Financial Institutions with drive 27. Public parks and playgrounds

through 28. Public Schools 12. Professional Offices 29. Private Schools 13. Business Offices 30. Commercial Schools 14. Personal Services 31. Nursery Schools 15. Business Services 32. Day care center 16. Repair Services 33. Adult day care centers, Types 1 and 2

CONDITIONAL USES:

1. Car washes 4. Reserved 2. Indoor recreation/amusement centers 3. Enclosed sports facilities 5. Commercial recreation

6. Radio and TV antennas

46

6

PARCEL2:

PERMITTED USES:

1. Hotels and Motels 16. Accessory uses 2. Accessory retail sales of goods 17. Essential services

manufactured on the premises 18. Municipal uses 3 Eating establishments 19. Public Utility Building 4. Eating and Drinking establislnnents 20. Quasi-public uses 5. Accessory food service facilities 21. Public parks and playgrounds 6. Artist and crafts person studios 22. Commercial Schools 7. Health and Fitness Clubs 23. Nursery Schools 8. Financial Institutions with drive 24. Day care center

through 25. Adult day care centers, Types 1 and 2 9. Professional Offices 26. Retail uses with less than 15,000 10. Business Offices square feet of gross floor area 11. Business Services 27. Funeral Homes 12. Private Clubs 28. Personal Services 13. Health care clinics for humans 29. Reserved 14. Research and testing laboratories 30. Indoor Recreation/ Amusement Center 15. Any use permitted in the Resource

Protection District 31. Reserved 32. Agriculture 33. Self-Service Storage Facilities 34. Outdoor Recreation

CONDITIONAL USES:

1. Fully enclosed light industry with no exterior storage

2. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities

3. Wholesale Trade and Warehouses

PARCEL 3:

PERMITTED USES:

1. Multi family dwellings 2. Professional Offices 3. Businesses Offices and

Services

4. Reserved 5. Day care center 6. Adult day care center 7. Accessory Uses 8. Eldercare congregate living 9. Cormnunity living use 10. Assisted living facility 11. Nursing Home 12. Hospitals

13. Any use permitted in the Resource Protection District

14. Home occupations 15. Accessory recreational uses 16. Congregate Housing, including multiple

individual rooms or dwelling units to be occupied as a shared living environment, which may include small individual apartments with kitchens or individual rooms, any of which may be combined with shared community space, shared dining facilities, housekeeping services, personal care services and other similar.

47

PARCEL4:

PERMITTED USES:

I. Any use permitted ofright in the R-2 District

2. Manufactured housing units 3. Multi family dwellings in structures

containing no more than 8 units each 4. Elderly congregate housing 5. Home Occupations

CONDITIONAL USES:

1. Any use permitted as a conditional use in the R-2 District and not otherwise listed herein as a use permitted as a matter of right

7

6. Any use permitted in the Resource Protection District

7. Boarding homes 8. Home babysitting service 9. Adult day care center, Type 1 10. Community Center for the use of the

residents ofland in Parcels 3 & 4

III. This Contract Zone is subject to the following conditions and restrictions, as provided for in Section 1403 of the Saco Zoning Ordinance:

1. Development of the mixed-use development described herein as proposed by the Applicant is allowed on the Subject Property.

2. All structures constructed, located, renovated or reconstructed on the Subject Prope1ty shall be connected to and serviced by the Biddefurd Saeo Maine Water Company and to the municipal sanitary sewer system.

3. The portion of the Applicants' land shown on the Project Plan as "Land to be Conveyed" shall be conveyed to the City of Saco or its designee at no cost to the City no later than three (3) years after the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any dwelling unit or commercial structure on the Subject Property.

4. Development on Parcels 1, 2 3, and 4 shall be subject to either Subdivision or Site Plan review by the Planning Board as dictated by the Saco Zoning Ordinance or the Saco Subdivision Regulations.

5. City and Applicant recognize that the 'Sketch Plan' submitted for purposes of Contract Zone consideration is limited in scope and detail. The project is subject to site plan and subdivision review by the Planning Board, and to any and all permits, licenses or approvals which the project may be subject to by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the Maine Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and all other regional, state and federal agencies.

48

8

6. No site plan or subdivision approvals shall be granted by the Planning Board prior to an executed agreement being reached between the City and the Applicant for the design, financing and construction of a functional sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system serving the subject property, all connected to the existing City of Saco sanitary sewer system.

