Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board finds 3‑lot Smutty Lane subdivision application complete but schedules site walk and further engineering review
Summary
The board found the 56 Smutty Lane three-lot subdivision application complete (4-0 with one abstention) but required a site walk, deed restrictions for buffer preservation, and further engineering review of stormwater and groundwater concerns before public hearing July 1.
The Saco Planning Board on Tuesday voted to find complete a three-lot subdivision application for 56 Smutty Lane but required additional field review, deed restrictions to preserve a stream buffer, and further engineering checks on stormwater and groundwater issues.
Applicant Craig Burgess of Acorn Engineering and the owner represented by Jason, for Big Ledge LLC, presented a compact three-lot plan in the Rural Conservation zoning district that uses existing frontage on Smutty Lane. Burgess said the developer will preserve a minimum 100-foot buffer along an unnamed stream on the site and submitted a stormwater report intended to show development will not increase peak runoff at the study point.
City Planner Emily Cole Prescott noted the application packet included a wetland peer review and an "ability to serve" water-email in the after-the-fact materials and described the short timeline for placing the item on the agenda. The applicant reported a small, previously unmapped wetland pocket near Smutty Lane roughly “3, 400 square feet” and said it will be delineated and added to the plans.
Board members raised multiple technical concerns. Member Jeff Brusciau reviewed the submitted disturbance and impervious-area figures and said the applicant’s totals appeared to exceed thresholds that trigger broader state stormwater review: the application listed 7,855 square feet of impervious area and 38,427 square feet (0.88 acres) of disturbed area; Brusciau said adding those figures yielded more than one acre of activity and asked staff and the city engineer to confirm the calculations and regulatory thresholds.
Burgess responded that the applicant would avoid city-level water-quality triggers by capping impervious area at 3,300 square feet per lot so the project stays under Saco’s 10,000-square-foot water-quality threshold for the overall project. He also said the applicant will preserve a 100-foot wooded buffer along the stream, install silt fence erosion controls during construction, and investigate whether a Maine DEP permit-by-rule might apply for any larger disturbance.
Members also asked about high groundwater observed in test pits—Brusciau said limiting factor depths of about 16–18 inches were reported—and requested deed language to protect preserved buffer areas once lots are sold. Horizons Surveying confirmed boundary pins are set for the parcels; a waiver for granite monuments was discussed but the board noted municipal code chapter 188-807 suggests pins may be adequate in many subdivision situations.
The board voted 4-0 with one abstention (Brusciau abstained on completeness) to find the application complete. The board set a site walk for Monday, June 23 at 8:00 a.m. to inspect existing conditions and scheduled a public hearing for July 1. Members asked staff and the city engineer to review the stormwater calculations, verify site distances and survey work, and confirm whether deed restrictions or other conditions should be recorded prior to lot sales.
No final subdivision approval was granted; the completeness determination starts formal peer and city engineering review rather than approving construction.
