When Portland’s City Council meets this September, a re-written, drastically cut version of the ordinance governing the Waterfront Central Zone (WCZ) will be up for review. What once was a 75-page hodgepodge patchwork of overlay ordinance is now a streamlined 25-page document fully prepared to square off with public opinion.
The discussion of how to create a more functional WCZ has already accumulated a year’s worth of dedicated dialogue. After informal meetings in the fall of 2008, when pier owners met to air their gripes were tossed around solution, the consensus was clear than change was imperative. Too many antiquated “No Adverse Use” restrictions, it was argued, are preventing pier owners from turning a modern-day profit. Not enough marine tenants are renting first floor spaces, which often remain empty.
Parking remains an ongoing problem, and the time framework for private pier owners to get public approval on maintenance permitting had grown to be an intolerably lengthy. “Simple zoning changes can take from six-months to a year, after making the approval rounds from the Department of Environmental Protection, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Harbor Commission and the City of Portland,” says Charlie Poole, owner of Union Wharf. And where was the city, state and federal support for dredging the hazardous waste accumulating around their piers?
So a consortium of pier owners banded together and went to City Council, carrying a four-point letter dated December 1, 2008. These pier owners wanted the Portland Community Development Committee (CDC) to reevaluate the ordinance governing the WCZ, and later, a $200-a-head fee was paid in application for a text change, according to Bill Needelman, senior planner of the Portland Planning office. The only private pier owner missing was Eric Cianchette.
Yet the task was complicated; the original ordinance dates back to 1987 and the current document is a hodgepodge of overlay changes. New zoning, following a moratorium, was passed in 1993. A self-appointed group of two pier owners and an outsider with a wealth of historical information was formed to work with the city planning staff. Together, they have been working with Bill Needelman and Alex Yagerman, both from the city’s planning division, and whittled down the document to a streamlined version both City Hall and the community will review and discuss.
Perhaps the most controversial issue is the current restrictions on what the pier owners are permitted to do with their property. At the heart of the matter while speaking the language of the controversy is “the No Adverse Use amendment.”
As the pier owners’ letter argues: “The absolute requirement of ‘No Adverse Use Sections’ (must be marine and commercial use) along with the definitions of permitted uses of the zone which demand marine related use of all the piers faces and ground floors is non-realistic with the continuing and permanent loss of fishing industry and ancillary use occupancy.”
“Basically they want to replace the existing ‘No Adverse Impact Clause’ that would allow up to 50 percent of the pier for non-marine related use,” says Needelman.
“We want to keep the harbor working,” says Dick Ingalls, the committee’s elder statesman with a full command of the history of the existing ordinance. “People think we’re driving the fishing out and we’re not,” says Ingalls. “They don’t want to turn our piers into places for pleasure boats, but if you don’t use the 50 percent of the ground floor for non-marine use, what to you use it for?”
“We’re trying to reasonably and conservatively expand the market place,” says Poole. “And as of now, none of the marines are full.”
Furthermore, the pier owners find the current parking requirements too restrictive. “You can’t rent a space to a potential tenant if you can’t offer a parking space, too,” says Steve DiMillo, owner of Long Wharf.
“We don’t want to find a good project and not go forward because there isn’t enough parking,” says Poole. “We don’t want it killed at the door.”
There doesn’t appear to be a specific number of parking spaces requested, just “a relaxation on parking restrictions,” says Ingalls. “We have to remove from conditional zoning the current list of prohibitive uses.”
This list of prohibitive uses-ranging from residential dwellings to concern that the non-marine portion of a development should be stopped from significantly restricting air or light for marine uses located in the immediate vicinity-is outlined in the July 21 draft of the proposed new WCZ ordinance, cited on pages 17 through 19, may read like Greek to the uninitiated. But the collaborative bottom line for pier owners is a need for few restrictions and many more ways to keep their piers afloat financially.
Sensitive to community feedback, the consortium is prepared to make their case through a variety of forums designed for public feedback on the revised ordinance. The pier owners want Portland residents to know that they feel a civic responsibility to provide intangible services to benefit the community.
When asked if he could guess the average occupancy rate by absolute marine related use, looking over the 11 piers that are part of this new ordinance action, Ingalls estimates a total of “less than 50 percent.”
“Yes, there are a lot of vacancies,” says Poole, “and frankly our non-marine tenants are helping to support the first-floor tenants. “Our hope is that this new ordinance will open new businesses without damaging the business of fishermen and lobstermen.”
Pier owners want solutions that sit well with the city-their intention is to improve business, not alienate the community from which they derive income. Some inherit the previous generation’s civic responsibility, knowing that solely working for profit alienates the community. “My father created a 500-foot waterfront boardwalk for the residents of the city of Portland to enjoy our pier,” says DiMillo. “He put in benches, plants, flowers and trees-he knew people would be brown bagging and just because they couldn’t come into our restaurant they could still enjoy the view.”