Social Housing Task Force — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-02-11
Time: 18:00

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS
 City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair
FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz
 Paul Styslinger
Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 6:00 Bill Stauffer
 Jason Spector
PM Catherine Buxton
Portland City Hall Basement, Room 24 Wendy Cherubini
Kippy Richardson Room Cullen Ryan
 Matthew Peters
 Kristin Leffler
 Jon Fetherston, Co-Chair
 Jonathan Culley
 Tim Wells




The Social Housing Task Force will conduct this meeting in-person. If you are not able to attend in person, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.


PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email socialhousingtaskforce@portlandmaine.gov.
Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Social Housing Task Force meeting to guarantee
their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To
help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see
below).


AGENDA:

1. Review and Approve Minutes from the January 14, 2026 Meeting

 i. Draft Minutes from the January 14, 2026 Meeting
2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed

3. Discussion regarding Calibration Survey and Path Forward

 i. Calibration Survey Summary
 Debrief and Discussion regarding educational sessions from January 28th (Portland
4.
 Housing Authority) and February 4th (Bonds)

 i. PHA Slide Deck (January 28th Education Session)
 ii. Bond Discussion Follow Up (February 4th meeting)
5. Staff Update on City-Owned Property

 i. Staff Memo
 ii. City Owned Property List
 1
iii. Tax Records and Maps
iv. Information re 1928 and 1956 Congress
v. Information re 21 Randall Street
vi. Ch 14 Sec 6 Permitted and Conditional Uses in RN Zones
vii. Ch 14 Sec 6.6.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
viii. Ch 14 Sec 7 Dimensional Standards
ix. Ch 14 Sec 7.4.1 Conservation Residential Development
x. Ch 14 Sec 17.2 Affordable Housing Density Bonuses




 2

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS
 City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair
FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz
 Paul Styslinger
Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 6:00 Bill Stauffer
 Jason Spector
PM Catherine Buxton
Portland City Hall Basement, Room 24 Wendy Cherubini
Kippy Richardson Room Cullen Ryan
 Matthew Peters
 Kristin Leffler
 Jon Fetherston, Co-Chair
 Jonathan Culley
 Tim Wells




The Social Housing Task Force will conduct this meeting in-person. If you are not able to attend in person, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.


PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email socialhousingtaskforce@portlandmaine.gov.
Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Social Housing Task Force meeting to guarantee
their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To
help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see
below).


AGENDA:

1. Review and Approve Minutes from the January 14, 2026 Meeting

 i. Draft Minutes from the January 14, 2026 Meeting
2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed

3. Discussion regarding Calibration Survey and Path Forward

 i. Calibration Survey Summary
 Debrief and Discussion regarding educational sessions from January 28th (Portland
4.
 Housing Authority) and February 4th (Bonds)

 i. PHA Slide Deck (January 28th Education Session)
 ii. Bond Discussion Follow Up (February 4th meeting)
5. Staff Update on City-Owned Property

 i. Staff Memo
 ii. City Owned Property List
 1

 Page 1
iii. Tax Records and Maps
iv. Information re 1928 and 1956 Congress
v. Information re 21 Randall Street
vi. Ch 14 Sec 6 Permitted and Conditional Uses in RN Zones
vii. Ch 14 Sec 6.6.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
viii. Ch 14 Sec 7 Dimensional Standards
ix. Ch 14 Sec 7.4.1 Conservation Residential Development
x. Ch 14 Sec 17.2 Affordable Housing Density Bonuses




 2

 Page 2
Social Housing Task Force Minutes of Business Meeting held January 14, 2026 at 6:00 pm

A recording of the meeting is posted here. These minutes provide a record of those in attendance, the general
discussion taking place, and motions made. Please refer to the recording for discussion details.

In attendance:
City Councilor Kate Sykes – Co-Chair
Jon Fetherston – Co-Chair
Bill Stauffer
Wendy Cherubini
Matt Peters
Tim Wells
Jonathan Culley
Jason Spector
Cullen Ryan
City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz

Greg Watson, Director of City’s Housing and Economic Development Department
Mary Davis, Division Director, City’s Housing and Community Development Division
Christian Roadman, GPCOG, Senior Planner

The meeting started at approximately 6:07 PM. It opened with approval of the minutes from December 10, 2025 (moved
by Wendy Cherubini, seconded by Jonathan Culley, with unanimous approval).

Christian Roadman and Mary Davis informed the group that the educational session on bonding intended for January
needs to be pushed to February 4th, and that discussion from today’s meeting could inform a potential topic and
scheduling for a new January session.

Mary Davis provided background on the list of City-owned properties provided for this meeting (drawn from a list
completed this summer by the Assessing Department), as well as the list of projects that have not moved forward
(drawn from data that informs the City's housing data dashboard).

Discussion followed about the list of City-owned properties, why certain properties were excluded, requests for
additional information, and the role and charge of the City’s land bank.

Discussion moved to the list of potentially stalled projects. Mary Davis clarified that the list includes several categories:
affordable projects that are likely moving forward, those associated with Master Development Plans (so they have
extended approval times and may or may not move forward), recent approvals which may just need more time, and
those which have exceeded the average time to get from planning board approval to building permit issuance. That last
group, specifically projects in the 2022/2023 timeframe, may be those the task force wishes to focus on.

Discussion followed about the list of stalled projects and potential follow up. Matt Peters noted that checking in with
some of these projects may be worthwhile: Montgomery County's approach seemed to be finding projects that the
developer essentially would have walked away and lost sunk costs. The Montgomery County program gave those
projects an option they didn't have before. That's also a little less risky for any Portland social housing entity because it's
an already advanced process/plan/vision, instead of beginning from scratch.

Councilor Sykes noted the potential for taking over an existing building as well. Jonathan Culley wondered if the City
might be able to take advantage of Historic Tax Credits to facilitate development, though there might need to be an
additional middle party to do so. He noted that there are several well-known buildings in town, such as the Trelawney
Building, where something needs to happen, but a project could probably only work with Historic Preservation Tax
Credits.


 Page 3
Discussion followed regarding potential paths forward, and potential topics for further education. Jonathan Culley noted
that the Portland Housing Authority has developable land and wondered if there might be an opportunity to partner
with them to find a parcel. Chair Sykes noted that it might be worth bringing in the Portland Housing Authority to talk
about it. Wendy Cherubini noted the possibility of converting City land we don’t think of as available for housing –
parking lots around the Reiche School, for instance.

Chair Sykes acknowledged that there seem to be three potential paths forward: developing vacant land, purchasing a
building in need of renovation, and getting involved in a project that is already stalled. Matt Peters noted the additional
option of purchasing a well-maintained apartment building, getting it out of the speculative market.

The group moved the calibration survey agenda item, and Chair Sykes noted that it may be best to discuss it at the next
business meeting.

The group confirmed interest in a late-January educational session with the PHA, focused on what a City social housing
program might help solve, what projects could get built if they weren’t waiting on historic tax credits, and what level of
flexibility the organization has across its board and charter to pursue broader projects and broader mixes of incomes.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:19 pm (moved by Bill Stauffer, seconded by Councilor Michniewicz, with
unanimous approval).




 Page 4
How important, to you, are the potential outcomes listed below in the
context of the Social Housing Task Force?
 Not a priority
 Somewhat a priority
 Absolutely a priority

 Creation of a new, City-run development entity
 City influence over residential development (towards greater affordability)

 Restarting stalled private market housing projects
 Facilitating private market projects with low-interest loans

 Establishing City equity in residential real estate
 Making a return on City investment
 Perpetually facilitating creation of new housing
 Creating new housing below 80% AMI
 Creating new housing at approximately 100% AMI
 Creation of any new housing at all
 Protecting residential apartments from rent increases and condo conversion

 Influencing market rent prices

 Page 5
How important, to you, are the potential outcomes listed below in the
context of the Social Housing Task Force?
 Not a priority
 Somewhat a priority
 Absolutely a priority

5 4 2 Creation of a new, City-run development entity
1 2 8 City influence over residential development (towards greater affordability)
3 4 4 Restarting stalled private market housing projects
5 1 5 Facilitating private market projects with low-interest loans
2 2 7 Establishing City equity in residential real estate
 8 2 Making a return on City investment
 4 7 Perpetually facilitating creation of new housing
2 2 7 Creating new housing below 80% AMI
 5 6 Creating new housing at approximately 100% AMI
1 2 8 Creation of any new housing at all
6 1 4 Protecting residential apartments from rent increases and condo conversion
3 5 3 Influencing market rent prices
 Page 6
What is the minimum number of dwelling units created, the maximum
level of City investment merited, and the maximum timeline for delivery of
meaningful results for a social housing effort to be “worth doing”?




 # of units
 10 				8,700

 Max. investment
 $5 million		 $100 million
 Max. timeline
 1 year			 30 years




 Page 7
Does the value of a social housing program rest in the short term (creation
of units) or the long term (owning dwelling units outright, reinvesting
returns, influencing market prices)?




 Long term
 4 votes

 Short term
 0 votes
 Both
 7 votes




 Page 8
Scenario A: The City spends $20 million to construct a new 40-unit
apartment building, which is owned by the City. The City makes all the
interest payments using rent payments for the apartments, which are all
targeted at 100% AMI. In 20 years, the City owns the building outright. It
then targets the rental apartments at 70% AMI, to cover the building’s
maintenance and operations costs in perpetuity.

Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social
Housing Task Force’s work?




 Yes: 9



 No: 2




 Page 9
Scenario B: The City spends $15 million to restart 3 stalled multifamily
housing projects via below-market-rate loans (say, 5%). Together, the
projects yield 300 new apartments. Most are market rate and out of
reach of many Portlanders. However, under the City’s inclusionary zoning
ordinance, 75 of the units are deed restricted to 80% AMI in perpetuity.
The City does not have an equity stake in any of the apartments. The
loans must all be paid back. Within 20 years, the City has been paid in full
and has achieved / earned a return on its investment.

Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social
Housing Task Force’s work?



 Yes: 5



 No: 6




 Page 10
Scenario C: The City spends $15 million to purchase and refurbish a 50-unit
apartment building. It fully owns the apartments, which are targeted at
90% AMI. Rents cover slightly more than operations and maintenance, so
that the City can contribute $10,000 to the Jill Duson Housing Trust Fund
every year.

Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social
Housing Task Force’s work?




 Yes: 9



 No: 2




 Page 11
Scenario D: A developer works with the City to create a 150-unit
apartment building, where those apartments are targeted equally across
a range of 80% AMI to 120% AMI. In order to make the project work, the
City contributes a $10 million investment, provides the land, and offers
property tax relief. The City maintains an equity stake in the project,
ensuring a percentage of returns from rent, for reinvestment in other
housing projects down the line.

Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social
Housing Task Force’s work?




 Yes: 9



 No: 2




 Page 12
Scenario E: The City hires five new staff and forms the Portland Social
Housing Department. Those staff pursue creation, purchase, seizure, and/
or rehabilitation of properties as able, targeting rent for the Department’s
units from 80 - 100% AMI. The units are spread among single-family homes,
duplexes, four-unit buildings, and one 20-unit building. Most (but not all)
of program costs, including staff salaries, are recouped via rents, and the
City owns each dwelling unit outright.

Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social
Housing Task Force’s work?




 Yes: 6



 No: 5




 Page 13
What AMI (if any) must be targeted for a project to merit subsidy in the
form of City land donations and property tax relief?




 AMI
 60 				 “any, assuming City equity”




 Page 14
Portland Housing Authority: Overview
Data as of October 9, 2025



 Page 15
 About the
 Portland
 Housing
 Authority (PHA)
 Mission Statement:
 PHA partners with the community to
 provide and expand affordable
 housing and services that improve
 quality of life, enhance safety, and
 promote personal success for the
 people we serve and the
 neighborhoods in which they reside.

 Services & Community Alignment:
 PHA offers long-term affordable
 housing and rental assistance to over
 3,000 low-income families, seniors, and
 disabled individuals, serving nearly
 10% of Portland’s population and 30%
 of the Public School population.




Page 16
 7 Member Board – Overseeing 4 primary
 entities


 107 FTE, 7 PTE positions


PHA Staffing
 Structure 2 Unions (ASCME & Teamsters)




 Undergoing Asset Repositioning for all Public
 Housing sites (767 units 15 Properties
 converted/568 units 5 properties remaining)



 Page 17
Our Primary Entities




 Page 18
 PHA
  Federal • Legal Basis: The Portland Housing Authority
 (PHA) operates under the U.S. Housing Act of
 1937, overseen and funded by HUD.
Authority • HUD assigns PHAs (Code ME003) to manage
 public housing and Section 8 in specific areas.
 • PHA has federal authority to develop and
 manage affordable housing and rental assistance
 in Portland, Maine.




 Page 19
 Enabling Legislation:
 Under Maine law, municipalities can establish local
 housing authorities via a city resolution.
 • In 1943, the Portland City Council created the
PHA State Portland Housing Authority as an autonomous
 public organization.
Authority • While operating independently, the housing
  (Maine authority addresses the public housing needs of
 the city and adjoining jurisdiction.
 Law) State Relationship:
 PHA functions separately from MaineHousing.
 • MaineHousing oversees housing finance and
 policy at the state level.
 • PHA is responsible for managing local HUD
 programs and housing services within Portland.
 • Although they collaborate on funding, each
 maintains distinct responsibilities and governing
 boards.
 • Maine has 23 local housing Authorities + 1 State
 Housing Authority
 Page 20
 • Formation and Governance: The Portland Housing
 Authority (PHA) was created by the Portland City
 PHA Council to carry out federal and local housing
Municipal initiatives. Though it functions independently, it
 serves as the City's designated public housing
Authority agent, with its board members appointed by the
 City Council to ensure proper oversight.
  (City of
Portland) • Collaboration at the Local Level: PHA works in
 partnership with various City departments such as
 Housing and Economic Development, Planning, and
 Community Development to coordinate policies and
 advance the City’s objectives related to housing and
 homelessness.




 Page 21
 Area of Coverage

The PHA's jurisdiction • New Gloucester • And the following
covers the following cities • North Yarmouth Islands:
and towns: • Old Orchard Beach – Chebeague island
• Buxton • Portland – Frye Island
• Cape Elizabeth • Pownal – Long Island
• Cumberland • Raymond – Peaks Island
• Dayton • Scarborough
• Falmouth • South Portland
• Freeport • Standish
• Hollis • Westbrook
• Gorham • Windham
• Gray • Yarmouth




 Page 22
 Units Overview

The total PHA population is 5,270
 For comparison – Avesta Housing serves 4704
residents across units.



PHA Public Housing and RAD/LIHTC For comparison Lewiston Housing Authority has
properties = 1,335 units. 466, Westbrook Housing @ 500, SPHA @600




Voucher Programs (Housing Choice, For Comparison LHA 914 Leased, WHA 953, SPHA
Project-Based, EHV, etc.) 2,136 Leased. 739




About 80% of the PHA community receive assistance via voucher programs.


 Page 23
 “Project-Based”
 Vouchers Assisting Our
 Partners in Portland


 • Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs)
 provide rental subsidies linked to
 specific housing units, not tenants.
 The housing authority pays part of the
 rent directly to landlords, and tenants
 must live in the assigned unit to
 receive assistance. PBVs often help
 vulnerable groups and providers who
 seek to assist them in financing
 housing developments.



Page 24
 Some of our 35 PBV Partners
155 Danforth
PHDC
Branigan House (Shalom)
Croquet Lane (Shalom)
Equinox, Holly St, St. John St., Winding Way, Winter Landing (CHOM)
Florence House, Huston Commons & Logan Place (Avesta/Preble)
Iris Park (Iris Network)
Yale Court
Wessex Woods
Strive
Porter Station

 Page 25
Supporting Units for Specialty
Populations

POPULATION TYPE PROJECTS SERVING NOTES

 Includes “55+” project
Elderly 18 Projects
 preference

 Some overlap with
Disabled 23 Projects
 Elderly/Families

 Includes refugee families and
Families 14 Projects
 special needs families


 Units vary per project (range 2–
Homeless Set-aside 14 Projects 30 units)



Homeless Set-Aside Total Units
Total Homeless / Supportive Housing PBV Units: 114
 Page 26
Demographics: Gender, Race, <20
 RAD LIPH VO Portland
 Maine (2021
 ACS)
  Female 51 54 55 34817
  Male 49 46 45 33246
  Female Headed 181 (50%) 308 (59%) 1313 (61%) 2964 (10%)
  Total Residents 629 1315 4216 68063
  Residents <20 yo 192 (31%) 330 (64%) 1412 (33%) @11,625
 (17%)
  White 325 (51%) 640 (49%) 2687 (64%) 54500 (80%)
  Black/AA 207 (33%) 527 (40%) 1298 (31%) 6050 (9%)
  Asian 93 (15%) 142 (11%) 202 (5%) 2170 (3%)
  Other (American Indian, 1% 1% 1% .4%
  Alaskan Native, Native
  Hawaiian or Pacific
  Islander)

 Page 27
Demographics: Disabled, Household Size

 RAD LIPH VO Portland Maine
 (2021 ACS)


Disabled 36% 31% 37% 13%
Non-Disabled 64% 69% 63% 87%
Elderly (65+) 30% 17% 20% 15%
 Household size (number of people in the Household)
1 249 (69%) 233 (43%) 1321 (61%) 13627 (40%)
2 43 (12%) 107 (21%) 322 (15%) 9164 (27%)
3 23 (6%) 59 (11%) 211 (11%) 5651 (17%)
4 20 (6%) 55 (11%) 146 (7%) 4127 (12%)
5 15 (4%) 29 (6%) 72 (3%) 1602 (5%)
6 5 (1%) 15 (3%) 47 (2%) 477 (1%)
7+ 5 (1%) 28 (5%) 44 (2%) 102 (.3%)


 Page 28
 Demographics: Income and Poverty
 Levels
 RAD LIPH VO Portland
 Maine (2021
 ACS)
Average HH NA $24,308 $20,072 $83,399
Gross Income
% of HH below NA 55% 62% 9%
2024 Federal
Poverty
Guideline




 Page 29
 Summary and Insights
PHA serves 5,270 residents; majority via voucher programs.




LIPH residents have lowest incomes and highest racial and citizenship diversity and highest
percentage of people <20 yo.



Voucher participants have higher earnings and smaller households.




Disability and elderly representation consistent (≈20–37%). PHA serves more single parent
households, disabled households, and households experiencing poverty than the city population
as a whole.




