City of Saco, ME
York County
By using eCode360 you agree to be legally bound by the Terms of Use. If you do not agree to the Terms of Use, please do not use eCode360.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
[HISTORY: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Saco 9-15-2003. Amendments noted where applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES
Building construction — See Ch. 73.

§ 83-1 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following words have the following meanings unless the context indicates otherwise:
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Any application seeking a change in the use of developed or undeveloped land for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, which application requires review, under any state or municipal law, ordinance or regulation, by a reviewing agency, including:
A. 
Application for subdivision.
B. 
Application for conditional use.
C. 
Application for minor conditional use.
D. 
Application for site review.
E. 
Application for minor site plan.
F. 
Application for variance.
G. 
Application for street acceptance.
H. 
Petition for Zoning Map amendment.
I. 
Petition for Zoning text amendment.
J. 
Petition for contract zoning.
K. 
Application for flood hazard building permit.
L. 
Inspection of subdivision, site plan, conditional use, or shoreland zoning improvements.
M. 
Application for shoreland zoning permit.
N. 
Application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an administrative appeal, including the appeal of a Planning Board decision on a conditional use application.
O. 
Applications to the Planning Board for site location permits under the site location of Development Act.
P. 
Application for planned development.
Q. 
Application for amendment of approved plan.
RELATED EXPENSES
The costs to the City for staff review time, including payroll and fringe benefit costs, copying charges, legal costs, advertising and postage costs, and other costs incurred by the City as a result of the review of development proposals and as a result of administering this chapter.
REVIEWING AGENCY
A municipal board, commission or agency required to consider and act on any developmental proposal and could include City Council, the Planning Board, the Board of Appeals, the Code Enforcement Officer, City Planner, and the Conservation Commission or any of them, depending upon the type of application and requirements of state and local law. For purposes of inspections, “reviewing agency” shall also include inspectors designated by the City, including the staff of the Public Works, Sewage Treatment, Planning, Code Enforcement Departments, or contracted engineer, or their designees.
STAFF
Includes, but is not limited to, any employee or official of the City and any independent contractor required to be retained for review purposes.

§ 83-2 Purpose and applicability.

A. 
It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to equitably transfer the related expenses of reviewing development proposals to the applicant, whenever possible, in order to limit the impact on general tax revenues.
B. 
Fees shall be determined by the Council after a public hearing.
C. 
Applications initiated by City officials, boards, agencies or commissions are exempt from the scope of this chapter. Exempt applicants, however, shall pay for the cost of any engineering or legal review required by the reviewing agency when those reviews are performed by contracted firms rather than City employees.

§ 83-3 Fee for related expenses.

Fee to be adopted by the City Council after a public hearing.

§ 83-4 Project account.

A. 
At the time that the deposit imposed by this chapter is paid, an account shall be established by the appropriate staff person. The deposit shall be credited to such account, and the account shall be maintained throughout the entire review process.
B. 
The account will be monitored on a periodic basis. If the account balance is reduced to 25% of the initial deposit, a supplemental deposit is due, which must be paid before any processing continues. An applicant will be notified by appropriate staff when the balance of an initial deposit is reduced to 25%. The applicant must pay the supplemental deposit within 10 working days after the notice is mailed, or review of the project will be discontinued.
C. 
The amount of the supplemental deposit is set at 50% of the initial deposit, except that the appropriate staff person may set the deposit up to 100% of the original fee if substantial additional charges are anticipated. Several supplemental deposits may be necessary, depending upon the complexity of an individual proposal. When all charges have been made, and the applicant has paid all charges and deficits, the project account shall be closed, and any remaining balance shall be returned to the applicant. No land use permits of any kind shall be issued, no signed subdivision plans shall be released or recorded, and no building permits shall be issued for any project that’s permit fee is governed by this chapter, unless all charges due under this chapter have been paid.

§ 83-5 Staff review; accounting.

A. 
Except for initial screening of an application to determine that all required types of information are being submitted, no review of any kind by any staff member may be undertaken for any development proposal until the deposit, established in Appendix A,[1] has been paid.
[1]
Editor’s Note: Said appendix is on file in the City’s office.
B. 
The appropriate reviewing agency, with the advice of staff, may determine that review by non-City staff is required to address particular issues. The applicant will be notified of the estimated costs of the additional review by an outside contractor before that review is undertaken. Such outside review does not include review by the City's contract engineer, who is considered part of the City staff for purposes of this chapter.
C. 
Staff involved in the review of development proposals or in the administration of this chapter shall maintain weekly records of their time expended upon specific applications. Hourly rates shall be established by the Director of Finance. A debit based upon the time expended and the applicable hourly rate shall be charged against the project account, along with any other related expenses.