7. The street proposed to provide access to Parcels I, 3 and 4 shall not be constructed as to cross the brook as shown on the Project Plan prior to agreement being reached between the Applicant, City and abutters as necessary for said street to be constructed as a through street to Cascade Road.

8. Applicant is responsible for the design and construction, in consultation with the City or entity designated by the City, of an off-road trail system. Said trail system may be deeded with use restrictions but in no circumstance shall any such restrictions bar free access or prohibit passive recreation by the public. Passive recreation may include activities such as walking, hiking, birdwatching, picnicking, cross-country skiing, or nature photography. Passive recreation shall not include activities that may result result in degradation of the trail system, including but not limited to motor vehicle use, removal of vegetation beyond that necessary for trail construction, disturbance of soil beyond that necessary for trail construction, and hunting. Phase One of the trail system shall be completed by Nov. I, 2017.

9. Failure of the Applicant to submit an application for subdivision review as proposed to the Planning Office for review and approval by the Planning Board within one (I) year of the approval of this Contract Zone shall render this Agreement null and void. This deadline may be extended for successive six ( 6) month periods at the discretion of the City Administrator upon written request submitted to the City Planning Office by the Applicant. In the event that this Contract Zone Agreement becomes null and void, the zoning applicable to the Subject Property shall revert to the Zoning in effect prior to the approval of the Contract Zone.

I 0. Except as addressed in this Contract Zone document, the project shall adhere to all other applicable provisions of the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.

11. All details shown on the plans and application materials submitted to date and during the course of site plan and subdivision review by the Planning Board are hereby incorporated into this contract by reference. The site shall be developed in conf01mance with those plans and materials. Minor changes may be approved by the Planning Office of the City of Saco. Revisions to the Lot designations, lines or layouts within any Parcel may be made by the Applicant with the approval of the Planning Boru·d but without finiher approval or consent of the City Council. Revisions to the Parcel boundruy lines deemed by the Planning Board to be minor may be made by the Applicant with the approval of the Planning Board but without futiher approval or consent of the City Council. Revisions to the Parcel boundary lines deemed by the Planning Board to be significant to the Contract Zoning Agreement shall require prior approval of the City Council.

49

9

12. This Document and Contract Zone affects only the Subject Property identified herein.

13. This contract and its provisions shall specifically and exclusively apply to the Contract Zone request submitted by the Applicant.

14. This Document and the Contract Zone it creates shall not be transferable without approval by the City Council, provided however that upon receipt of final subdivision and/or Site Plan approval (as required), Lots and Units within the Subject Property shall be saleable to third parties.

15. Breach of these conditions, restrictions and/or Agreement by the developer shall constitute a breach of the contract. Said breach of contract shall constitute a zoning violation and shall be subject to enforcement action under the terms and procedures of30-A M.R.S.A. Section 4452.

16. The Council notes that the decision to approve this Contract Zone is significantly impacted by the agreement of the Applicant to extend the public sewer from Cascade Road to and across the Subject Property, (thereby making public sewer available to the northern segment of Route 1) as well as to make possible the potential for interconnecting public streets between the Subject Property and Cascade Road, each of which are significant public benefits to the City of Saco.

17. Payment in full of the off-site mitigation fee of $50,000.00 required by the Maine DOT as part of the Traffic Movement Permit for Park North shall be made to the City no later than April 1, 2017, for safety improvements on U.S. Route One in the vicinity of Ross Road as specified by the MDOT.

18. Payment in full of the $50,000 payment as required by the Cascades Contract Zone, approved by the City Council on Sept. 5, 2006 and approved for amendment by the City Council on Dec. 22, 2014, shall be made to the City for the purpose of trail development and construction on said Gift Lot no later than April I, 2017.

19. As stated in the 2011 Conditions of Approval for the parcel identified as Tax Map 62, Lot 1-0-1, in order to provide for safe, convenient pedestrian access, the applicant and/or property owner are responsible for the construction of a public sidewalk along the Cascade Road frontage of the subject parcel, from its intersection with Waterfall Drive to the easterlymost corner of the parcel at Cascade Road. Said sidewalk shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works no later than April 1, 2017, and constructed no later than November 1, 2017. If proposed within the Cascade Road right of way, the applicant is responsible for securing any required easements.

