Peaks Island Zoning Text Change Proposal an Unfortunate Idea
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Peaks Island Zoning Text Change Proposal An Unfortunate Idea The proposal by the potential purchaser of 2 Island Ave. on Peaks Island may have its basis in good intentions – creating more affordable housing – but would likely carry with it extremely negative effects. If the request to make the changes suggested (increase height limit from 35 feet to 47 feet, shrink the setbacks, reduce parking requirement per unit) were limited to just 2 Island Ave., that might be worth having a conversation about. However, the proposal is to make those text changes to the entire IB-Zone (s). This could quickly allow homes along Island Avenue on the east side of the street to lose water views. Additionally, those same homes may try to maximize their footprint and building height, and any sense of character “the village” currently has would be lost. There are about 36 structures that would have the ability to build higher and wider. If each were to become a four-unit, that could result in an additional 432 people living on the island, assuming three people per unit. Many of those structures could have even more. The property in question is currently permitted as a two-unit (not a three-unit, as the notice stated). If it could become a 12- or 14-unit building, why couldn’t some others? Could the sewage treatment plant handle that kind of volume increase? It’s an ill-advised proposal that would negatively impact the island in terms of losing character, increased density in an already dense neighborhood (were you here this summer?) and place a significant, if not overwhelming, burden on the infrastructure. (as a note/question –Would these changes apply to all IB zones such as Trefethen area on Peaks Island and the IB Zones on Cliff Island?) Kirk Goodhue 16 Welch St. (In the IB Zone) Peaks Island, Maine 04108 10/17/2016 City of Portland Mail @ Island Avenue, Peaks Island Barbara Barhydt <[email protected]> @ Island Avenue, Peaks Island 1 message Jonathan McCormick <[email protected]> Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:08 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Kathleen Scargle McCormick <[email protected]> Dear Ms. Barhydt: My wife Kathleen and I own the house at 47 Willow, on Peaks Island. We spend two or three nights a week there, year round, and after my imminent retirement, will be there fulltime. We write to express our objections to the plans for 2 Island Avenue, 04108. First, the size and design of the building. The building is too large and takes up too great a portion of the lot. Its boxy nature is out of character for Peaks Island. Second, parking. This section of Island Avenue is already full of cars. The ferry, the Inn and the restaurant all contribute to this congestion. Simply waiving the rules about parking, for the convenience and profit of one man, seems out of character for the City and, in particular, for Peaks Island. Third, Mr. Carter. He makes much of his hereditary connection with the island. However, he himself lives in North Carolina and will not suffer from the the looks of the building or its resultant congestion. We understand that things change. However, this seems a gross violation of both aesthetics and good sense. We urge the Planning Board to reject this request. We are sending this both as conventional and electronic mail. Respectfully, Jonathan McCormick Kathleen McCormick [email protected] 7812920603 https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/?ui=2&ik=2a6ddd2eba&view=pt&search=inbox&th=157d366d7293385e&siml=157d366d7293385e 1/1 October 20, 2016 Ms. Barbara Barhydt Development Review and Services Manager Planning and Urban Development Dept. Portland City Hall RE: Application of Kevin Carter Proposal to Amend Island 389 Congress Street Business Zone 2, Island Avenue, Peaks Island, Portland, Portland, ME 04101 ME 04108 Dear Ms. Barhydt: I write you today to express my concerns about and opposition to Mr. Carter’s request to amend the above referenced Island Business Zone 2. As a fourth generation and lifelong year-round Peaks Island resident I have seen many changes during my 66 years here. Yet none of those changes has impacted the island to the extent that Mr. Carter’s proposed plans could and would. As I see it there are a few issues at play here. First, reducing the current required setbacks and increasing the allowable height from 35 feet to 47 feet would result in a very large building that would tower over every building on the island exclusive of the church steeples. Such a large building would simply be out of scale in a community of modest homes and a few small commercial buildings. And how would such a large building impact the abutting neighbors? On one side the Peaks Island Lions Club has worked hard to restore and maintain Greenwood Garden and the Playhouse (an historic property that played a big role when Peaks was one of the most popular summer resorts in the nation). On the other side Skip and Andy Davis have converted the historic shooting gallery building, one of the few amusement buildings remaining from the resort era, into a cozy home. Details on the proposed building are scarce. It seems that concept plans, architectural drawings etc. have not been made available to the general public. I understand that Mr. Carter’s zoning amendment request would eliminate the need for off-street parking for his proposed building’s occupants. This makes no sense. Parking, whether on-street or in the parking lot, is limited and becomes even more so during the summer when the island is crowded with vacationers My second concern is thus: I understand that Mr. Carter’s zoning amendment request is limited to the bowling alley property. If this is so and if it is granted, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who may want to greatly expand or build a new large building in the Island Business Zone 2. There are 24 single family homes and two former hotels converted to apartments and condominiums in that zone. The remaining 14 are small commercial buildings. A nice mix of residential, commercial and municipal – exactly what one expects to find in a village type community. Why open the door to the possibility of destroying the center of our community by allowing oversized buildings that would detract from the attractiveness of the island? My experience has been that when a developer proposes a project that will affect the community, he or she makes his or her plans known and solicits input from the public. I know that the city has a process in place for this – a process that island residents should be informed of. When will islanders be informed? Why hasn’t Mr. Carter held a public forum and asked for input from the very community that would be impacted the most? Who does he expect to sell or lease his condos to? Families? Empty nesters? Snow birds? Will they be affordable for the types of people who want to live here? At this point there are too many unanswered questions. Lastly, my overriding concern is with keeping the character of the community intact and preserving our historic properties. Peaks Island is an attractive place to live and visit precisely because of its small town charm, modest well-kept homes and cottages, and friendly residents. Allowing even one large scale building down front will detract from what makes the island so desirable. I am unable to attend the meeting on October 25 but do want to express my opposition to this building proposal as well as the Business Zone 2 amendment that Mr. Carter has requested.. I believe that the proposal should be rejected at this time. Much more needs to be done in terms of planning, analysis and impact on the community before anyone – residents and city officials alike – can form an educated opinion on the proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. Sincerely, Kimberly Erico MacIsaac 10/20/2016 City of Portland Mail Peaks Island Bowling Alley Barbara Barhydt <[email protected]> Peaks Island Bowling Alley 1 message Rhonda Berg <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:23 AM To: [email protected] My two cents worth: 1. I would like to see the owner, Carolyn Parker, make this sale. It’s a lot of money for her and some financial security that she really needs. She has not had an easy life. 2. The current size of the building, which has been there far longer than my 30 years on Peaks, is fine. Staying close to the 35 foot height restriction, or even 40 feet, will not affect anyone’s view of the water. Tweaking the front, sides and rear setbacks won’t make much difference either 3. No one wants to see similar size buildings lining the shore for many obvious reasons. 4. There should be a restriction, similar to what is now being considered, that an owner may not purchase a condo unit there simply to rent it day to day or week to week as a business. He or she must live there or rent it out yearround or possibly live there summers and rent in the off season 5. That the possible owner is considering offering two units at a more affordable cost is great. 6. There should be some offstreet parking but no need for a huge lot. So close to the ferry and stores, owners do not need a car and it would be great if they promised not to have one.