 Page 30
 Total Families: 21,506


Waiting for Income Levels:
 • Extremely Low Income: 18,547 (86.24%)
Affordable • Very Low Income: 2,471 (11.49%)
 • Low Income: 395 (1.84%)
 Housing • Over Income: 93 (0.43%)

 Choice Family Type:

 Vouchers: • Families with Children: 7,041 (32.74%)
 • Elderly Families: 3,425 (15.93%)

 Statewide • Families with Disabilities: 9,764 (45.40%)
 • One Household Member: 11,901 (55.34%)
 Summary Race/Ethnicity:
 • White: 17,002 (79.06%)
 • Black or African American: 3,541 (16.47%)
 • Asian: 364 (1.69%)
 • Alaska Native or American Indian: 729 (3.39%)
 • Pacific Islander: 116 (0.54%)
 • Hispanic or Latino: 1,743 (8.10%)

 Locality:
 • Live Local: 2,614 (12.15%)
 • Work Local: 1,339 (6.23%)

 Page 31
 Total Families: 3,297

 Income Levels:
 • Extremely Low Income: 2,462 (74.67%)
Waiting for • Very Low Income: 672 (20.38%
 • Low Income: 139 (4.22%)
  Housing • Over Income: 24 (0.73%)

 Choice Family Type:

 Vouchers: • Families with Children: 978 (29.66%)
 • Elderly Families: 556 (16.86%)

  Portland • Families with Disabilities: 1,317 (39.95%)
 • One Household Member: 1,972 (59.81%)
Applicants Race/Ethnicity:
 • White: 2,405 (72.95%)
 • Black or African American: 651 (19.75%)
 • Asian: 104 (3.15%)
 • Alaska Native or American Indian: 70 (2.12%)
 • Pacific Islander: 13 (0.39%)
 • Hispanic or Latino: 197 (5.98%)

 Locality:
 • Live Local: 2,614 (79.28%)
 • Work Local: 1,339 (40.61%)

 Page 32
State Local
Total Families: 21,506 Total Families: 3,297

Income Levels: Income Levels:
 • Extremely Low Income: 18,547 (86.24%) • Extremely Low Income: 2,462 (74.67%) (-
 • Very Low Income: 2,471 (11.49%) 11.57)
 • Low Income: 395 (1.84%) • Very Low Income: 672 (20.38%) (+8.89)
 • Over Income: 93 (0.43%) • Low Income: 139 (4.22%) (+2.38)
 • Over Income: 24 (0.73%) (+.30%)
Family Type:
 • Families with Children: 7,041 (32.74%) Family Type:
 • Elderly Families: 3,425 (15.93%) • Families with Children: 978 (29.66%) (-3.08)
 • Families with Disabilities: 9,764 (45.40%) • Elderly Families: 556 (16.86%) (+.93)
 • One Household Member: 11,901 (55.34%) • Families with Disabilities: 1,317 (39.95%) (-
 5.45)
Race/Ethnicity: • One Household Member: 1,972 (59.81%)
 • White: 17,002 (79.06%) (+4.47)
 • Black or African American: 3,541 (16.47%)
 • Asian: 364 (1.69%) Race/Ethnicity:
 • Alaska Native or American Indian: 729 (3.39%) • White: 2,405 (72.95%) (-6.11)
 • Pacific Islander: 116 (0.54%) • Black or African American: 651 (19.75%)
 • Hispanic or Latino: 1,743 (8.10%) (+3.28)
 • Asian: 104 (3.15%) (+1.46)
 • Alaska Native or American Indian: 70 (2.12%) (-
 1.27)
 • Pacific Islander: 13 (0.39%) (-.15)
 • Hispanic or Latino: 197 (5.98%) (-2.12)



 Page 33
Waiting for Public Housing




 Page 34
Waiting
for PHA
Non-PH




 Page 35
 Portland Housing Development Corporation
 (PHDC) At a Glance 501(c)4 non-profit development entity for
 PHA
 Development Activity
 2014 -2025
300 new construction units
338 renovated affd. units
334 current public housing units
169 Section 8 Program housing
226 Non-LIHTC/Non-PH units
1,367 TOTAL Owned/Managed
units

New units in Pipeline: 319
Renovation Units in Pipeline: 569
Units under construction: 330
 Front Street Ph 1
 Sagamore Village




 Page 36
 Sample “Capital Stack”

 2015 2025
 Bayside Anchor – 45 family apartments 9 Boyd St. (COMB Block) – 55 family apartments
Sources: Sources:
MaineHousing subsidy - $ 645,725 MaineHousing subsidy - $ 1,000,000
MaineHousing debt - $1,550,788 MaineHousing debt - $11,252,428
City Fed HOME - $ 500,000 City HTF - $ 650,000
LIHTC equity - $5,061,538 FHLB AHP subsidy - $2,000,000
Solar ITC equity - $ 42,642 LIHTC equity - $11,341,682
 TOTAL - $7,800,694 Deferred Dev. Fee - $ 500,000
 DECD Loan - $ 250,000
 TOTAL - $26,958,459

Construction Cost / SF: $156 Construction Cost / SF: $324

Total Dev. Cost / unit: $173,348 Total Dev. Cost / unit: $490,802

City subsidy (non-TIF)/unit: $11,110 City subsidy / unit: $11,818


 Sagamore Village




 Page 37
 PHA/PHDC Land Status

• Before conversions: Declaration of Trust by HUD restricts use to
  public housing – no mortgages / financing (80% AMI restriction)
• Re-Positioning: Under HUD’s Disposition Program PHDC owns land
  with a Restrictive Use Covenant. All properties permanently
  affordable, even after tax credit use restrictions expire (80% AMI in
  perpetuity; LIHTC 60% AMI for 45 years (in perpetuity))
• Last conversions:
 – Franklin Towers – September 2026 (200 units to be renovated with a
 lot split for future development)
 – East Bayside – 5-10 years (134 units with potential for hundreds more
 under RE-CODE)
 – Other scattered sites with underutilized land
• Other opportunities:
 – Local “preservation” deals (saving existing “affordable” housing)
 – New construction projects in the works

 Page 38
Recent Projects & Next Steps




 Riverton Harbor Terrace Sagamore Village COMB Block
 Park & Franklin
 118 under 120 renovated 174 new homes,
 Towers
 renovation and homes for seniors Historic renovations many dedicated to
 64 new homes completed to improve 400 seniors and families
 under September 2025 homes where 40 units
  construction stand




 Page 39
 Funding Challenges
• Limits of Federal Funding (Losing public housing program; HOME funds
 flat funded; LIHTC very limited; Buy America restrictions added)

• Maine funding oversubscribed 5:1 (4-5 LIHTC projects yearly
 statewide; Loan product good at Interest only; No State Subsidy for 4%
 walk-in program, rural or homeownership)

• AHTIF fills operating cost gaps and helps PHA access additional
 funding sources. Operating costs are rising quickly.(Sagamore (no
 TIF) goes from $0 taxes to $435,000/yr. and City will not pick up trash -
 $75,000 project cost)




 Page 40
 Other Challenges
City Fees
Substantial fees reduce City support and limit feasibility
(planning board; building permit; impact fees, legal and
underwriting; ROW infrastructure)

Green Building Ordinance
Complexity and misalignment with MSHA and PHDC
energy standards slows construction of green buildings
(PHDC has built largest number of Passive House units in
Maine)

Environmental Issues
Improved coordination of Environmental Reviews is
needed to address environmental/brownfield
remediation. (City does their assessment and MaineHousing
will not use City’s, they must do their own costing time and
money)




 Franklin Towers
 Towers


 Page 41
Questions?




 Page 42
City of Portland | Finance Department
Brendan O’Connell, Director

To: Members of the Social Housing Task Force
From: Brendan T. O’Connell, Finance Director​
Mary Davis, Housing & Community Development Division Director
Date: February 4, 2026
Re: Bond Discussion Follow Up




SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to respond to questions that were raised during the November 19,
2025 meeting of the Social Housing Task Force. The answers within this memo have been
compiled by City staff (Finance Director Brendan T. O’Connell, Housing & Community
Development Director Mary Davis, Housing and Economic Development Director Greg Watson)
and, where noted, also by the City’s external Bond Advisory firm (Moors & Cabot) and external
legal counsel.