IV. Pursuant to authority found in 30A M.R.S.A. Section 4352 (8), and the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance, Section 1403, and by vote of the Saco Planning Board on December 20, 2005, and the Saco City Council on May 1, 2006, the following findings are hereby adopted:

50

10

A. The Subject Property is a parcel of an unusual nature and location, for the following reasons:

1. The Subject Property consists of 236 +/- acres of contiguous land with over 1650 feet of frontage on Route 1. Route 1 is a major transportation route in southern Maine and has the ability to carry a large capacity of vehicles on a daily basis. Route 1 is also the commercial corridor in this area which also makes it conducive to commercial, retail and mixed use residential development.

2. The Subject Property is located at the Scarborough/Saco town line and therefore will serve as a gateway to the City of Saco. Such a large parcel of land with such significant frontage in this location provides a rare opportunity to master plan a mixed use development in this critical location. In addition, because of its proximity to Scarborough and Portland, the mixed use nature of this project will be attractive to a wider region rather than servicing just the City of Saco. This will assist in achieving the goal cited in the Local Economy section of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies the desire to "Maintain Saco' s role as a retail and service center for the region"

3. The Subject Property is located just east of the Maine Turnpike and North of the I-195 spur which the Saco Comprehensive Plan indicates is strategic in working with the Turnpike Authority to locate a new interchange in the Flag road/Cascade Road area of the community. This development will serve to enhance those discussions.

4. The Applicant is agreeable to conveying the portions of Tax Map 63, Lot 6 and Tax Map 64, Lot 6-1 which are within the Resource Protection District (approximately 12 acres), identified as "Land to be Conveyed" on the Plan, to the City of Saco to be permanently preserved for the benefit of the public.

B. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Saco Comprehensive Plan, based on the following goals:

Chapter 17, Section F. Land Use, Local Goals

• "To guide development to identified growth areas that are compatible with the existing settlement pattern and that enhances the desired pattern of land use." - The proposed uses promote a transition and mitigation of land use between residential development and commercial use.

• "To accommodate the growth of commercial and industrial activities in designated growth areas where public services and facilities are or can be provided." - The proposed project provides significant commercial growth potential and proposes to extend public sewer to the Subject Property and across the Subject Property to Eastview Parkway and portions of Route 1 north of Cascade Road that are currently not served by public sewer.

51

11

• "To permanently protect environmentally and ecologically sensitive and scenic areas through outright purchase or conservation easements." - The Applicant proposes to convey land within the Resource Protection district to the City, thereby protecting that land from future development

• "To encourage a pattern of land use that can be served efficiently and that does not impose undue burden on the City's financial resources." - The Applicants' development encourages commercial development with ease of access and at a scale that will provide significant commercial expansion with substantial fiscal benefit to the City.

C. The proposed use is consistent with, but not limited to, the exrstmg uses and pe1mitted uses within the original zone. The proposed contract continues the permitted uses currently allowed in the underlying zoning district, while adding additional compatible uses which are anticipated to enhance the development and appearance of the project.

D. The conditions proposed are sufficient to meet the intent of Section 1403. Contract Zoning, of the Saco Zoning Ordinance.

V. Based on the above findings, conditions and restrictions, the City Council hereby incorporates this Contract Zone agreement into the Saco Zoning Ordinance by reference.

By signing this contract, both parties agree to abide by the conditions and restrictions contained herein.

Adopted by the Saco City Council on May 1, 2006, and Adopted as Amended on September 3, 2013, and further Amended on October 17, 2016.

CITY OF SACO

City Administrator

PRESTON PROPERTIES, LLC

By:J'? zfLL_;'tJi ~13~ R. Elliott Chamberlain Authorized Member

PARK NORTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC

By'i? fQL.WJl~L R. Elliott Chamberlain Authorized Member

52

WORKSHOP ITEM: D December 10, 2018

Exhibit Item:2

53

5 0 > --< 0 z ;:: > "

j

mm ~:~ 2 ~ ~ --

~m ;~~~ ~->• z ~a~ ~i;~

'~~~ l"i!!J:!o;

~~~~ ~~~8 o:i:;>Z

!m 'ii~ §§~ ~~~ ~g~ ~ r e

ia~ §8, m ,~ .

,,~

' . ;g ~ !;;j --. " ,_

~ >; ~

"'

I 0,. ~~ 00 ., < ,. (l)r ,., 0 0

5~

i~ 8~

~I" EIGHTH AMENDED OVERALL SUBDIVISION PLAN

~ ~ PARK NORTH AND THE CASCADES " ~ US ROUTE O'°

SACO MAINE - FOR RECORD 01\NER ~ ~ PARK NORTH DEVELOPOMENT, LLC g: Fi 1022 PORTLAND ROAD

SACO MAINE 04-072

~~ ~~

"' ~8

'

h :,iii ~""

.. r "1 ""U""""'

