PORTLAND, Maine — Opposing sides were in uproar at Portland's City Council meeting on May Monday. Well over a dozen residents addressed the council during public comment, and the result left both sides at a standstill.
In 2019, the Portland Museum of Art purchased 142 Free Street, which was previously The Children's Museum. The PMA made plans to demolish the building and create a new space, as an extension to its current structure.
However, in 2009, the building status of 142 Free Street was listed as "contributing" to the Congress Street Historical District. Under Portland's Historical Preservation Ordinance, that means the building contributes to the qualities that bring culture to the historical district. Contributing properties face significant restrictions when it comes to construction, and they cannot be demolished unless the applicant can prove the building is in a condition that would cause economic hardship.
In order to change the classification, the PMA has to petition the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Board. Both groups then make a recommendation to the city council. They ruled similarly, recommending the building remain under its current "contributing" status.
Despite this, the Portland Museum of Art pled its case to the council, arguing that the building already underwent reconstruction from its original form and, because of that, it is ineligible for historic preservation. Representatives for the museum also expressed beliefs that the renovation project is necessary to re-energize the arts district.
"Today the square is deteriorating with vacancies and closures and fewer folks coming downtown to work. Our neighborhood businesses support this project because of the impact it will have on the arts district, quality of life for residents, the economy, artists and job creation," Marc Bessire, the museum's director, said.
Several residents showed up in support of the construction.
"To be great cities takes great projects. I think, in a few years, if this building is built, people are going to love it. I hope, because it's such a big project ... the city council reconsider changing the status to allow the project to go forward," declared one South Portland resident.
Yet, other residents, as well as representatives for The Greater Portland Landmarks, urged the city council not to support these claims.
"We are here because one of us has chosen to ignore the ordinance and one of us is fighting to uphold it," Carol De Tine, vice president of the Board of Trustees at Greater Portland Landmarks, said. "The PMA isn’t lacking land; they are lacking imagination – the imagination to boldly incorporate the old with the new as has been done so many times throughout this city."
Greater Portland Landmarks retained legal counsel to attend the meeting. Their lawyer argues a vote to reclassify would be violating the city's ordinance and would be out of their jurisdiction.
"At every step of this process, rather than addressing the basic line of legal issue, the PMA has attempted to persuade whichever municipal body they are presenting to that this is about something else. It isn't. It's about the law. We think if you apply the law, you'll reach the same conclusion that the planning board did," Elizabeth Boepple, a lawyer representing Greater Portland Landmarks, argued.
Mary Costigan, a lawyer for the Portland Museum of Art, contested that there is a different part of the law that allows the city to change classifications within a historical district based on a list.
"Unlike amending the District, this is amending the list and it allows the council to consider more than just the criteria of integrity We believe under this you can change the classification of the building," Costigan said.
The city council was supposed to decide at the April 6 meeting whether to keep the classification or not. The order initially listed on the agenda cited from the City Planning Board recommended to keep it's contributing status. However, councilor Kate Sykes and Anna Trevorrow made amendments to the order, instead requesting the council side with the PMA and change the status to non-contributing.
This caused widespread disagreement among the council, not only on whether to keep the status, but also whether a decision should be made so abruptly.
"I had no clue there was going to be amendment," councilor Regina Phillips said. "I can't make a decision when I'm handed a piece of paper 5 minutes before I'm supposed to vote on an amendment that I didn't know anything about."
Most of the councilors appeared to support the PMA's plans to demolish 142 Free Street and were in favor of awarding them a non-contributing status. However, Mayor Marc Dion expressed concerns and said they should wait for legal counsel to review the amendments before they vote.
"It's going to be litigated, and if we're going to be litigated, let's be on the best possible posture," Dion said.
This ultimately led to a final decision just before 10 p.m. to postpone the vote. The city council will be revisiting this topic at the next city council meeting.