L-R Bob Gilstein, Richard Wimpress, Glenn Russell, Luke Harding, Guy Bissonette (Chair), Ed Lopes (not pictured: Bob Quigley).

Portsmouth's Planning Board heard from the Town Planning Department and some of the two-dozen residents who gathered last night as they began considering possible changes to the zoning ordinance to deal with the threat of big-box retail. As discussed by the moratorium working group, there was general consensus on stiffening controls and moving large retail into the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, but divergent (and vocal) opinions on the question of an absolute size cap.

"It's virtually impossible to come up with one standard for all buildings," said Town Planner Bob Gilstein, who did the first part of the presentation to the Board. He provided a memo to the group summarizing the recommended changes (which should be up on the Town Web site eventually) and urged the importance of action since the moratorium expires on February 1, with a public hearing before the Town Council scheduled for January 7.

Included in the zoning changes were proposals to subject all commercial buildings over 25K square feet to PUD rather than a special use permit, increasing setbacks, provisions for mitigating traffic impacts and visual screening, parking lot restrictions, a development agreement to ease enforcement concerns, and an optional store size cap.

The development agreement would be a legally binding contract that would require the developer to meet standards, even after permits are granted. While it sounded like a good idea, there were concerns about how feasible it would be in practice. "A performance bond with no expiration?" asked board member Glenn Russell, "Who would issue that?"

Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby spoke to a size cap, stressing the political nature of the question and the strong resident feeling. He noted that roughly 60% of the respondents at the charette did not want to see big-box developement. "There's a great deal of public sentiment for an absolute building size cap," said Crosby. He went on to note that even the Planning Department was split on this complicated issue. "Bob [Gilstein] and I disagree on whether there should be a cap. I believe in a cap and a small number."

"I suppose," asked Board Chair Guy Bissonnette, "The committee drew no conclusion?" He expressed no surprise when Crosby confirmed that was the case. Several speakers, for and against the cap, followed.

Portsmouth Director of Business Development Bill Clark stressed the impact on the business environment. "I'm opposed to a cap," he said. "Good commercial development is necessary, and a cap is an asterisk next to Portsmouth that could scare some people away."

Speaking as private citizen, State Senator Chuck Levesque also urged the board to think carefully about the need for a cap. "I do want to point out, you've got 9 or 12 properties, owned by people who've been in town all their lives. We always assured them that we would keep the rules the same, that they always had a friend in the town. This PUD is a fine adaptation, but if you cap it, those 12 people can say you've changed the rules. I ask you not to do that. The other tools are valuable and useful and will protect the town and i ask you to go forward with those."

Portsmouth Economic Development Committee chair Rich Talipsky urged the board to rely on "comprehensive statues and permitting requirements" rather than on "any hard restirction on any single measure will have negative effect on business-friendly atmosphere of the town." (Talipsky previously posted additional comments here.)

Former Town Solicitor Vern Gorton also warned that a cap is not a panacea. "I'm hesitant that we should govern the societal ills of big boxes through zoning," he said. "For my money, the government, which is you guys, should avoid being arbitrary when dealing with property rights. I can have two 70K square foot buildings, but not one 80K? The PUD regulations give you the flexibility to tell the developer what he can do, where he can do it, how he can do it."

Resident George Nichols reminded the board of the political nature of the process. "This meeting a result of a citizen action," he said, telling them it was a "visceral reaction" to Target. "Put something in our codes that would prohibit a large box from even applying," he urged. "If you pass a cap, you will address the primary issue. If we don't have a store cap, we will be back here every time a large store tries to change the culture of this town. Every regulation is a taking. The balance test: does the benefit to the community as a whole override the detriment to the individuals."

Another resident, John Silvia echoed that sentiment. "A cap is probably the simplest way," he said. "It's the [big] retail, and i think you can surgically identify that. If we commit to a Town Center, we don't want to blow it out of the water."

Charter-change champion Sal Carceller suggested a strong economic analysis component. "PUD is really good," he said, " But what it lacks is an economic impact study. If we front-ended the PUD with an economic impact study, you wouldn't have to worry about big boxes coming here. And it would uncover the realities of just how much we residents would get from the tax base."

Local real-estate owner Allen Shers suggested the PUD process and the Board would provide adequate protection and oversight. "At least people should have the opportunity to come in and present it to the town," he suggested. "Have it reviewed economically, analyze the traffic, design, all the aspects you require. If it's met, I don't see a problem in it. If it's a problem, I'm the first one to say, I wouldn't want it." Speaking personally, he stressed that like most of the other property owners, he is a long-time resident and taxpayer. "The land I purchased, I thought that if it met the standards and was a good development I would be able to have it used that way." He praised the work of the Planning Board, and expressed confidence in their ability to judge proposed development fairly. "I would have no problem," he said, "I have confidence in you people sitting here, confidcence you'd be giving it a fair shake. As a resident, as an owner, I too want things that are beneficial to the town."

The executive director of the Newport Restoration Foundation, Peter Roos reiterated the importance of open space in Portsmouth. "That's your cash in the bank," he said, advocating a cap. "I'm not worried about you," he said to Shers, but about "rapacious" big box developers. He strongly urged the board to consider a cap. "I recommend 35-thousand square feet. A cap makes sense, it's easy, and it's the best thing for Portsmouth's future. It's about the spirit of what we want this town to be."

The planning board gave Design Review Board chairman John Borden the last word. "This is a real tough one," he said. "If the Council decides not to have a cap, the PUD is going to help the situation. I'm opposed to big boxes and in favor of a store size cap." Under questioning from Bissonnette, he pegged the number at 35K square feet. "Yes, we can change our design review guidelines, but it is nearly impossible to create a New England-style quaint building that's 3.3 acres with 6 acres of parking."

The board urged Bob Gilstein to do some further research and review of other towns with similar ordinances and bring the results back to their next meeting on December 19.