~~~ ~H ~ u~

11: ii m : i~i ~::i~

ii~ 0 • ;o •

~ --< • !il f'' I "

~ ~;! !~! ~ ~§ 0 -0 §

-~1~~~1;;;-, z --< ' ~~~;~~~~~ ;o

' >

m~1~1i! 0 ! --< I N

0 z ~@~ .. · § ~ Cl

~5;;: ~ ~g~ '5~~ ~ ~El~ :u ~~ " ~ ~

z

~§ a~

-s=BAGO T l! CHN I CS

•"'' n 'i ~"' 'i ~H ~~H ! ~~! ~ li:\i"' r>~t'l ~~ 5 o. 5 ~~~

bb

~~ ~ _: ~ ~ ,,

,-! i!l ~~ • ~

~

;HM~Mi! ~-·

~;1MH;~i1 0 ' 0 ~'-" ~? ~i: ;;ji'!~..,~;e2..,,... ~ ~;e2.,,~;e~ ... ,...

~~ -0"'!il~oc8 ~ Z:);: _oc 'i' _ oc!il:;ii ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ :;.,:;·§~ ~= ~= ~~ ~~g~~~g~~ ~~ ~I ~~g;~~g~z

'" ~"' ~~ ;;i~

nmm~ =~

l!!il!!!l i;li"=

~§ ~§ "' ~~ ~§ 0£ ~~~~~ ~~~~

~~ g~ ~,

~~~r~~~~ '

HS Pl.AN S~M.L NOT BE "OOITTEO "'THOUT ~R1 1To.N PER~IS510N F~OLi SEBAGO n:c ... 1cs, INC. MlY At.T[RATl:)NS, ...UlHCRIITD OR ~TH(RYl!S£ , 51t"1..l ~[ AT TH [ U'.'l:R'S SOL[ R;S>< MO '°'"TliOOT LIABILITY fO ~EBAGC l[C,,,. IC'S. INC

08 ~i

~I "

rm ~ ii~~ ~ : ~~

g

'!llim1r1 ~~ ~i~~i~~I:~~~~

~~;1~~;1£~~~ ... ;e~ ... n.,, i:iF'i'

~~~~~~ ~~i

mmm i-~'"'~i:;~""~

l!i~li!i iloir;ilo<11 2"'" ~~~~;i =~~

'~· '~·! ,, ,, o·~ li ~ §

=l ;l lii.

0 0 z --< ;o > 0 --< N 0 z Cl

54

Planning and Development Saco City Hall

300 Main Street

Saco, Maine 04072-1538

Denise Clavette, Director

Zach Mosher, City Planner

Emily Prescott, Econ. Dev. Spec.

Maggie Edwards, Admin. Assistant

Phone: (207) 282-3487 ext. 330

To: City Council Cc: Kevin Sutherland, City Administrator From: Denise Clavette, Planning & Development Director

Zach Mosher, City Planner Emily Cole-Prescott, Economic Dev. Specialist Maggie Edwards, Administrative Assistant

Date: December 4, 2018 Re: Contract Zones: Park North and Cascades

Purpose: The purpose of this memo is to provide the Council an update of the Staff’s November 29th meeting with developer, Elliott Chamberlain, on outstanding conditions of approval in the Park North (Park North and Preston Properties, LLC) and Cascade (Park North and City of Saco) Contract Zones.

Overview: The Council has asked the Planning & Development Department about the status of the conditions of approval in the Park North and Cascade Contract Zone Agreements. Elliott Chamberlain of Park North Development has submitted the attached Compliance Summary, outlining progress on the conditions of the Park North Contract Zone. Staff has also researched progress on the remaining conditions. Planning & Development Staff and City Engineer Joe Laverriere met with Elliott Chamberlain on November 29th to review remaining conditions which have yet to be completed.

