By Nate Jones

Staff Writer 

After a six-hour budget meeting Monday, the South Portland City Council convened for a workshop concerning the various issues to be discussed at upcoming meetings including the sale of a portion of land on Western Avenue which could dead end the Gorham Road extension. 

The decision to sell the parcel comes nearly 40 years after the city purchased the property for roughly $7,300 with intentions to build a fire station. A legal battle over the property commenced when the city determined it was unfit for the fire station in the early 1990s. 

The original owner of the property, South Portland Housing Associates, argued they had the right to purchase the land back for $7,300 rather than the fair market value of $250,000. In January 2000, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the city, which could now sell the property to Vincent Maietta, owner of Western Avenue, LLC for $600,000.

“Is there still a cloud hanging over this property?” Councilor Claude Morgan asked.

Acting City Corporation Counsel Paul Driscoll informed the council there was no risk of former landowners “claiming stake” to the property in the future.

“I’m very comfortable with this process,” he said. 

Maietta, who also owns abutting property to the parcel, outlined his plans for the 1.45-acre lot that would require the city to abandon a section of Gorham Road between Western Avenue and Westbrook Street. Maietta said in addition to abandoning the street, he would take responsibility for relocating the many utilities that run beneath the pavement to accommodate for his proposed retail shopping plaza.

“It could easily be one of the best looking buildings I’ve built there,” Maietta said. 

The proposal, viewed favorably by a majority of the council during the workshop, is scheduled to be formally addressed at the May 23 council meeting. 

“Mr. Maietta has a unique interest in this property,” Mayor Jim Soule said. “When people have a unique interest you usually get the best proposals.”

The city could collect up to $120,000 in annual taxes on the property should the development be approved. Maietta said he hoped to begin construction on the site as early as this summer.

“We currently have no tenants, which makes me a little nervous, but we think we can get them if this process is able to come forward at a reasonable pace,” Maietta said. 

Beekeepers still concerned

Concerned beekeepers from across Cumberland County attended Monday’s workshop to listen to the council’s second round of deliberations concerning the proposed addition to the city’s Animal and Fowl ordinance. 

“This isn’t an anti-bee nor is it intended to eliminate beekeeping,” Code Enforcement officer Patricia Doucette said. 

Despite the reduction of a $50 application fee, the permitting of beekeepers to sell the honey produced and Doucette’s assurances that a $1,000 fine would only be imposed for beekeepers in extreme violation of the new ordinance, beekeepers and some city councilors consider the proposal excessive. 

Councilor Tom Blake, who originally supported the ordinance at the council’s March 24 workshop, said he now thought the ordinance was “another unnecessary six pages on the books.”

“In a time when we are encouraging self-efficiency and independence, I’m not sure this ordinance makes sense,” he said. 

Blake said he believed “common sense” would be the more appropriate way to deal with incidents involving bees, such as the incident in Cash Park last year when South Portland resident Omid Ghayebi’s bees caused complaints from a neighbor.

“I wish they would have talked to me,” Ghayebi said. “Their attitude is based on fear.”

Portland resident and beekeeper Bill Linnell said he was concerned about the council voting directly after a public hearing on the issue. 

“It’s hard to change your mind about these kind of things,” he said. “They need to try to effectively wrestle with the competing views and involve people like myself. The fact they haven’t done that yet tells me they’re afraid of beekeepers.”

Councilor Kay Loring said she also did not plan to support the proposed ordinance after the public hearing scheduled for May 5.

“It’s just another layer of enforcement for the code enforcement officer,” she said.