Task Force Question 1: Do revenue bonds impact the City’s credit ratings? ​
​
Response from the City’s external Bond Advisor - Moors & Cabot: Paying for a project with the proceeds
from a Revenue Bond financing is legally a non-recourse obligation supported only by cash flows to pay
associated debt service. The security for a municipal revenue bond is typically defined in a bond
resolution or a trust indenture, which acts as a contract between the issuer and its bondholders. The
resolution or indenture most often identifies the bond’s security as a lien on the net revenues of the
system after the payment of regular operating and maintenance expenses. It may also be enhanced by
posting collateral, albeit burdensome to bondholders who would have to liquidate such.​

The closer the City is to the incorporation and/or governance of an organization that would construct,
manage, or share in typical operating involvement of a project, the more difficult it is to deny
involvement or responsibility. This is not a legal responsibility of the City per se, but investors will look to
and even expect implicit support by the City in times of financial or operational difficulty. The larger the
project, the more vulnerable the City becomes in a “too big to fail” concept.​

Also, while there is no “moral obligation” for the City to be involved it is not unreasonable to expect that
parties affected by misfortunes of the project would seek, and maybe even obtain, a more active
participation of the City than the City had anticipated. The rating analysts are aware of this
circumstance and look to the history of bailouts or lifeboats in their analysis of these probabilities … and
rate accordingly.
​
Finally, the rating analysts look first at “is it necessary” and then “is it desired”? Having passed that level
of due diligence, the next hurdle is “is this consistent with essential uses that the City is to provide”.
Finally, they question the origination capacity, skill sets and depth of experience and talent available to
make the project work. This is a major component of “Management”, one of the four major rating




 Page 43
criteria … that could have an impact on the City’s rating.​

This comes to a discussion of “Notching”. This is the qualitative process of adjusting a specific debt issue’s
rating to reflect credit-specific risks relative to the issuer’s overall creditworthiness. While top-tier,
tax-backed debt may align with the issuer’s rating, other debt instruments (revenue bonds, special tax
bonds) may be notched up or down based on security, legal pledges, and structural features. This also
has the reverse effect. If the subordinate obligor experiences difficulty than this could easily have an
affect on the City’s direct operations (e.g., if the school budget is out of wack, the City’s general fund is
expected for the cure; similarly, it is not uncommon that a TIF financed enterprise fails in its expectations
thus leading to reduced expected TIF revenue or, worse, a draw on City reserves).
​

Task Force Question 2: Is the principal repayment (structure) requirements a condition of the
bond or is it set by the City’s Debt Management Policy? If set by the policy, are there guidelines
or requirements in the policy for principal repayment?​

Response from staff: The City’s Debt Management Policy notes that debt service “Payments will be
structured with level principal and declining interest over the life of the debt, except in instances where
level debt service payments offer economic benefit, such as for rate stabilization.”​
​
Once a specific debt issuance proposal is under consideration by the Social Housing Task Force, the
specific projected cash flows / debt service payments could be projected by the Director of Finance and
outside Bond Counsel.
 ​

Task Force Question 3: Is there a higher interest rate associated with either a general obligation
bond or a revenue bond?​
​
 Response from the City’s external Bond Advisor - Moors & Cabot: The methodology that covers debt
backed by a general obligation (“GO”) bond pledge to pay debt service is an unlimited tax, contractual
“full faith and credit pledge,” including, either explicitly or implicitly, the issuer’s obligation to levy an
unlimited ad valorem property tax to pay debt service. The unconditional and open-ended nature of the
GO pledge typically means an issuer legally commits all of its revenue-generating capacity to meet debt
service obligations.​
​
A revenue bond is a category of municipal bond supported by the revenue from a specific project
Investors in revenue bonds focus heavily on the project's ability to generate cash flow. A key metric is the
debt-service coverage ratio, which measures if the project generates enough income to cover interest and
principal payments and if the project is desired and if the project is needed.
​
General obligation (GO) bonds are traditionally considered to have lower credit risk than revenue bonds
because their payments are backed by a broader range of potential income streams. This bodes for
lower ratings for revenue obligations, as they are generally considered slightly higher risk than GO bonds
and, consequently, even in the same rating range, investors demand higher yields (interest rates) for
revenue bonds.




 Page 44
 ​

 (1) General obligation bonds maturing in 20 years are used in compiling these indexes. The 20-bond index
 has an average rating equivalent to Moody's Aa2 and S&P's AA.

 (2) Revenue bonds maturing in 30 years are used in compiling this index. It has an average rating equivalent
 to Moody's A1 and S&P's A-plus.

 ​

Task Force Question #4: Is city ownership needed to stay under the 10% threshold for tax
exempt bond issuance?

The general response below was provided by the City’s external Bond Counsel - Pierce Atwood. It is
worth noting that this particular question gets complex / nuanced fairly quickly, and that an
engagement letter or contract may be required to research any specific proposal. We have rates from a
variety of local firms which can be shared as needed. ​

*****​
​
For a workforce housing project (e.g., a project that does not meet applicable low-income, affordable
housing limits) to qualify for tax-exempt financing, the project must be owned by the City and either
operated by the City directly, or operated by a third-party manager under a qualified management
contract. The project could be owned by the City directly, or by an entity formed by the City that
qualifies under §115 of the Code.
​
​

Task Force Question #5: What other cities are using bond financing for housing development?
What kind of bond financing is being used in these communities? How do we make sure that
there is a revenue stream to repay the bond and create a revolving loan fund?​
​




 Page 45
Response from City staff: Instances of municipalities directly issuing bonds to construct housing are
somewhat limited. Examples of debt being issued by local or State redevelopment/housing authorities,
such as the Providence, RI example shared during the December 10, 2025 Social Housing Task Force
meeting, are more prevalent. A few examples of where municipalities were the direct issuer of social
housing debt intended to build new housing include the following cities/towns: ​

New York City has sold over $2B in taxable general obligation bonds to finance low income housing
projects. ​

In 2023, San Francisco approved $170,780,000 IN TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (SOCIAL
BONDS – AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2019) SERIES 2023C which were intended to:

 - create new affordable homes, especially for the City’s growing senior population;
 - accelerate the rebuilding of distressed public housing sites for some of the City’s most
 vulnerable residents;​
 - expand rental and homeownership opportunities for the City’s middle-income residents and
 workforce, including educators, first responders, non-profit workers, and service industry
 employees;
 - allocate one third of Proposition A (2019)’s bond funds to serve extremely Low-Income
 households (30% AMI or less).

In 2024, Chicago issued $1.25B in General Obligation and Sales Tax Securitization Corporation bonds, of
which $625 million over 5-years will be used to create affordable housing. The bonds will be primarily
tax-exempt, however up to 35% will be taxable in order to use the funds as revolving loans and other
non-capital expenses. The City will also leverage other resources such as tax increment financing and
LIHTC to augment the bond funds.

Elsewhere in the State of Maine, the Town of Rockland is hoping to use a recently approved $10M in
bonding authority to assist homeowners and developers in building affordable and workforce housing
by leveraging funding available through MaineHousing. However, the funds will not be used directly by
the City to construct housing. The City hired a planning consultant and is facilitating a task force that
will advise the City Council on ways to address housing needs and options for using the funding
available though the housing bond. In addition to the housing bond, the City will also leverage tax
increment financing and credit enhancement agreements.
​
​
Task Force Question 6: Would we need to stand up a separate entity, like the Jetport Enterprise
Fund, to issue bonds for housing development? If so, would that require a charter amendment?

Response from City staff: Corporation Counsel’s Office is conducting research regarding the Portland
Renewal Authority to determine if the entity legally exists today and what authorities the Renewal
Authority has, including the ability to bond. ​
​
Response from the City’s external Bond Counsel: Just to be clear, the Jetport Enterprise Fund is not a
separate legal entity. Rather, it is a “department” or “unit” of the City. The City could pursue a workforce
housing project as the City proper, as a separate enterprise fund of the City (like the Jetport, which is not
a separate legal entity), or through the establishment of an actual separate legal entity that qualifies
under §115 of the Code.




 Page 46
Task Force Question 7: Didn’t the state pass legislation recently that identified housing as
public infrastructure?

Response from City staff: LD 1681, approved in 2025, added to the definition of public infrastructure
“...municipal shelter facilities and housing projects managed and operated by a municipality or a
municipal housing authority, as defined in section 4702, subsection 10-A,...”. See text excerpt noted here.




 Page 47
City of Portland | Housing and Economic Development
Department | Housing and Community Development Division
Mary P. Davis, Division Director




To: Social Housing Task Force




MEETING DATE
February 11, 2026

AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Item 5 Staff Update on City-Owned Property

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS

City-Owned Property

At the January 14, 2026 meeting of the Task Force, staff reviewed a list of 35 city-owned
properties that were determined to have a high “developability score” based on factors such as
utilities intersections, topography, land cover, neighborhood land values, and zoning-based
housing capacity. The list includes development concerns identified as:

 ●​ Land Cover refers to parcels that contain wetlands, shoreland zoning, or are significantly
 forested.
 ●​ Topography refers to parcels with significant differences in maximal elevation changes or
 steep slopes.
 ●​ Water/Sewer Line refers to parcels through which an existing water or sewer line runs.

Jonathan Culley, Task Force member, reviewed the list and created a sublist of eight parcels that
may be appropriate for multi-family development, eliminating lots of less than 10,000 square
feet and lots that had no street access. He met with Councilor Sykes to review the list. Councilor
Sykes asked Staff to review the list and provide preliminary analysis on Zoning (dimensional
standards, allowable density, etc.) and also access to infrastructure (utilities, sidewalks, transit,
etc.).

Staff have begun the review process and are sharing preliminary information at this time.

The City’s Land Use Code is in Chapter 14. There are several sections to refer to that impact the
number of units that can be built on any particular lot.

Chapter 14, Section 6 includes Permitted and Conditional Uses in each zone (see Table 6-A
attached) as well as the Accessory dwelling unit provision in Sec. 6.6.2, attached, which allows up
to 2 additional ADU units on any lot zoned for residential use.



 1

 Page 48
Chapter 14, Section 7 contains the allowable Dimensional Standards (see Table 7-A attached) as
well as alternative residential development forms called a conservation residential development
(CRD) - Sec. 7.4.1, attached, which allows a developer to reduce lot size, setbacks, lot coverage and
street frontage requirements in exchange for conserving a portion of the site as conservation
land.