Remaining Conditions of Approval: To date, there are two remaining conditions to complete outlined in section 3 of the Park North contract zone. Progress to date and discussion with Mr. Chamberlain is outlined below:

• Section 3, Item 8 Park North Development/Preston Properties LLC Contract Zone (aka: Park NorthContract Zone): According to this contract zone, a trail system was to be completed by November2017. A hand-drawn plan had been in place with a note for completion in 2018. However, CityStaff requested that this plan be formalized, which has been submitted to the Department (Sheet1 of 1: Trail Plan of Park North and the Cascades dated 11/30/18). The notes on this plan anddiscussion with Elliott Chamberlain on November 29th indicate that the trail will be started inDecember 2018 or January 2019. It is understood that this trail creation is behind the scheduledNovember 2017 deadline and Elliott Chamberlain will pursue a separate amendment to the ParkNorth Contract Zone to clarify this deadline.

• Section 3, Item 19 of the Park North Development/Preston Proprieties (aka: Park North Contract Zone):While the Park North Contract Zone is not under consideration for amendment with theproposed modification to add lumber yard use to the Cascade Contract Zone, per this condition,sidewalks were to be constructed with deadlines of April 1, 2017 and November 1, 2017. Thisitem was discussed at the meeting on November 29th with Elliott Chamberlain and Staff.Although the entirety of the contract zone is not transferable, the provision of number 19

WORKSHOP ITEM: DDecember 10, 2018

Exhibit Item: 4

55

2

specifically lists the applicant and/or property owner as the responsible party for constructing said sidewalks. The language specifies: “As stated in the 2011 Conditions of Approval for the parcel identified as Tax Map 62, Lot 1-0-1, in order to provide for safe, convenient pedestrian access, the applicant and/or property owner are responsible for the construction of a public sidewalk along the Cascade Road frontage of the subject parcel, from its intersection with Waterfall Drive to the easterlymost corner of the parcel at Cascade Road. Said sidewalk shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works no later than April 1, 2017, and constructed no later than November 1, 2017. If proposed within the Cascade Road right of way, the applicant is responsible for securing any required easements.” Both Elliott Chamberlain and Staff interpreted this provision to indicate that future property owners may assume the responsibility for construction and continuation of sidewalks as indicated in the conditions of approval for the contract zones. Staff had also requested that Elliott Chamberlain submit a plan indicating sidewalk locations for the record, which he has submitted (Sheet 1 of 1: Trail Plan of Park North and the Cascades dated 11/30/18). At the meeting, Staff discussed Elliott’s rationale for proposing sidewalk construction upon individual lot development, to ensure sidewalks are not constructed solely on the contract zone requirement, then requiring future demolition when new lots are developed.

Conditions of Approval – Fees: Conditions of the Park North contract zone included payment of fees for trails and traffic. Staff and Elliott spoke about these fees; here is the update:

• Section 3, Items 17 and 18 of the Park North Development/Preston Properties LLC ContractZone (aka: Park North Contract Zone): The MDOT off-site mitigation fee (item 17) and trailconstruction fee (item 18) have both been paid in full. The Code Enforcement Departmentcollected these fees as part of the building permit issuance for each unit constructed. For item17, Elliott Chamberlain had paid a lump sum of $30,000 and the remaining amounts duethrough the building permit process. Receipts are on file as part of each building permitapplication.

Compliance with Park North Contract Zone: Elliot Chamberlain has provided the City’s Planning & Development Department with the attached Contract Zone Compliance Summary. Staff is sharing this document to ensure the City Council receives updated information in review of the currently proposed amendment.

Deadlines, Future Amendments & Staff Recommendation: Staff is aware of the deadlines outlined in the Park North Development/Preston Properties LLC Contract Zone (aka: Park North Contract Zone) and recommends that the deadlines as outlined in this contract zone be workshopped with Council at a future date. Elliott Chamberlain will request a deadline revision with City Council at a later date to the Park North Contract Zone, specific to the sidewalks (upon completion of individually developed parcels) and trail construction. Please note: the trail is proposed for construction beginning December 2018, slated for completion early spring 2019.


Exhibit Item: 4

56

Cascade Falls Apartments 05082‐01

CONTRACT ZONE COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Cascade Falls Apartments Park North Contract Zone

The proposed Cascade Falls Apartments is located on Lot 24 of the Park North and Cascades Subdivision. Lot 24 is located within Parcel 1 of the Park North Contract Zone.

