Scarborough wants bigger buildings

Change sought to allow for expansion of local businesses

It’s as simple as this – in a tough economy, if a business wants to grow in your town, don’t get in the way.

With that thought in mind, the Scarborough Town Council on May 18 fast-tracked a request to relax building-size limits in any of the town’s four industrial zones.

Currently, structures in these zones may occupy no more than 35 percent of a property lot. In a May 10 memo, Harvey Rosenfeld, president of the Scarborough Economic Development Corp. (SEDCO), asked the council to bump the limit to 50 percent.

At least two businesses, he said, have recently been frustrated by the “space and bulk” regulation in Scarborough’s zoning ordinance. One, described as a “large biotech company” located in the industrial park, wants to add 30,000 square feet to its facility, said Rosenfeld.

He declined to name the business because it has yet to make a formal application. Also unknown: How many jobs might be at stake.

But what makes the need particularly pressing, he stressed, is that the company in question reportedly came to Scarborough only because it could not expand in its former location. Although he did not say so in as many words, the longtime development guru intimated this firm could easily jump ship a second time.

“We don’t want to see companies leaving Scarborough because they can’t expand,” said Rosenfeld. “This really is a valuable change to the [zoning] ordinance.”

The proposed change is so valuable, in fact, that Town Manager Tom Hall brought the request directly to the council, bypassing the usual preliminary stop at Scarborough’s ordinance committee.

“In this instance,” he said, “given some of the urgency and, frankly, the common sense associated with it, we really wanted to get this matter before council quickly and demonstrate to our good, local businesses that we do not want to provide any impediment to their interests in expanding here.”

“Especially in this economy, projects seem to take forever to get to a final stage,” said Rosenfeld, in a subsequent telephone interview. “If we can get something moving along, I really don’t want to put any roadblocks in the way.”

The May 18 council vote – unanimous but for Councilor Karen D’Andrea, who was not at the meeting – forwards the amendment to a series of public hearings. The council is slated to take public comment June 1, while the Planning Board will likely hold a hearing at its next meeting, June 20.  Final adoption could then occur as soon as the next regular council meeting, July 20, unless a special session is called beforehand.

Councilors seemed to have few reservations about the change, in part because none knew the reason for the 35 percent restriction.

“I really don’t know where that number came from,” offered Rosenfeld. “It’s been in the ordinance for a long time. It probably was just a guess as to what fit in.”

“Certainly, I don’t have an issue with 50 percent,” said Councilor Michael Wood. “The applicant would have to meet all other requirements, such a parking, setbacks, stormwater treatment, et cetera, et cetera. But I can’t answer the question about the 35 percent. It must have been before I started reading the ordinances.”

“I think I can probably, maybe answer it,” said Chairman Judith Roy. “If you look at [the ordinance under section] B.3, that section was first put in there in March, 1975.

“So, it’s been a while,” she said.

“Even before me,” joked Rosenfeld.

Only Councilor Carol Rancourt raised a concern, asking if the change could have “unintended consequences,” given the proximity of Scarborough’s industrial park to its marshlands.

“I don’t have any objection,” she said. “I just want to make sure we’ve thought of all the obstacles that might come in the future.”

Town Planner Dan Bacon said just about any industrial expansion would require a site plan review, as well as an eyeballing from the Department of Environmental Protection.

“This would not change any of those requirements,” he said, “particularly the ones that are intended to protect the marsh. I feel pretty confident this change would have no adverse effect in that [regard].”