South Portland Comprehensive Plan Committee

Updated about 1 month ago

South Portland Comprehensive Plan Committee - July 16 2025

Chapters

Call to Order (00:00:28)
The meeting is called to order with a brief introductory statement.

The meeting is officially called to order by the chair, marking the beginning of the session. The chair greets attendees and sets the tone for the meeting.
Roll Call (00:00:44)
Attendance is taken for all members present, with some joining online.

Members of the committee and other attendees are accounted for, with some participating virtually. Each member announces their presence, ensuring a quorum and record of attendance.
Approval of Minutes (00:01:16)
The previous meeting's minutes are reviewed and approved collectively.

The minutes from the last meeting are presented for approval. A motion is made to accept the minutes as a whole rather than individually, which is seconded and approved by the committee.
Schedule Review (00:01:42)
Review of the upcoming schedule with reminders of key dates.

The committee discusses the schedule of upcoming meetings and events, ensuring that all members are aware of key dates and any changes to the planned agenda.
New Business (00:02:32)
Discussion of core themes, goals, and strategies with staff recommendations.

The committee turns to new business, focusing on reviewing core themes, goals, and strategies. Staff provides recommendations and clarifications on language and potential changes to ensure clarity and alignment with objectives.
Policy Revisions and Clarifications (00:03:27)
Review of specific policy language for clarity and removal of duplicates.

The committee reviews policy language for clarity, discussing changes needed for better understanding and removing duplicate items. Staff highlights areas needing rewording and offers detailed explanations of proposed changes.
Discussion of New Geographic Boundaries (00:09:01)
Proposal of new geographic boundaries for policy areas to address confusion.

Staff suggests new geographic boundaries for certain policy areas to replace narrative descriptions, aiming to reduce confusion and improve clarity. The boundaries are discussed as potential replacements for existing descriptors.
Public Comments (00:20:03)
Public comments on traffic, housing, and environmental concerns.

Members of the public express concerns about traffic congestion, housing developments, and environmental impacts. They emphasize the need for comprehensive planning that addresses these issues without compromising community welfare.
Discussion on Tax Revenue and Urbanization (00:35:59)
A discussion on the need to present a balanced view of tax revenue by including cost data alongside density data, and the exploration of alternatives to urbanization.

A participant expressed concern over a previously shown chart that illustrated tax revenue from density without showing the associated costs, which they felt was manipulative. They requested a revised chart showing both sides. They also suggested exploring other methods for municipalities to survive financially without relying solely on urbanization, questioning the narrative that increased development is necessary for tax revenue.
Public Comments on Storm Protection and Community Concerns (00:37:47)
Residents shared frustrations about storm protection measures, comprehensive plans, and the impact of developments on community life, urging for more engagement and consideration of alternative solutions.

John from Beach Street voiced frustration with storm protection discussions and the comprehensive plan, expressing concern for stormwater threats in his neighborhood. He advocated for more specific measures to protect against known water threats. Eva Andrews supported her neighbors, emphasizing the importance of environmentally friendly development and addressing the housing shortage rather than prioritizing seasonal housing. She urged for community needs to be prioritized over developers' interests.
Committee Discussion on Planning and Zoning (00:43:14)
Committee members debated issues related to zoning, setbacks, and usage of coastal areas, focusing on balancing development with community needs and environmental considerations.

The committee discussed the idea of using a visual map to clarify zoning intentions, addressing misconceptions about waterfront condominiums. There was debate about the appropriate uses for coastal areas, with concerns about industrial impacts like fish processing or power plants. Some members advocated for allowing zoning processes to dictate specific distances and uses, while ensuring protections against unconstitutional takings. The conversation also touched on the legal definitions of water-dependent uses and how they apply to local contexts.
Discussion on Waterfront Usage and Development Challenges (01:07:51)
The committee discussed language moderation, the potential for offshore wind servicing, and state policies affecting waterfront uses.

The committee engaged in a discussion about the current language in policies regarding waterfront usage, with some members suggesting moderation or removal of certain language. There was an emphasis on the potential for the area to serve offshore wind facilities, given its ideal location. The committee also discussed the state’s definition of water-dependent uses, which does not include boat storage, and the need for the committee to consider these definitions while planning. The discussion included concerns about critical waterfront areas and the allowable uses as defined by the state.
Committee's Response to Public Feedback and Policy Clarification (01:14:18)
Committee members responded to public feedback, emphasizing the need for clear policies on waterfront development and connectivity.