In accordance with Section II.3 of the Contract Zone Agreement, the following shall apply as the exclusive Space and Bulk Requirements applicable to the Subject Property Section and 412 shall be deemed amended accordingly but only as to the Subject Property:

PARCEL 1:

Allowed Provided

Minimum Lot Size: 7,500 Square Feet 273,015 S.F.

Minimum Street Frontage: 50 feet 331 feet

Minimum Front Yard: 50 feet for the front yard facing Route I if any, 20 feet for all other front yards

50.75 feet


42.67 feet

Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Lots abutting a residential or conservation district; 10 feet for Lots not abutting a residential or conservation district

61.22 feet

Maximum Building Height: 60 feet 44 feet Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% 10.2% Minimum Lot Area/D.U. 1,250 Square Feet 3,791 S.F. Density: N/A N/A

The proposed use is a 72‐unit apartment building. In accordance with Section II.4 of the Contract Zone Agreement, the permitted uses include Multi‐family housing with no units within 600 feet of the Route One right‐of‐way. The closest portion of the building to the Route One right‐of‐way is approximately 694 feet.

In accordance with Section III of the Contract Zone Agreement, the conditions and restrictions are met as follows:

1. Although allowed within the contract zone, the proposed use is not considered a mixed‐use development.

2. The proposed development will be serviced by Maine Water Company.


Exhibit Item: 5

57

Cascade Falls Apartments 05082‐01

3. The applicant has previously conveyed the parcel associated with the Cascade Falls and isprepared to convey the other agreed upon parcels at the City’s convenience.

4. The proposed development is subject to the Site Plan review provisions of the Saco ZoningOrdinance.

5. The proposed development is subject to the Site Plan review provisions of the Saco ZoningOrdinance. In addition, a minor revision to the Site Location of Development Act permit, aNatural Resources protection Act permit and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit arerequired. The project is subject to the approved Traffic Movement Permit.

6. The sanitary sewer system has been constructed and is owned and managed by the City’s WaterResource Recovery Department.

7. The through road is not proposed to be constructed at this time.

8. The trail system has been coordinated with the previous City planner. Construction of thetrail system is anticipated to begin in December 2018.

9. The Park North and the Cascades Subdivision was previously submitted to the PlanningOffice in accordance with this condition. The Subdivision was approved in January 2008.

10. City staff has reviewed the design plans for compliance with all other applicable provisionsof the City of Saco Zoning Ordinance.

11. All lot boundary modifications, to date, have been presented to and approved by theplanning Board. No modifications to the Parcel Boundaries have been proposed.

12. The proposed development is located within the Contract Zone’s subject property.

13. This contract and its provisions apply to the Contract Zone request submitted by theApplicant.

14. The Contract zone is not proposed to be transferred.

15. No breach of the conditions or restrictions has occurred.

16. The applicant would reiterate that significant capital was expended to extend the publicsewer.

17. The fee has been paid.

18. The fee has been paid.


Exhibit Item: 5

58


Exhibit Item: 6

59

MEMORANDUM

To: Mayor, City Council From: Raynald N. Demers, Chief of Police Date: December 6, 2018 Re: Firearms Discharge Ordinance

The police department along with Parks & Recreation Director Ryan Sommers and Code Enforcement Officer Richard Lambert are working to create additional wording to the current ordinance that would prevent hunting in the area of City owned parks and trails. This group came together after receiving a complaint of a hunter using a walking trail as a shooting lane.

CITY OF SACO, MAINE

Police Department Raynald N. Demers, Chief City of Saco [email protected] 20 Storer Street Corey E. Huntress, Deputy Chief Saco, Maine 04072 [email protected] Tel: (207) 282-8214 Jack L. Clements, Deputy Chief Fax: (207) 282-8215 [email protected]

WORKSHOP ITEM: E December 10, 2018

60




MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Lovell and City Council FROM: Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator DATE: December 6, 2018 RE: Consideration of a Housing Moratorium

Several Councilors have asked about having a housing moratorium put in place.

Under state statute, 30-A § 4356 requires that in order to adopt a moratorium, the Council must find that it is required, “To prevent a shortage or an overburden of public facilities that would otherwise occur during the effective period of the moratorium or that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of any proposed or anticipated development; or Because the application of existing comprehensive plans, land use ordinances or regulations or other applicable laws, if any, is inadequate to prevent serious public harm from residential, commercial or industrial development in the affected geographic area.”

We believe the Council is aiming for the second reason but there has to be a defined inadequacy in our present laws that, if not addressed would pose a serious public harm.