Chapter 14, Section 17 is the Housing section. Section 17.2.2 (attached) includes affordable
housing density incentives. Allowable density and height bonuses can be found in Section
17.2.2.D permits a developer to develop 2.5x the base density allowance on each developable lot
when they provide 50% or more of the units as affordable.

PREPARED BY

Mary Davis
Housing and Community Development Division D



ATTACHMENTS
City Owned Property List
Tax Record and Map for each of the 8 identified properties
Information re: 1928 and 1956 Congress Street
Information re: 21 Randall Street
Chapter 14 Permitted and Conditional Uses in RN Zones Sec 6.
Chapter 14 Accessory Dwelling Units Sec. 6.6.2
Chapter 14 Dimensional Standards Sec. 7
Chapter 14 Conservation Residential Development Sec. 7.4.1
Chapter 14 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Sec. 17.2



​




 2

 Page 49
 CBL Street Address Zoning Acres Sq. ft. Assessed Val Notes
211 B003001 1928 CONGRESS ST RN1 8.5934 374,328  $1,500,000 Topography, Not Reviewed by COTAPC, proximity to Jetport, Conservation Easement & Wetlands
151A A013001 0 CORNELL ST RN3 3.1044 135,227 $871,400 Access from Cambridge St, needs further staff evaluation re availability
209A A014001 1956 CONGRESS ST RN1 18.6147 810,856  $2,229,900 Topography, Not Reviewed by COTAPC, proximity to Jetport, Conservation Easement & Wetlands
345 B005001 157 PLYMOUTH ST RN1 0.3916 17,056 $92,700 "Pork chop" lot, Not reviewed by COTAPC
352 D018001 284 PALMER AVE RN1 3.1697 138,074 $123,600 Topography, Not reviewed by COTAPC
166 B014001 21 RANDALL ST RN3 0.3204 13,956 $25,000 Water/Sewer Line easement, Reviewed by COTAPC, Adjacent to PHA Front St, in discussions with PHA re sale
126 G003001 56 CLIFTON ST RN3 0.2434 10,601 $265,100 Water/Sewer Line, Reviewed by COTAPC to retain for visibility and traffice reconfiguration
385 B027001 200 LAMBERT ST RN1 0.6721 29,275 $98,200 Topography, Reviewed by COTAPC, available for sale




 Page 50
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ !"#$$ÿ$%
& ÿ
'(ÿ& ÿ
8)ÿ&*ÿ) +,ÿ-ÿ!.#" /# %0
ÿ 123456ÿ829:8ÿ;<2ÿ=4>?ÿ>?2ÿ@AB4B9ÿCD4E2
8)ÿ098ÿF898(G H+I
  * --
ÿ  !"#$$ÿ$%ÿ-+
ÿ JI$K
ÿ ÿ
&* ÿ-ÿ0ÿ7&
ÿ -
ÿ -
LMN53O
P9 %QÿKÿ7"%0 
ÿ ÿ
0))9** ÿ !"#$$ÿ$%
Rÿ$8RÿS 7"%0 ÿ/#ÿI
 )ÿ8 
T ÿ
78( ÿ
UOO5OO5VÿX26Y5O
8) ZR++R+
[)( Z
%8 ZR++R+
\] *8)ÿ^ÿ.98*ÿ#_] Z
`9ÿ#_]* ZR++R+
 Z
a265OÿbcOde3f
8 79 !98 !989 T 78(
^^ Z %QÿKÿ7"%0 
UOO5OOg5NdÿbcOde3f
Q89 8) [)( %8 $8)89) `9 %8_8h
 #_] #_] .8[
+ ZR++R+ Z ZR++R+ Z ZR++R+ Z
I ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z
 ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z
 ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z
 ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z
 Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z
 Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z
 Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z
J Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z
, Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z




 Page 51
1928 Congress




 Page 52
 ÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ ÿ!"
# ÿ
$%ÿ# ÿ
8&ÿ#'ÿ& (ÿ)ÿ*+, "
ÿ -./012ÿ4.564ÿ78.ÿ90:;ÿ:;.ÿ<=>0>5ÿ?@0A.
8&ÿ98ÿB898%C DEE
' ))
ÿ ÿ,ÿ!"
ÿ ÿ
ÿ FFGÿ!H
#' ÿ)ÿÿ7#I
ÿ )
ÿ )
JKL53M
N9 "OÿHÿ7"
ÿ ÿ
&&9'' PQÿ* !!ÿ!"
Rÿ!8RÿS 7"ÿ, ÿE
 &ÿ8 ETTF
IU HO
78% ÿ
VMM5MM5WÿY26Z5M
8& [PGRE
I\&% [
"8 [PGRE
]^ '8&ÿTÿ+98'ÿ_^ [
`9ÿ_^' [PGRE
 [
a265MÿbcMde3f
8 79 *98 *989 IU 78%
ETTF [ "OÿHÿ7"  Hÿ,ÿgÿO,ÿ]ÿ Hÿ"#!" ! HO
T(TQPP [  Hÿ,ÿ!ÿgÿO,ÿ]ÿ Hÿ"#!" ! PFGQ P
GTTQP [  HRÿ, (PF( F(
VMM5MMh5LdÿbcMde3f
O89 8& I\&% "8 !8&89& `9 "8_8i
 _^ _^ +8\
FF [PGRE [ [PGRE [ [PGRE [
FFE [((R [ [((R [ [((R [
FF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [
FFF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [
FF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [
FF [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [
FQ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [
FP [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [
FG [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [
F( [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [




 Page 53
0 Cornell




 Page 54
 ÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ !"#$%%ÿ%&
' ÿ
()ÿ' ÿ
8*ÿ'+ÿ* ÿ,ÿ" -$#!.$!&
ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0
8*ÿ98ÿD898)E FGH
!+ ,,ÿ,,
ÿ  !"#$%%ÿ%&ÿ,
ÿ !&$#!&!ÿ7#IJK
ÿ FFÿ%L
'+ ÿ,ÿÿ7'M
ÿ ,
ÿ ,
NOP53Q
  R9 &KÿLÿ7 #&!
ÿ ÿ
**9++ SFÿ !"#$%%ÿ%&
Tÿ%8TÿU 7 #&!ÿ.$ÿ
 *ÿ8 
MV ÿ
78) ÿ
WQQ5QQ5XÿZ26[5Q
8* \TT
M]*) \
&8 \TT
^_ +8*ÿ̀ÿ-98+ÿ$a_ \
  b9ÿ$a_+ \TT
 \
c265QÿdeQfg3h
8 79 "98 "989 MV 78)
``F \ &KÿLÿ7 #&!
WQQ5QQi5PfÿdeQfg3h
K89 8* M]*) &8 %8*89* b9 &8a8j
 $a_ $a_ -8]
 \TT \ \TT \ \TT \
 \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \
S \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \
 \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \
 \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \
 \TST \ \TST \ \TST \
 \TST \ \TST \ \TST \
F \TST \ \TST \ \TST \
H \TST \ \TST \ \TST \
 \TST \ \TST \ \TST \




 Page 55
1956 Congress




 Page 56
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ7 !"#ÿ$"
! ÿ
%&ÿ! ÿ
8'ÿ!(ÿ)' *ÿ+ÿ, -./0.0"1
ÿ 234567ÿ93:;9ÿ<=3ÿ>5?@ÿ?@3ÿABC5C:ÿDE5F3
8'ÿ198ÿG898&H IJ*
0( +++K+J+
ÿ 7 !"#ÿ$"ÿ+
ÿ -1ÿ1-.ÿ/ $0ÿ$"
ÿ *$L
!( Mÿ+ÿ7!)ÿN1"./
ÿ +
ÿ +
OPQ53R
  S9 )"ÿLÿ7 /"10
ÿ ÿ
1''9(( KJÿ) 0,/.$$ÿ$"
)Tÿ$8TÿU 7 /"10ÿ.ÿ
 'ÿ8 
V ÿ
78& ÿ
WRR5RR5XÿZ26[5R
8' \JMT
]'& \
"8 \JMT
#^ (8'ÿ_ÿ-98(ÿ.`^ \
  a9ÿ.`^( \JMT
 \
b265RÿcdRef3g
8 79 ,98 ,989 V 78&
__K \ )"ÿLÿ7 /"10
WRR5RRh5QeÿcdRef3g
89 8' ]'& "8 $8'89' a9 "8`8i
 .`^ .`^ -8]
MM \JMT \ \JMT \ \JMT \
MM \T \ \T \ \T \
MM \T \ \T \ \T \
MMM \T \ \T \ \T \
MM \T \ \T \ \T \
MM \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \
MJ \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \
MK \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \
M \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \
M* \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \




