An illustration of The Olympia Companies' plan for the Maine State Pier. (image/courtesy Olympia)

Olympia asks council to rewrite pier zoning 
Key councilor calls request “dead on arrival”

By Chris Busby

The Olympia Companies has submitted an application to the city asking Portland officials to rewrite the zoning governing development on and around the Maine State Pier. A spokesperson for the developer said the changes are necessary for the $100 million mega-project to move forward. But one key councilor, John Anton, said a major rewrite of zoning rules the council crafted for the pier site just two years ago is highly unlikely.

“I have no interest in rewriting the zoning… and I don’t think anyone else on the council does, either,” said Anton, one of five councilors who voted to negotiate with Olympia over a rival developer last year. “I think that’s DOA” — dead on arrival — he said.

Anton added that he is particularly opposed to any effort to allow more non-marine development on the site. But of the two options Olympia laid out in its application, one would make significant changes to the pier’s zoning, and the other — a request for a so-called “contract zoning” exception — would allow more non-marine development than is currently permitted on the waterfront.

In its application, Olympia said it would prefer the option of rewriting the pier’s zoning. Among the numerous changes it’s requesting…

• A major expansion of the number and types of commercial uses considered “permitted uses” on and around the pier. The current zoning limits “permitted uses” to offices on the upper floors of buildings. Restaurants and retail shops are considered “conditional uses,” subject to greater restrictions, in the current zoning code. Olympia proposes to make nearly all commercial uses allowed in the city’s B-5 business zone permitted uses on the pier. Those uses include hotels, restaurants, offices, retail and repair shops, parking lots and garages, theaters, banks, pool halls and other “indoor amusement and recreation centers.”

• Eliminate language prohibiting on-site parking for non-marine uses in this zone under most conditions. Add language giving the planning board authority to determine off-site parking requirements, including the ability to “approve parking in satellite lots with shuttle service upon a showing by the applicant that more proximate parking is not reasonably available.” Olympia has still not revealed where or how it would provide parking for its project.

• Increase the maximum allowable building height from 45 feet to 65 feet. This change seems aimed at allowing Olympia to build a luxury hotel atop the pier that be six stories high.

Among the changes Olympia proposes in the contract zone option is a rewording of the requirement that at least 50 percent of the ground floor area of development in the pier zone be a marine-related use. It changes the term “ground floor area” to “ground and pier surface area” and allows “circulation areas” for vehicles to be counted toward the 50-percent marine-use requirement. This change would allow the sizeable paved area just east of the pier used by vehicles getting on and off the high-speed Cat ferry to be counted as marine-use area. 

(The Cat ferry docks at the Ocean Gateway marine passenger terminal next to the pier. High fuel costs and other issues have put its return to Portland next year in doubt.) 

Anton said he knew Olympia would need a contract zone to build its project, and would consider granting the company such an exception “if it can be done under the existing zoning,” which allows for contract zones under certain conditions. But “if it involves any amendments to the existing zoning, I’m not interested,” said Anton, one of three councilors directly involved in negotiations with Olympia. 

It’s not clear how many councilors have seen Olympia’s zoning amendment request at this point. It was submitted to the city last Friday. Councilors Nick Mavodones and Cheryl Leeman, the other two elected officials directly involved in the negotiations, did not return calls seeking comment. Mayor Ed Suslovic and Councilors Dave Marshall and Kevin Donoghue — who all supported Olympia’s bid — also did not respond to requests for comment. 

The city’s Planning and Development Department will review Olympia’s request and provide feedback to councilors. Department director Penny Littell did not respond to a request for comment. 

The city’s decision two years ago to loosen zoning restrictions on and around the public pier drew criticism from private pier owners who say they need a similar relaxation of zoning requirements to attract tenants who, in turn, will help them pay for upgrades and repairs to their piers. 

This summer, a new group called the Portland Waterfront Preservation Coalition formed to further press the issue. Among the group’s organizers is Bob Baldacci, the governor’s brother, who formerly worked for the other developer seeking to build on the pier, Ocean Properties. 

Baldacci said the city’s 2006 rezoning of the Maine State Pier “really achieved a great balance between protecting public access and ensuring the dock and pier are used for marine uses.” He said Ocean Properties’ proposal adhered to the 50-percent marine-use rule, and added, “I hope the council sticks to its guns” and does not allow more non-marine use of the site. 

Further relaxation of that requirement “would trickle down and impact the entire waterfront,” Baldacci said. 

One city official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the city must be careful not to bend its rules too much to accommodate Olympia’s development, because doing so would almost certainly provoke a lawsuit, as has happened in past contract-zoning matters. 

One other notable aspect of Olympia’s zoning request is a parenthetical aside apparently included in the documents by mistake. After noting the inclusion of a “preliminary plan” for the project, the aside reads: “[Do we want to insert a sentence regarding the likelihood of future design changes?].”