The Portland City Council has postponed a public hearing and City Council vote on a controversial proposal that would change the zoning rules for the former Portland Co. property on the eastern waterfront to allow taller buildings and a wider range of uses.

The postponement of Monday’s hearing was announced in a news release after city officials recently realized that Portland’s state-certified comprehensive plan expired in February, according to Jessica Grondin, City Hall’s communications director. Long-range comprehensive plans are used to guide zoning decisions.

And given the level of scrutiny and strong opposition to the proposal, Grondin said, the city needs to recertify its comprehensive plan before proceeding with the rezoning.

“Nobody wanted a technicality like this to slip anything up,” Grondin said.

The public hearing and vote on rezoning of the 10-acre property have been rescheduled for June 1, the city said in the news release.

“We’re disappointed with the delay. After nine months, we were looking forward to the opportunity for public comment and a final decision by the Council,” Developer Jim Brady said in a written statement. “However, we support the desire of the City to make sure that when a zoning ordinance is amended, that it is done so in accordance with a properly certified Comprehensive Plan. We look forward to the June 1st public hearing.”

Brady, along with Casey Prentice and Kevin Costello, bought the 10-acre Portland Co. site for $14.1 million in 2013.

Their company, CPB2 LLC, wants to change the zoning to allow for buildings up to 65 feet tall and a broader range of uses. The request, they and city staff argue, is consistent with the Eastern Waterfront Master Plan, and the site is the only parcel in the study area that hasn’t been rezoned.

Tentative uses at the site include a Faneuil Hall-like market, restaurants, spaces for artists and tradespeople to make and sell their wares, an expanded marina, a hotel and residences.

MUNJOY HILL OF TWO MINDS

The proposal seems to have sharply divided Munjoy Hill residents. On Saturday, the Munjoy Hill Neighborhood Association released the results of an online survey that had 18 people (about 41 percent of the respondents) supporting the project, and 21 (roughly 48 percent) opposing it.

Opponents, calling themselves “the Soul of Portland,” worry that an ocean view along Fore Street will be blocked by the development and that access to the waterfront, including to a public trail, will be restricted. Developers say access to the trail will be protected and that several view corridors will allow people to see the water from Fore Street.

A Soul of Portland spokesperson could not be reached for comment Monday.

Rezoning the property, which was once a railroad foundry, is the first and perhaps most important approval needed for the project, which will also be reviewed by the city’s Historic Preservation and Planning boards.

The state asks municipalities to certify their comprehensive plans every 12 years, the city said. These plans are essentially a broad vision statement for a community and can be a litmus test for land use and zoning policies. Opponents of a project can challenge any development proposal if it doesn’t comply with the master plan.

The city’s Comprehensive Plan was last certified in 2003. The city updated that plan in 2005, but apparently no one submitted it to the state for certification.

Mayor Michael Brennan said the state recently contacted the city, inquiring why it hadn’t submitted the plan for recertification. There has been a significant amount of turnover at City Hall since 2005, including the city manager, planning director and chief legal counsel.

“I don’t know who is responsible, but the 2005 plan was not submitted,” he said, adding that he doesn’t anticipate a long drawn-out process. “My hope is we can resolve this with the state as quickly as possible.”

According to the State Planning Office, community comprehensive plans are used both to guide growth and to qualify for state grant and loan programs.

Plans must be reviewed every 12 years to ensure they are consistent with the state’s Growth Management Act, which provides direction to municipalities regarding natural resource management, land use and development.

“An expired Finding of Consistency does not automatically make a plan inconsistent with the Act and this Chapter,” according to Comprehensive Plan rules posted on the state’s website.

Once the state receives a plan, there is a 25-day window for people to comment on it.

 

Copy the Story Link