 Page 57
157 Plymouth




 Page 58
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ7 !ÿ"
# ÿ
$%ÿ# ÿ
8&ÿ#'ÿ(& )ÿ*ÿ+,"!- -.
ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0
8&ÿ98ÿD898%E F)GH
-' **ÿ**
ÿ **
ÿ 7 !ÿ"ÿ*
ÿ HÿIJ
#' ÿ*ÿ7#K(ÿL. !
ÿ ÿ*ÿ7#K(ÿI L !
ÿ *
MNO53P
,Q9 (.Rÿ,Jÿ7,!.-
ÿ ÿ
&&9'' Gÿ(,-+! IIÿI.
(SÿI8SÿT 7,!.-ÿ ÿ
 &ÿ8 G
KU H
78% )
VPP5PP5WÿY26Z5P
8& [S)
K\&% [
.8 [S)
]^ '8&ÿ_ÿ"98'ÿ`^ [
,a9ÿ`^' [S)
 [
b265PÿcdPef3g
8 79 +98 +989 KU 78%
__G [ (.Rÿ,Jÿ7,!.- H )
VPP5PPh5OeÿcdPef3g
R89 8& K\&% .8 I8&89& ,a9 .8`8i
 `^ `^ "8\
 [S) [ [S) [ [S) [
 [S [ [S [ [S [
 [S [ [S [ [S [
 [S [ [S [ [S [
 [S [ [S [ [S [
 [SH [ [SH [ [SH [
G [SH [ [SH [ [SH [
 [SH [ [SH [ [SH [
H [SH [ [SH [ [SH [
) [SH [ [SH [ [SH [




 Page 59
284 Palmer




 Page 60
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿÿ!
" ÿ
#$ÿ" ÿ
8%ÿ"&ÿ'% (ÿ)ÿ*+,-.-!
ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0
8%ÿ98ÿD898$E FG
& )))()
ÿ ÿ!ÿ)G
ÿ -Hÿ!ÿG)G
ÿ GI(J
"& ÿ)ÿ7"'ÿK!-
ÿ Gÿ)ÿ7"'ÿ-K-
ÿ )
LMN53O
+P9 '!Hÿ+Jÿ7+!
ÿ ÿ
%%9&& GQIÿ'+*- ÿ!
'Rÿ8RÿS 7+!ÿ.-ÿ
 %ÿ8 
T ÿ
78$ ÿ
UOO5OO5VÿX26Y5O
8% Z(R
[%$ Z
!8 Z(R
\] &8%ÿ^ÿ,98&ÿ-_] Z
+`9ÿ-_]& Z(R
 Z
a265OÿbcOde3f
8 79 *98 *989 T 78$
^^Q Z '!Hÿ+Jÿ7+!
UOO5OOg5NdÿbcOde3f
H89 8% [%$ !8 8%89% +`9 !8_8h
 -_] -_] ,8[
( Z(R Z Z(R Z Z(R Z
 ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
G ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
 ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
 ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
 ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
I ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
Q ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
i ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z
 ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z




 Page 61
21 Randall




 Page 62
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ!"ÿ#
$ ÿ
%&ÿ$ ÿ
8'ÿ$(ÿ' ÿ)ÿ!*+,"-+" .
ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0
8'ÿ.98ÿD898&E FGG
"( ))
ÿ !"ÿ#
ÿ )ÿÿ#Hÿ
ÿ ÿ
$( ÿ)ÿ7$IÿJ.+,
ÿ ÿ)ÿ7$Iÿ#+J+,
ÿ )
KLM53N
!O9 Pÿ!ÿ7!, ."
ÿ ÿ
.''9(( QRÿ!",+##ÿ#
Sÿ#8SÿT 7!, ."ÿ-+ÿG
 'ÿ8 
IU ÿ
78& ÿ
VNN5NN5WÿY26Z5N
8' [S
I\'& [
 8 [S
]^ (8'ÿ_ÿ*98(ÿ+`^ [
!a9ÿ+`^( [S
 [
b265NÿcdNef3g
8 79 98 989 IU 78&
__Q [ Pÿ!ÿ7!, ."
VNN5NNh5MeÿcdNef3g
P89 8' I\'& 8 #8'89' !a9 8`8i
 +`^ +`^ *8\
 [S [ [S [ [S [
G [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [
 [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [
 [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [
 [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [
 [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [
R [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [
Q [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [
j [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [
 [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [




 Page 63
56 Clifton




 Page 64
 ÿÿ ÿ
123456
789 ÿ ÿ
799ÿ8 ÿ !"#ÿ$#
% ÿ
&'ÿ% ÿ
8(ÿ%)ÿ*( +ÿ,ÿ-./!"0 !0#
ÿ 123456ÿ829:8ÿ;<2ÿ=4>?ÿ>?2ÿ@AB4B9ÿCD4E2
8(ÿ98ÿF898'G H+
0) ,,
ÿ  !"#ÿ$#ÿ,I
ÿ J$K0-#.0ÿ/!ÿ,
ÿ ÿLÿ$M
%) ÿ,ÿ7%*ÿJ#!"
ÿ ÿ,ÿ7%*ÿ$!J!"
ÿ ,
NOP53Q
.R9 *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0
ÿ ÿ
((9)) Lÿ*.0-"!$$ÿ$#
*Tÿ$8TÿU 7."#0ÿ!ÿI
 (ÿ8 VVL
W I
78' L
XQQ5QQ5Yÿ[26\5Q
8( ]LT
^(' ]
#8 ]LT
K_ )8(ÿVÿ/98)ÿ!`_ ]
.a9ÿ!`_) ]LT
 ]
b265QÿcdQef3g
8 79 -98 -989 W 78'
VVL ] *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0 *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0 I L
XQQ5QQh5PeÿcdQef3g
S89 8( ^(' #8 $8(89( .a9 #8`8i
 !`_ !`_ /8^
 ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]
I ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]
 ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]
 ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]
 ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]
 ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]
L ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]
 ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]
 ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]
+ ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]




 Page 65
200 Lambert




 Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
 !
 (

 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
 !
 (


 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
 Attachment C 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 166-C-13
 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
166-B-1 FRONT ST 37-59 -
 & 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE
 -
 & -
 &
 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE

 40 foot wide
 sewer right of way
 166-C-12


 166-C-6
 31
 !
 (




 abandone
 d?
 sewer (ty
 !
 (
 !
 (
 pical) -
 &
 166-C-11




  166-B-9 166-B-10


 -
 & !
 (


 166-C-9-10
 166-C-7-8

 166-B-11 166-B-12 166-B-13 166-B-14-15-16 11
 !
 (


 33
 !
 (
 29
 !
 (

 166-C-17




 -
 &




 RANDALL ST
 &
 -
 &
 -




  166-E-2 166-E-3 166-E-4 166-E-15 166-E-5 166-E-6 166-E-7 166-F-1-2 166-F-3-4




GIS SKETCH OF 21 RANDALL ST
 !
 ( !
 (


 0 15 30 60 90 120 CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE
 !
 (


 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
 !
 (



AUGUST 8, 2019 1"=30'
 Feet
 ± !
 (



 Page 77
 212 Canco Rd Suite B PORTLAND, MAINE 04101
 PHONE (207) 874-8846 FAX (207) 874-8852
 Attachment D




Page 78
 USE STANDARDS




TABLE 6-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES
 Use
 RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6 Standards
 Single-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Two-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Three-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Four-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Multi-family dwellings Կ ౢ Կ ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.12


 Residential
 Townhouse dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.13
 Group homes Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.17
 Lodging houses Կ Կ ౢ ౢ 6.4.21
 Child care centers + small child care facilities Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.9
 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ
 Governmental uses ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Places of assembly Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.30


 Institutional
 Post-secondary schools Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.31
 Residential care facilities (small) Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ
 6.4.35
 Residential care facilities (large) Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ
 Bed and breakfasts ౢԿ ౢԿ ౢԿ 6.4.7
 Hostels ౢԿ ౢԿ ౢԿ 6.4.18

 Comm.
 Market gardens Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.25
 Neighborhood nonresidential reuse Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.26
 Cemeteries ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ
 Parks and open spaces ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ

 Other
 Solar energy systems (minor) ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.38
 Utility substations Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.39
Key: ౢ = permitted | ᶊ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ౢ/ᶊ = permitted or conditional per use standards




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-3


 Page 79
USE STANDARDS




 standard shall apply separately to each leased 6. ADUs shall be exempt from maximum lot
 portion of the principal building. coverage and minimum lot area per
C. No accessory use or uses not within a building dwelling unit requirements.
 shall occupy more than a combined total of 7. Detached ADUs shall be limited to a
 25% of the unbuilt lot area, with the exception maximum height of 18 feet, unless
 of off-street parking or as otherwise provided constructed above a garage, in which case
 in Subsection 6.6.2. the height of the structure shall be limited
 to 25 feet.
6.6.2 Standards for specific accessory uses 8. In residential zones, detached ADUs,
A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) regardless of size, shall be subject to side
 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall be and rear setbacks for detached accessory
 permitted on all lawfully conforming and structures less than 250 square feet, as
 nonconforming lots with legal residential established in Article 7.
 uses. 9. Detached ADUs shall not be permitted
 2. ADUs shall be permitted as new detached between a principal structure and a front
 accessory structures, building additions, or lot line.
 within existing lawfully conforming or B. Antennas, discs, transmitting and receiving
 nonconforming structures. However, the equipment. Building-mounted antennas, discs,
 addition of an ADU may in no way increase and other transmitting and receiving
 the degree of nonconformity of any equipment shall be:
 structure unless otherwise permitted 1. No taller than 15 feet above the highest
 under this subsection. structural steel of the building roof.
 3. Up to two ADUs shall be permitted per 2. Setback no less than 15 feet from the
 qualifying property. building perimeter.
 4. Under circumstances where an existing 3. Integrated into the architecture of the
 nonconforming structure is converted to building in placement, form, color, and
 an ADU, the design of the ADU shall take material so as to screen or camouflage
 into consideration to the extent such equipment from public view.
 practicable the privacy of adjacent C. Drive-throughs
 properties. 1. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as an
 5. An ADU shall be limited to a gross floor accessory use in the B-4 zone.
 area of 2/3 of the gross floor area of the 2. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as
 largest principal unit on the lot. The conditional accessory uses in the B-2 zone
 aggregate square footage of detached only if a drive-through was located on the
 ADUs on a lot shall not exceed the gross site as of the effective date of this Code.
 floor area of the principal structure. 3. In all other zones, drive-throughs shall be
 prohibited.




