Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues 88 Maple Street hearing after parking, turnaround concerns
Summary
The Planning Board granted waivers, found the 88 Maple Street application complete and opened a public hearing, but continued the hearing to Jan. 21 to resolve on-site parking layout, vehicle turnaround and code questions about required spaces.
The Saco Planning Board on Jan. 7 granted three waiver requests for the 88 Maple Street project, found the application complete and opened a public hearing, but voted to continue the public hearing to Jan. 21 so staff, peer reviewers and the applicant can resolve outstanding parking and turnaround issues.
Board action and votes: The board approved waivers to omit a standard boundary survey, a landscaping plan and a lighting plan for the project (motion passed 5-0). Later the board voted 5-0 to find the site-plan and conditional-use applications complete and to open the public hearing; with no speakers appearing the board agreed to continue the hearing to Jan. 21 to allow staff and peer reviewers to finalize parking/layout details.
What the project is: The continued application is a completeness review and public hearing on a site plan and conditional-use proposal for one additional dwelling unit at 88 Maple Street in the medium-density residential zoning district. Staff said the proposal would result in four dwelling units on the lot (two 2‑bedroom and two 3‑bedroom units), and the multifamily parking standard produces a nine-space requirement based on bedrooms and the ordinance’s per‑bedroom formula.
Parking dispute and peer review: Sewell, the city’s peer reviewer, flagged the proposed angled parking and a narrow paved area that would make it difficult for vehicles to complete on-site maneuvers. "The proposed layout will force drivers to back out into Maple Street or back in from Maple Street, which is not recommended," Sewell’s review said (as summarized by staff). The after‑the‑fact packet showed seven paint-marked spaces and staff said the applicant is willing to repave an area outside the public right-of-way to add two spaces, but the board and peer reviewer asked for a revised layout that demonstrates an on‑site turnaround so vehicles are not required to back onto Maple Street.
Other outstanding items: Board members also asked for clearer documentation of the exact number and configuration of units on the property (staff said two 2‑bedroom and two 3‑bedroom units would be present if approved); snow‑storage areas and trash locations; and confirmation that a previously attempted, unauthorized conversion under a prior owner has been corrected by the current owner. Staff and the applicant agreed to coordinate on paint lines, a revised parking plan and further peer‑review comments. The board instructed staff to prepare draft findings of fact and conditions of approval for review at the Jan. 21 meeting.
Ending: The public hearing will reconvene on Jan. 21. Staff will submit revised parking plans, a peer-review response and draft findings and conditions to the board before the continued hearing.
