A bridge too far in my opinion

The old adage is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

The city of Saco is trying to sell to the neighbors of the proposed project at 60 Bay View Road that 8 condominiums with garages, two stories, basements and eight owners, is the same duck as seasonal vacation cabins with seasonal heat, some with no kitchens and one owner.

The change creates a mini-subdivision without following subdivision regulations – in other words a very high-density project in an existing neighborhood with single-family homes on large lots. My neighbors and I are not against development. We believe the project plans and the developer’s actions on the property should force redevelopment to fall under current R1-A zoning rules, which would allow two substantial-sized houses, not the eight houses with eight owners being proposed on this small lot.

This project has been designated a non-conforming use, “grandfathered” into zoning laws, which happens when zoning laws are changed or created in an area that never had them. It allows the property to be developed in the historic way it had been operating. However, over time, municipalities have worked to reduce non-conforming uses (think of a horse barn in a neighborhood that grew up around the farm) for the health, safety and welfare of residents. If the ownership of the property is transferred or the existing structures are torn down, or fall down there is a risk of losing the non-conforming status.

Concerning this project, Saco City Attorney Tim Murphy warned in a January 2019 letter to Codes Enforcement Officer Dick Lambert that because of the sensitivity of losing the grandfathered use, “the developer should not tear down any structures until a site plan has been approved by the Planning Board. Tearing down non-conforming structures before an approval risks losing the right to re-build them in the future. See Section 203-503© and 504 (B)(1).”

Tim Swenson, who bought the property in February 2019 and without site plan approval from the Planning Commission, immediately applied for and received a permit from Codes Officer, Lambert to clear the land. He did so and removed all trees and structures, with the exception of one small new cabin that had been installed several years ago, which appears to have only been used as storage.

The cabins’ property has been an eyesore in the surrounding well-established neighborhoods developed with large homes that sit on close to an acre of land each, with many old growth trees. The cabins have rarely been used, within the last 7 years that I have lived in the neighborhood.

The previous short-term owners (last 2 years), who the neighbors have been told are related to the Marsden Marina owners, tore down one of the most dilapidated structures. In addition, the owners built a fire pit and put some flowers in the window boxes of the home that sat on the road. I never saw more than a handful of folks there at any time in the summer.

Rumor has it that for the last two years the property was used for the storage of equipment from the Camp Ellis Jet Ski operation and parasailing at Camp Ellis. I saw the stored equipment. Supposedly last summer, some staff from those operations stayed on the property.

As neighbors, we have seen the developer’s work. He built the dense, multi-story, gated community on the old convent site at the ocean off Seaside Avenue and Bay View. He told us at a recent meeting that his plans for the cabins’ property included basements and attics that would remain unfinished to meet the required non-conforming habitable square footage, but owners can later finish those spaces. He is required to have six of the condominiums for seasonal use only, but said the condominium association can later change that. It all seems like the city is allowing this developer to bend the zoning rules for this project, when other developers have said in public meetings that when they proposed similar plans the city denied them. The city seems to have discretionary decision making and much seems subject to interpretation.

Why is the city allowing this developer to call two story condos with eight owners the same as seasonal cabins with one owner? Perhaps the city could share with the neighbors just what magic this project is bringing that makes something that is not a duck, a duck?

The proposal, as you can see from the graph below, replaces seasonal cabins, many with seasonal heat and no kitchens, with these year-round condos. It replaces one owner with 8 owners, who would all be able to rent their condo for one week at a time from May through October. As stated previously, the condo association rules would not prohibit them from deciding at a future date to make the occupancy of the condos year-round. Out of seasonal use restrictions would be dependent upon neighbors to complain to the city who would then have to enforce the non-conforming “rules.”

The beach is an incredible asset for development overall of our city. It provides recreation and joy to countless numbers of families who come to Saco each year or who reside here because of this beautiful asset. Economic development is made easier because of our natural resource assets. Every city has non-conforming uses, grandfathered into zoning laws which were placed on top of existing development.

Sign In: