From: 	HUGH NAZOR <hughn@mac.com>
To:	Jeff Levine <JLEVINE@portlandmaine.gov>, Alex Jaegerman <aqj@portlandmaine.gov>, Bill Needelman <wbn@portlandmaine.gov>
CC:	Michael Brennan <mfpb@portlandmaine.gov>, <citymanager@portlandmaine.gov>, Helen Donaldson <HCD@portlandmaine.gov>
Date: 	10/11/2013 9:24 AM
Subject: 	India Street activity

Hello all:

About a year and a half ago we had a meeting about planning for the India Street Neighborhood. An attempt at doing something quickly, because of development pressures proposing significant changes, had not made it past the Planning Board because they said that there should be a Comprehensive Plan for the ISN. We met and agreed that such a plan would go forward and that it should start in September (2012 ‑ or "the Fall") and take about a year in total. It was also mentioned that, in the meantime, there could be some methods of preventing development that would clearly not be allowed under such a plan.

Everyone understands the financing problem which was a large part in the shifting of timing of this project. September 2013 became December 2014, then April 2014, and now (approximately) July 2014. There is, at present no plan schedule. It is also understood that the staffing situation is such that such projects are not easily done in‑house.

My reason for writing is not to complain about the above but to draw attention to things that are being affected by the delay. The Bay House Phase 2 project is 230 feet of unbroken wall that, as mundane as it appears from the south and east looks even worse from the north (back) side. From that perspective, it closely resembled strip mall motels in Los Angeles. While it probably meets the requirements of the B2‑b zoning, it does not come close to any future form based code that would not allow such scale in that location. The Planning Board has commented on this appearance and has required another look at what might be built. While smaller units are a very good idea, cramming as many as possible in a continuous block of a building is just not in keeping with anything but the Phase One of the same project, and the two pattern book hotels in the neighborhood.

The small two story building at 48 Hancock, that is to be totally shadowed by the Phase 2 project, has a scheduled hearing before the Appeals Board. They wish to rebuild to add two additional stories and cannot meet the setback requirements of B2‑b. There has been an effort for more that three years to try to have a zoning change that would deal with these setback requirements. They are not appropriate to redevelopment in the ISN and totally prevent individual, fee simple townhouses from being built as a unit on multiple lots. This is exactly the kind of development that, I hope, the ISN comp plan will encourage. 

We now seem to have a situation in which one project, which will be seen as unfortunate, may be allowed while another that is very desirable will have to wait until some future time before it may begin. I do hope that you can think of some way to improve our situation before the ISN comp plan is finally achieved.

Hugh Nazor
hughn@mac.com

Copy to Nell for the Planning Board:  meeting re Phase 2 on 10/22/13