The committee responded to public feedback regarding the conditions and policies related to the waterfront development area. A straw poll was suggested to gauge committee members' opinions on the current direction. The discussion highlighted the need for clear policies to ensure waterfront areas are used appropriately and to address public concerns. The committee also considered the impact of maintaining or removing existing infrastructure, such as berms, and its implications for storm surge protection and coastal resilience.
Connectivity and Infrastructure Development in Ferry Village (01:20:32)
The discussion focused on connecting Ferry Village with the waterfront area and potential infrastructure changes to improve access.

The committee discussed the importance of connecting Ferry Village to the waterfront area through road and trail access. There was a focus on ensuring that new developments are integrated into the existing community structure and do not remain isolated. The conversation included considerations of current barriers like berms, which serve as both physical and storm protection barriers, and how they might be re-engineered to facilitate better connectivity while maintaining coastal resilience.
Potential Redevelopment of Waterfront Industrial Areas (01:27:00)
The committee discussed the future of industrial areas, including tank removal and site remediation for future development.

The committee considered the future of industrial areas along the waterfront, particularly the potential removal of storage tanks and site remediation. The discussion included the opportunities for redevelopment once these industrial elements are removed, and how this would open up the waterfront for new uses. Committee members debated the challenges and opportunities associated with these changes, including the need for environmental cleanup and the potential for new housing and commercial developments.
Agenda and Policy Adjustments for Waterfront Development (01:33:09)
The committee reviewed and suggested adjustments to the comprehensive plan, focusing on development potential and challenges.

The committee reviewed the language in the comprehensive plan related to the waterfront development area, discussing the potential to expand the city's tax base and create economic benefits. Some members suggested that the language should reflect development challenges and opportunities for connecting neighborhoods to the waterfront and creating commercial opportunities. Adjustments were proposed to better align the comprehensive plan with community goals and public feedback.
Review of Comprehensive Plan and Future Steps (01:42:01)
The committee planned to revisit the comprehensive plan, considering community feedback and potential revisions.

The committee agreed to revisit the comprehensive plan for further discussion and potential revisions. This includes reviewing public feedback and considering how to incorporate it into the plan. The committee acknowledged the complexity of the issues and the need for thorough consideration of all perspectives before finalizing the plan.
Discussion on Residential Density and Height Policies (01:42:17)
The committee discussed how to express residential density and height in planning policies, considering existing policies and the need for clarity in the title bar of documents.

The discussion focused on residential density and height, debating whether these should be determined by zoning or if there should be a preference stated. Current policies were reviewed, and it was noted that the title bar should provide a quick reference but also direct to detailed policies for clarity. Different metrics for density and height in various districts were considered. The committee agreed on removing the minimum lot size as an edit.
Update on Mill Creek Master Plan (01:43:46)
Members discussed updating the Mill Creek Master Plan to include unique areas like Nightvale and Mahoney Middle School, reflecting distinct treatment in public policy studies.

The update of the Mill Creek Master Plan was considered, focusing on expanding its coverage to include areas like Nightvale and Mahoney Middle School. The importance of incorporating findings from neighborhood studies and distinct treatment in public policies was highlighted. There was also a discussion on the areas beyond Nightvale that had not been addressed yet.
Consideration of Coastal Resilience and Development (01:54:54)
The committee explored coastal resilience strategies, discussing the implications of development restrictions and the Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone (CROZ).

Discussion revolved around the Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone (CROZ), with members considering restrictions on development, particularly regarding multi-family housing, until the CROZ is implemented. Concerns were raised about balancing development with resilience efforts, and the need for clarity in policy language was emphasized. The session aimed to ensure that development aligns with the city's resilience goals, especially in vulnerable areas.
Debate on Removal of Residential from Waterfront Areas (02:03:01)
Members debated whether residential development should be removed from waterfront zones, considering economic and environmental impacts.

The committee engaged in a debate on whether to eliminate residential development from waterfront areas due to concerns about environmental impact and economic feasibility. The discussion included differing views on the potential for residential use to drive economic value and the impact of existing conditions on development possibilities. Various perspectives on how to handle waterfront zoning and the conditions for residential development were considered.
Tank Decommissioning and Future Land Use (02:09:46)
Discussion centered on the decommissioning process for storage tanks and potential future land uses, with focus on remediation and zoning conditions.

The committee discussed the process and requirements for decommissioning storage tanks, including the obligations for environmental remediation. The conversation highlighted the conditions under which residential development might be considered in these areas, balancing between current industrial use and potential future residential or mixed-use development. The economic implications of tank removal and the role of zoning in shaping future land use were key points of discussion.
Discussion on Property Division and Decommissioning (02:14:47)
Discussion on potential economic motives for property division and voluntary decommissioning for more lucrative uses.