6-28 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 80
 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS




TABLE 7-A: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
 RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6
 Single-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- --
 Two-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- --
 Three-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- --
 Four-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- --
 Lot area
 Townhouse -- 1,500 SF/unit -- 1,500 SF/unit -- 1,200 SF/unit
 (min.)
 1,200 SF/unit,
 Multi-family 1,200SF/unit 725 SF/unit minimum of 435 SF/unit
 40,000 SF
 Nonresidential 6,500 SF 6,000 SF 5,000 SF 2,000 SF 40,000 SF 2,000 SF
 40 ft., except 15 20 ft., except 15 20 ft., except 15
 Street frontage (min.) 40 ft. ft./unit for 40 ft. ft./unit for 50 ft. ft./unit for
 townhouse townhouse townhouse
 Average of
 Average of Average of Average of
 Front setback adjacent front
 adjacent front adjacent front adjacent front 25 ft. --
 (min.) yards minus 5
 yards minus 5 ft. yards minus 5 ft. yards minus 5 ft.
 ft.
 Principal structures
 and detached
 accessory 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft.
 Rear
 structures
setback
 (>250 SF footprint)
  (min.)
 Detached accessory
 structures 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
 (<250 SF footprint)
 8 ft., except that 7 ft., except that
 5 ft., except that a
 a side setback a side setback 5 ft., except that a
 side setback may
 Principal structures may be reduced may be reduced side setback may be
 be reduced to not
 and detached to not less than to not less than reduced to not less
 less than 0 ft.
 Side accessory 8 ft. 5 ft. provided 4 ft. provided 16 ft. than 0 ft. provided
 provided that the
setback, structures that the that the that the cumulative
 cumulative side
 interior (>250 SF footprint) cumulative side cumulative side side yards are not
 yards are not less
 (min.) yards are not yards are not less than 10 ft.
 than 10 ft.
 less than 16 ft. less than 14 ft.
 Detached accessory
 structures 5 ft. 5 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. 3 ft.
 (<250 SF footprint)
 15 ft., or the 10 ft, or the
 10 ft, or the
 depth of an depth of an
 depth of an
 adjacent front adjacent front
 adjacent front
 yard directly yard directly
 Side setback, corner yard directly
 abutting the abutting the -- 25 ft. --
 (min.) abutting the
 corner side corner side
 corner side yard
 yard of the lot, yard of the lot,
 of the lot,
 whichever is whichever is
 whichever is less
 less less




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 7-7


 Page 81
 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS




TABLE 7-A (CONT.): RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
 RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6
 35 ft., except 45 ft.
 for buildings with 3
 or more dwelling 65 ft., except
 Structure height (max.) units. In all cases, 45 ft. within 15
(Unless otherwise governed by the height shall be ft. of an RN-1,
 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 55 ft.
City of Portland Height Map or the limited to 35 ft. RN-2, RN-3,
 Fort Sumner Park Height Overlay) within 15 ft. of a RN-4, OS-R, or
 rear lot line when OS-P zone
 abutting an RN-1,
 RN-2, or RN-3 zone
  Detached accessory structure
 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft.
 height (max.)
 Building length (max.)
 (Multi-family + Nonresidential -- -- -- 70 ft. 180 ft. --
 uses)
 Residential
 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 100%
 Lot coverage uses
 (max.) Nonresidential
 35% 50% 50% 60% 50% 100%
 uses
  Landscaped Residential
 30% 30% 30% 20% 30% --
 open space uses
 ratio Nonresidential
 50% 30% 30% 20% 30% --
 (min.) uses
 9 ft. or 30% of
 9 ft. or 30% of the the front
 front façade, façade,
 Width of garage opening on whichever is whichever is
 -- -- --
 front façade (max.) greater, however greater,
 in no case more however in no
 than 20 ft. case more
 than 20 ft.




 7-8 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 82
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS




7.4 ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL frontage on a street, private way, or
 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS common open space within the
The following alternative residential development development.
options are available within certain zones as b. The maximum number of lots
indicated. These alternative residential development permitted within a conservation
options are intended to provide creative development shall be determined by
opportunities for residential development by the total acreage of the site divided by
modifying standards within certain zones to allow the applicable minimum residential lot
for a variety of densities and site designs. Alternative area requirement of the underlying
residential development options may not be zone.
combined. c. All lots within the conservation
 residential development shall meet
7.4.1 Conservation residential development the dimensional requirements of the
A. A conservation residential development underlying zone with the exception of
 permits a reduction in minimum lot area in the following:
 exchange for provision of common open space, i. Minimum lot area and street
 allowing for the efficient use of land and frontage may be reduced by no
 preservation of Portland’s natural resources. more than 50%.
B. Conservation residential development is ii. Maximum lot coverage and
 permitted in the RN-1, IR-1, and IR-2 zones. minimum landscaped open space
C. A conservation residential development shall be ratio requirements do not apply to
 a minimum of two acres in area. lots of 5,000 square feet or less in
D. A conservation residential development shall be lot area.
 designed to prioritize the preservation of iii. A minimum side setback of five
 important natural features such as streams, feet applies to all lots within a
 wetlands, stands of mature trees, and critical conservation residential
 wildlife habitats. Development shall minimize development unless otherwise
 impacts on the natural environment by specified below.
 carefully laying out structures, streets, and iv. A minimum corner side setback of
 other infrastructure, including buffer zones to ten feet applies to all corner lots
 protect and connect existing natural areas on within a conservation residential
 site. development unless otherwise
E. Development standards specified below.
 1. Site layout v. Front and rear setbacks may be
 a. All lots within a conservation reduced by 50% for all lots within
 residential development shall have the conservation residential



7-14 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 83
 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS




 development, unless otherwise iii. No more than 50% of the required
 specified below. common open space shall be
 vi. Where a lot within the covered by water.
 conservation residential iv. Structures located within any
 development abuts adjacent common open space shall be
 property, minimum side and rear accessory to any recreational use
 setbacks are required in of the space.
 accordance with the standards of b. Common open space may be
 the underlying zone. conveyed as follows:
 vii. Where a lot within the i. To the City of Portland.
 conservation residential ii. To a nonprofit corporation or
 development abuts a street at the charitable trust, the purposes or
 perimeter of the development, powers of which include retaining
 minimum front setback and or protecting the natural, scenic,
 minimum street frontage is or open space values of real
 required in accordance with the property; assuring the availability
 standards of the underlying zone. of real property for agricultural,
2. Common open space forest, recreational, or open space
 a. In addition to any open space use; protecting natural resources;
 otherwise required by this code, 30% or maintaining or enhancing air or
 of the total site area of a conservation water quality of real property.
 residential development shall iii. To one or more homeowner’s
 comprise common open space. associations.
 Common open space shall be c. Common open space associated with
 designed as follows: a conservation residential
 i. Required common open space development shall not be sold, and has
 shall maintain a minimum width of no future development rights.
 at least 30 feet in any direction.
 ii. Common open space may be 7.4.2 Cottage court residential development
 improved for recreational use, or A. A cottage court residential development allows
 left in a natural state. If improved for small lot residential development in a
 for recreational use, no more than manner that coordinates dwelling types and
 10% of the common open space common open space into a cohesive whole,
 shall comprise impervious maintained in shared stewardship by residents.
 surfaces. B. Cottage court residential development is
 allowed in the RN-1, RN-2, RN-3, and IR-2 zones.




