Town Planner Bob Gilstein addresses Planning Board. L-R: Guy Bissonette, Ed Lopes, Bob Quigley. (Not pictured: Russell, Wimpress, Harding, Swarz)

The Portsmouth Planning Board heard input from the planning department, anti-big-box residents, and land owners last night as they considered what zoning ordinance changes to recommend to the Town Council next month. There was more than two hours of testimony as the board probed every speaker, keeping people on the "hot seat," and not allowing anyone to escape with a hit-and-run statement.

"What is it you need?" Planning Board Chair Guy Bissonette asked Town Planner Bob Gilstein.

"According to state law, you must make a recommendation to the Town Council," replied Gilstein. "And there will be a public hearing on January 7," he added, to allow the Council time to consider and adopt changes to the zoning ordinances before the moratorium on big retail expires February 1.

Like the prior meeting, there seemed to be consensus that moving large scale retail into the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process was good, but the contentious issue was an absolute store size cap, with the Director of Business Development Bill Clark and and local landowners Jack Egan and Allen Shers opposing, Conni Harding and members of Preserve Portsmouth supporting (though in response to the Board, she seemed to agree that a soft cap with an economic impact study, as advocated by Sal Carceller, would work).

Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby had been tasked by the Planning Board with investigating what other towns had done regarding size caps, and he reported back that while there was a range of values (from 20K square feet to 90K) there was a "common theme," he said: "[The caps] came about as a reaction to a big box wanting to come in. It wasn't somthing they were doing proactively. They had to scramble."

Members of the board probed on the cap question from several angles. Questions of legality were put to Town Solicitor Keven Gavin who said his preliminary look indicated there was nothing in state law that "says we couldn't." Crosby noted to the Board that they were already making decisions "based on health, safety and welfare of the community, which includes economic welfare." He noted that large-scale retail would necessarily impact local businesses, and advocated an economic impact study as part of the PUD process, even if the Board chose not to recommend a cap.

Bill Clarke raised several questions about the proposed PUD language, including limits on office use in industrial zones, access from non-arterial streets, and screening. "You say that you want small attractive groups of buildings, now you're going to cover them up," he noted of the proposed requirement to screen 75% of the view from the street. "That may be good for a large box, but if you start having smaller businesses in there, a business wants to and needs to be seen."

The Board worked with Gilstein to craft alternate language sensitive to all his objections. "You're batting 1.000 here, Mr. Clark," Chair Bisonnette joked.

Then the floor was opened to public comment. Resident Bob Hale recognized the value of the PUD process which grants flexibility to the Planning Board but urged them toward a hard cap, rather than risk that "we're going to negotiate away what makes Portsmouth special to all of us." Preserve Portsmouth's Harding also voiced support for a 35K square foot cap, saying "Anything larger is a destination store." She acknowledged that developers "deserve to develop," and recommended Portsmouth implement a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to continue to fine-tune. "We're so close to getting a town center," she said. "You can't have shopping all over the place and have a town center thrive."

Local land owner Allen Shers expressed concerns over the effect of a hard cap, and stressed the problems for smaller businesses. He called attention to the Clocktower Square development, which, while beautifully integrated and properly scaled, "certainly isn't a success." A key issue, he noted, was the lack of a larger store as an anchor to draw traffic into the plaza, something a hard cap would prevent. Shers urged the Board to consider instead rigorous application of the PUD and attention to "site-specific" restrictions. "There might be a site where you don't even want 35K square feet," he added. "I'm not proposing doing anything that would be detrimental. Not to turn it down just because of [an arbitrary cap]. You can have something junky that is just one thousand square feet."

Property owner Jack Egan also questioned the cap, noting that Portsmouth does need some additional retail capacity, and most retailers have business models with larger store footprints. "People who live in Portsmouth should have the opportunity to have a larger retail store," Egan said. "They should have a choice of food markets." Noting the challenges for a shopping plaza including smaller businesses, he pointed out that anchor tenants "really need their normal footprint. Supermarkets aren't going to change their business model."

And then Dame Judi Staven got up and started whingeing about "a sea of asphalt," and I ran into my limitation as a reporter. I will not listen to her bullshit. I walked out.

Big boxes are evil, resource-sucking, community-destroying pests, and I support appropriate action to keep them out. But the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. The PCC and their fellow travelers and apologists are a far greater threat to the character of this town than any retail store, and while I understand the political necessity of building coalitions with people with whom you disagree, I just won't do it.

I don't care if Staven and the PCC happen to be on the right side this time. They are there for the wrong reasons, and I will give them no aid nor comfort. Do you think they support the Town Center?

So I went home to spend time with my family. Maybe some kind reader will supplement my failings as a reporter and let me know how the evening ended up.

Update: Thanks to Sal Carceller for filling me in. Bottom line is that the recommendation to the Town Council will be an endorsement of the proposed PUD language (everything over 25K goes to PUD) with an additional requirement for an economic impact study for anything greater than 45K. A separate proposal for a flat cap failed.

Personally, I think this is a win. It gives us a very strong review process with teeth, and triggers an expensive and thorough impact review for larger development while not driving away smaller businesses.