The meeting discussed the possibility of dividing a property and the economic motives behind voluntary decommissioning. The discussion included the potential for more lucrative uses of the property if it were divided and decommissioned appropriately. The conversation also touched on the impact of coastal resilience zones on development.
Motion to Accept Proposed Property Boundaries (02:21:02)
A motion was proposed to accept the white lines drawn as new property boundaries, leading to a vote.

Peter proposed a motion to accept the white lines drawn on the map as the new property boundaries. There was a discussion on the implications of these boundaries, particularly concerning residential and commercial zones. Howard expressed concerns about the motion and wished to propose a counter motion if the current one failed. A vote was taken, and the motion passed with a vote count of six in favor and three against.
Discussion on Licensing Program for Monitoring Emissions (02:34:15)
Committee discussed exploring a licensing program to monitor emissions more closely.

The committee explored the idea of developing a licensing program to monitor pollutant emissions and track shoreline stability. There was a consensus that the term 'explore' should be changed to 'investigate feasibility' to reflect a stronger commitment to understanding the potential for such a program.
Consideration of Residential Use in Development Plans (02:39:02)
Discussion on the inclusion of residential areas in development plans and the conditions required.

Howard raised concerns about including residential areas in the development plans, citing feedback from city councilors and public health considerations. Peter and others argued that standards had been set to ensure safety and that residential development would not proceed unless all conditions were met, including air quality standards.
Revisiting Development Standards and Conditions (02:44:57)
Committee revisited development standards and conditions to ensure they address all concerns.

The committee revisited the development standards and conditions, discussing the need for stringent measures to ensure any residential development in the area would be safe. There was a focus on ensuring air quality and other environmental standards were met before any development could proceed.
Motion to Merge Two Sections of Development Plans (02:50:03)
A motion was made to merge two sections of the development plans, retaining unique policies.

A motion was made to merge two sections of the development plans, ensuring that all unique policies from each section would be retained and applied to the merged section. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Discussion on Growth Demarcations and Development Policies (02:51:23)
The committee discussed growth demarcations and development policies, focusing on incentivizing redevelopment to preserve natural areas and corridors.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion about growth demarcations, policy C, and how growth applies differently depending on the area. They talked about the need for more space for water inundation and how encouraging redevelopment along corridors like Broadway could help achieve this. The discussion also covered how to create incentives for redevelopment while preserving back areas for conservation, using development to incentivize conservation. There was a focus on ensuring that the policies align with the city's goals for growth and natural space preservation.
Public Comments and Concerns (03:10:02)
Public comments were opened, with various citizens expressing concerns over development projects, zoning changes, and perceived conflicts of interest.

During the public comment period, several members of the public expressed their concerns and dissatisfaction with the committee's handling of zoning changes and development projects. There were accusations of not listening to public input, concerns about conflicts of interest, and specific mentions of dissatisfaction with decisions related to residential development restrictions and the handling of Yard South project discussions. Citizens expressed a need for more transparency and adherence to public wishes.
Response to Public Concerns and Committee Integrity (03:24:00)
Committee members responded to public concerns, addressing accusations of conflicts of interest and clarifying their positions and actions.

In response to public comments, committee members took time to address accusations of conflicts of interest, clarifying their professional and personal boundaries concerning developers and development projects. One member disclosed their role with the housing authority and its nonprofit development corporation, emphasizing transparency. The chair assured the public that no other committee members have conflicts of interest related to the discussions at hand, aiming to uphold the committee's integrity and the public's trust.
Public Comments on Lighting and Natural Resources (03:26:55)
A resident expressed concerns about lighting in industrial areas and its impact on natural resources and public health, urging restraint.

A resident discussed the need for restraint in lighting in industrial areas to protect natural resources and public health, noting that current practices could be improved. The resident offered to provide additional resources and assistance, recognizing the complexity of the issue.
Discussion on Active Projects Map and GIS (03:27:44)
The active projects map allows the community to see approved and pending projects. GIS updates and improvements were discussed.

The discussion covered the active projects map maintained by the city's GIS team, which allows the community to view all approved and pending projects, dating back two to three years. The map provides transparency and helps the community prepare for future developments. The GIS team is addressing recent update issues.
PK Subdivision and Zoning Questions (03:27:44)
Questions about zoning, subdivision, and the PK subdivision application were addressed, clarifying the process and current status.

The meeting addressed questions about zoning versus subdivision and contract zoning, with explanations provided. The PK subdivision application was discussed, emphasizing efforts to clean up nonconformities in existing subdivisions without new developments. The process involves clearing up legal boundaries for current structures.
Motion to Adjourn (03:33:28)
The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved.

The meeting was adjourned following a motion that was seconded by Mike and confirmed by Marty. The conclusion marked the end of the discussions and official business for the session.