A substantial amount of housing development has (and continues to) occur in Saco which does not necessarily line up with our revised comprehensive plan, but does however, meet the current zoning. In fact, building in Saco has been running at an all-time high for the past two and a half years but we seem to be keeping pace because we’ve increased the staffing levels in code enforcement to meet those demands. We have, however, been falling behind in a couple of other initiatives such as the multi-family dwelling inspection program but that has as much to do with not being able to retain a shared position with OOB as anything else.

Permit revenues have far outpaced department expenses for several years now, so the City is reaping some financial benefit from the boom. Please note that the construction value for commercial construction is ahead of the residential construction this year. This has never happened before now. Permit statistics for this year can be found at this link: Building Permits 2018.xlsx

WORKSHOP ITEM: FDecember 10, 2018

61






https://cityofsaco-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/rlambert_sacomaine_org/EWfT1-u7sOJNgR49KU4gZvoB3ZcdFsgLIy7hmXXjxuBxkQ?e=zamUQn

Administration would not be in favor of prohibiting residential growth (even in the short-term) without first having done a market analysis because from an economics standpoint, the demand still exists, and this would only further drive up home values of our current stock of housing.

With the re-zoning steering committee having its first meeting next week, a community survey release in January, and a community charrette scheduled for February 7th, we are, for all intended purposes looking to have a revised draft of the zoning ordinance for Council review and comment due in May and final document in place by July.

If the Council wants to move forward with this, regardless of Administration’s concerns and the prospect/timeline of a new zoning ordinance, a few things should to be answered: What is the inadequacy and what is the harm we are trying to prevent? Is the harm City-wide or is it within certain neighborhoods or districts? If we can define the problem, we can more easily address the need for action. For example, if the traffic on Buxton Road is the issue, do we stop or restrict development around that road? Or is it more of a problem where the population is growing so rapidly that it is outstripping the City’s present resources? If that is the problem, we can’t really apply a regional solution since this is a City-wide problem. If the Council can identify the problem, staff can more easily craft a solution.

WORKSHOP ITEM: FDecember 10, 2018

62

Administration Saco City Hall 300 Main Street Saco, Maine 04072-1538 Phone: (207) 282-4191

Kevin L. Sutherland City Administrator

[email protected] facebook.com/sacomaine

Twitter.com/sacomaine Instagram.com/saco.maine

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Lovell and City Council

FROM: Kevin L. Sutherland, City Administrator


RE: Policy on Head Count and Budget Amendments

I know the Personnel Committee is considering some changes to their role, but ideally they should

be looking at the structure and timing of how, what, and when policies of the City are reviewed and

brought to Council for consideration/adoption.

While that effort is underway, I’d ask the Council to amend their rules and order of business to

include information about when it is appropriate to bring amendments to the budget.

We have two examples from this year which show an increase of staff (but can be supported within

the department’s current budget) – therefore I had initially only brought this to Council’s attention,

but because the head count results in a longer term impact (ie – a part of FY20 budget), we are now

coming to Council in the form of a budget amendment.

The value in doing this adds to the transparency of changes that a department is making to its

organizational chart.

See next page for the Policy.

WORKSHOP ITEM: GDecember 10, 2018

63






Policy on Employee Head Count

Workshop with Council 12-10-18

Applicability – This policy shall apply to a department’s request for establishing and adjusting its

total number of budgeted full-time equivalents (FTE).

Purpose – The intent of this policy is to provide greater transparency in the total number of full-

time equivalents employed with the City of Saco. City Charter Section 6.09 specifies the types of

amendments to the budget which Council can make after adoption. It does not currently include

language about recognizing changes in FTEs although it is single greatest expense within the budget.

Procedure – As part of the budget process, the Council will review and adopt a list of total full-time

equivalents for each department. On occasion, a department may need to restructure their

organizational chart mid-fiscal year in order to meet the current demand on city services. If the

department needs to add an additional position mid-fiscal year, they will request a budget

amendment to follow the two meeting Council process as outlined in City Charter Section 2.08 c.

Voting “… No ordinance and no appropriation order or resolve, other than an emergency action,

shall be passed until it has been read on two separate days at least seven (7) days apart.”

WORKSHOP ITEM: G December 10, 2018

64

i. call to order - saco, maine workshop packet.pdf · 12/10/2018 · saco city council workshop ....

Documents