By Amanda Estes
Staff Writer
As roughly 60 percent of the lots in South Portland do not conform to current zoning in one way or another, Planning Director Tex Haeuser said a set of proposed zoning amendments may be “of interest (maybe concern) to many South Portlanders.”
Nearly a year ago, the nine-member land use committee was created with the intent of updating the regulations in Chapter 27, which had not undergone any substantial changes in roughly 20 years. With the help of Planning Director Tex Haeuser and Mark Eyerman, a consultant with the South Portland firm Planning Decisions, the group sought to make the zoning regulations easier to interpret not only for the code enforcement officer and the board of appeals, but also for residents.  
Faced with complaints from residents, who say homes built on the city’s smaller lots are incompatible with the neighborhood, the work of a land use committee has been to make the ordinance more consistent. As a result, a proposed amendment will allow development if setbacks and other dimension requirements of the zoning district are met and if the applicant receives approval from the planning board after a site plan review process.  
Currently, the city’s zoning regulations or Chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinance, prohibit the issuance of building permits for lots with less than 5,000 square feet in area, however, residents can circumvent that restriction by requesting a variance from the board of appeals.
Many properties in South Portland are considered nonconforming in respect to setback and height requirements of current zoning rules. Those lots with less than 5,000 square feet in area or less than 50 feet of road frontage are considered nonconforming small lots, Haeuser said.  
Within the city, there are currently 983 lots with less than 5,000 square feet. Of those 983 lots, there are 129 vacant lots that could potentially be developed, Haeuser said. The remaining 854 lots have principal structures.  
While the intent is to bring the city’s zoning regulations more in line with the comprehensive plan, which calls for among other initiatives, allowing a variety of land use, establishing efficient development patterns, protecting natural resources and improving municipal services; most of the discussion thus far has been focused on the city’s treatment of nonconforming small lots.
In an inversion of the usual process to bring about ordinance amendments, the committee first presented the changes to the city council for a first reading at the Sept. 5 council meeting rather than in a workshop format. By first outlining the changes in a televised, public hearing, the committee hoped to bring more public exposure to their work.
 At a later workshop on Monday, Councilor Maxine Bleecher, chairman of the land use committee, said within the last five years, 29 applications for vacant lots with less than 5,000 square feet have been filed with the board of appeals. Out of those 29 applications, 21 lots were approved, seven were denied and one was withdrawn.
“We’re in a changing environment from what originally happened,” Beecher said. “There was a day everybody wanted huge yards.”
Beecher said with the city’s aging population and more people choosing to live alone, development on smaller lots is a growing trend.
Gerard Jalbert, board of appeals chairman, said the planning board is better equipped to deal with requests for small lot development, as it has the authority to put forward conditions or restrictions on the application. While residents might provide the board of appeals with a survey, they are not required to present design plans. Jalbert said the smaller the lot, the more important the design element becomes for abutters.
“People come forward as applicants, but 90 percent of the time no one comes forward as an abutter,” Jalbert said.
The intent of planning board review is to encourage input from neighbors while working with the builder to improve neighborhood compatibility by following a set of design criteria. Outlining examples, Haeuser said entries facing streets or an entrance framed by a porch would be favored over a side or rear main entry or a large expanse of blank wall. Recommendations for roofing would include avoiding highly different styles, shapes, pitches and materials for compatible massing and pitches. Structures with compatible heights would also be favored over single, monolithic forms with no variations.
While Councilor Jim Soule favored the planning board review process, he questioned whether the city, by referendum, could prohibit small lot development.
“Before long, there will be no green space and everything that is a postage stamp lot will be built upon,” Soule said.
City Attorney Mary Kahl said the city could run into legal problems, as declaring grandfathered lots under 5,000 square feet unbuildable could constitute the taking of the owner’s beneficial enjoyment of the property. Kahl said the ordinances could be amended in such a way that owners of small lots would have to prove they cannot do anything with their property without a variance. She said a “kinder, gentler” standard – residents have to prove there would be a significant adverse economic impact without a variance – could be applied to lots 5,000 square feet and larger.
Councilor Linda Boudreau said the city needs to differentiate between isolated small lots and abutting vacant lots of common ownership that could potentially be subdivided to allow for more houses. She questioned how not allowing a house to be built could be taking when having open space such as a yard is often thought to be more valuable than a lot with no open space.
Although the intent has been to bring the amendments forward to the next council meeting, the council will instead discuss them at another workshop on Sept. 24.