 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 7-15


 Page 84
HOUSING




B. The Zoning Board of Appeals must make inclusion of affordable housing units in
 positive findings on each of the four criteria development projects in certain contexts. In so
 above in order for any such adjustment to be doing, this section will assist the city in meeting its
 valid. An applicant aggrieved of a decision of comprehensive goals for affordable housing, in
 the Zoning Board of Appeals may appeal a preventing the overcrowding and deterioration of
 decision under this subsection pursuant to the the limited supply of affordable housing, and
 provisions of Article 2. promote the health, safety, and welfare of its
 citizens.
17.1.11 Effect of other City ordinances
A. Nothing in this section shall permit the 17.2.2 Affordable housing incentives
 demolition or conversion to nonresidential use A. Eligible projects. Under this subsection,
 of dwelling units in residential property eligible projects shall include any development
 protected by Article 16, except as permitted by project:
 that ordinance. 1. That is permissible under the provisions of
B. A conditional zone may not be used to this Land Use Code in the zone in which it
 circumvent the application of this section. The is proposed.
 terms of this section shall apply to any 2. That creates new dwelling units, among
 conditional zone which involves dwelling units which is at least one low-income or
 affected by this section. Notwithstanding the workforce housing unit for rent or sale,
 foregoing, nothing herein shall be deemed to through new construction, substantial
 prevent the City and the applicant from alteration of existing structures, adaptive
 agreeing to terms which exceed those imposed reuse or conversion of a nonresidential use
 by this section by means of a conditional zone. to residential use, or any combination of
 these elements. Affordable housing units
17.1.12 Appeals for sale or rent may not differ in exterior
Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the design from other units within an eligible
Planning Authority under this section may appeal to project.
the Zoning Board of Appeals within 30 days of that B. Reduction of fees. Notwithstanding any other
decision. provision of this Land Use Code or Chapter 6
 to the contrary, development fees, including
17.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING site plan review and inspection fees, subdivision
17.2.1 Purpose review and inspection fees, impact fees,
It is in the public interest to promote an adequate administrative fees, and construction and
supply of housing that is affordable to a range of permit fees as described in Chapter 6 of the
households at different income levels. Therefore, City of Portland Code of Ordinances, shall be
the purpose of this section is to offer incentives to reduced by the City for an eligible project in the
developers to include units of affordable housing manner described in Table 17-A. Development
within development projects and to require the



17-4 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 85
 HOUSING




 of its review. At the conclusion of these public
 TABLE 17-A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE REDUCTIONS
 meetings, the Planning Board shall promptly
 % of New Units
 That are Low- Cost of Work issue a decision on all such plans and
 Income or Development (Building Permit) applications before it for consideration.
 Workforce Fee Discount Fees
 D. Density and height bonuses.
 10% up to but not
 10% reduction $9.90 per $1,000 Notwithstanding any other provision of this
 including 15%
 Land Use Code to the contrary, in order to
 15% up to but not
 15% reduction $9.35 per $1,000 encourage low-income and workforce units in
 including 20%
 20% up to but not 20% areas prioritized for growth, eligible projects as
 $8.80 per $1,000
 including 25% reduction defined under Subsection 17.2.2 may avail
 25% or more 25% reduction $8.25 per $1,000 themselves of the following options:
 1. Density bonuses. The maximum number
 of units that would otherwise be allowed
TABLE 17-B: BONUSES FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
 % Low-income or under this Land Use Code shall be
  Workforce Units Density Permitted1 increased for an eligible project in the
 10-19% 1.1 x base manner described in Table 17-B, applicable
 20-29% 1.25 x base where residential is allowed as a permitted
 30-49% 1.3 x base or conditional use in mainland zones.
 50-74% 2.5 x base 2. Height bonuses. In mixed-use zones, the
 >75% 2.5 x base TOD zones, and the RN-6, for eligible
1
 “Base” is the number of units allowed under the zoning without projects over ten units in size in which over
this bonus but with any other bonuses applied.
 75% of units are low-income or workforce
 units, maximum heights as permitted
 fees do not include any fees charged for review under Article 7 shall be increased by 10
 conducted by any party other than the City. feet.
 C. Expedited review. The Planning Authority shall 3. Unit size. In order to be eligible for this
 perform its review of an eligible project in as subsection, the low-income and workforce
 expedited a manner as is practical, without housing units must meet Subsections
 impairing the scope or thoroughness of the 17.2.3(C)(2), (3), and (4).
 review. The Planning Authority may adopt 4. Term of affordability. Affordable units
 administrative procedures to prioritize review under this subsection shall be deed-
 of eligible projects and facilitate this expedited restricted to remain affordable for 30
 review. The Planning Board shall make its best years or the longest term permitted under
 efforts to give priority in scheduling workshops federal, state, and local laws, whichever is
 and public hearings related to any plans or longer. Such deed restrictions shall be
 applications required for an eligible project that recorded in the Cumberland County
 are within the Planning Board’s jurisdiction, Registry of Deeds.
 without impairing the scope or thoroughness



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 17-5


 Page 86
HOUSING




17.2.3 Ensuring workforce housing TABLE 17-C: MINIMUM TERM OF AFFORDABILITY FOR
A. Purpose. Based on the City’s Comprehensive REQUIRED WORKFORCE UNITS
 Plan and the City’s 2015 housing study, it is in % of Workforce
 the public interest to promote an adequate Units Provided Minimum Term of Affordability
 supply of housing that is affordable to a range 25% 30 years
 of households at different income levels. The 50% 20 years
 purpose of this subsection is to ensure that 100% 10 years
 housing developments over a certain size
 provide a portion of workforce housing units provide no indication from the exterior or
 and, by doing so, promote the health, safety, from areas inside the respective buildings
 and welfare of Portland citizens. that these units are workforce housing
B. Applicability. This subsection shall apply to units, and must demonstrate general parity
 site plan applications that create ten or more in unit design, finishes, and amenities
 new dwelling units for rent or for sale through between market and workforce units in the
 new construction, substantial alteration of development. Applications shall include a
 existing structures, adaptive reuse or narrative that addresses parity of
 conversion of a nonresidential use to workforce and market rate units, a
 residential use, or any combination of these description of workforce and market rate
 elements. This subsection shall not apply to unit attributes and amenities, phasing if
 projects that otherwise meet or exceed the applicable, and integration into the
 standards of 17.2.3(C). respective building and site design.
C. Standards. Development projects subject to 4. Workforce units need not be the same size
 this subsection shall meet to the following as other units in the development but the
 requirements: cumulative number of bedrooms in such
 1. At least 25% of the units in the project shall units shall be no less than 25% of the total
 meet the definition of workforce housing number of bedrooms in the development.
 unit for sale or for rent as defined in 5. As an alternative to providing workforce
 Article 3. The project shall have the option housing units, projects may pay a fee-in-
 of paying a partial fee-in-lieu as per (5) lieu of some or all of the units. In-lieu fees
 below or providing an additional unit on- shall be paid into the Housing Trust Fund.
 site for any fractional value. The fee for affordable units not provided
 2. Projects shall not be segmented to avoid shall be $150,000 per unit, adjusted
 compliance with these provisions. annually in the same way as the fee under
 3. Workforce units must be integrated with Subsection 17.1.8.
 the rest of the development, must use a 6. Workforce housing units for sale, if
 common entrance in the case of mixed converted to workforce housing units for
 market rate and workforce buildings, must



17-6 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 87
 HOUSING




 rent, shall become subject to the income the result of the fact that hospitality
 limits and other requirements of such units. developments necessarily create a number of
 7. The term of affordability for the required jobs that do not pay employees at a rate
 25% workforce units provided shall be sufficient to allow those employees to afford
 defined as shown in Table 17-C. market-rate housing in the City of Portland.
 8. Projects shall be subject to an affordable B. Hotel projects. For the purposes of this
 housing agreement with the City of subsection, hotel projects shall include any
 Portland, unless a project is otherwise hotel as defined in Article 3 consisting of 10 or
 subject to such an agreement requiring an more guest rooms for rent to transient guests
 equal or greater percentage of affordable or to extended stay guests of up to six months.
 units at an equal or lower income target Any expansion of an existing hotel by 10 or
 level than required by this section. more rooms within any five-year period will
D. Density and height bonuses. Projects that are also be considered a hotel project.
 subject to this subsection shall be eligible for C. Low-income housing minimum. All hotel
 density and height bonuses under Subsection projects shall provide one unit of low-income
 17.2.2(D). housing for rent in the City of Portland for
E. Implementation guidance. The Housing & every 28 rooms in the hotel project, which shall
 Economic Development Department shall meet the standards outlined in Subsections
 provide guidance on income verification 17.2.3(C)(2), (3), and (4) and in the
 methods, affordable housing agreements, and implementing regulations governing low-
 subsequent monitoring requirements. income units. Such units shall contain two
F. Reporting to City Council. In conjunction bedrooms and be a minimum of 900 SF in floor
 with the annual report on the Housing Trust area. This amount shall be rounded up to the
 Fund, the Planning Authority shall annually nearest increment of 28 rooms. These units
 report on developments subject to this shall be deed restricted for the longest period
 subsection, the number of units produced, the permitted by law, shall not be used for short-
 amount of fee-in-lieu collected, and the overall term rentals of less than 30 days, and must be
 effectiveness of this subsection in achieving its provided with distinct entrances from the
 stated purpose. street to delineate them from the hotel itself.
 D. Fee-in-lieu alternative. As an alternative to
17.2.4 Inclusionary zoning for hotel projects providing low-income housing units under
A. Purpose. This subsection is based on City Subsection 17.2.4(C) above, a hotel project may
 analysis, most specifically the analysis pay a fee-in-lieu of $3,806 per hotel guest
 documented in the Greater Portland Council of room. This amount shall be paid into the City’s
 Government study Proposed Hotel Linkage Fee: Housing Trust Fund and used for the purposes
 Supportable Range dated August 29, 2018, that set forth in the ordinance and regulations
 finds that new hospitality developments create applicable to that trust.
 a need for new affordable housing. This need is



 CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 17-7


 Page 88
HOUSING




E. Annual adjustments. The amounts in E. Any federal, state, or private grant or loan
 Subsection 17.2.4(D) above shall be adjusted funds provided to the fund.
 annually in the same way as the fee under F. Interest from fund deposits and investments.
 Section 17.1.8. G. Repayments of loans made from the fund.
F. Implementation guidance. The Housing &
 Economic Development Department shall 17.3.3 Management of the trust fund
 provide guidance on income verification The City Manager, or their designee, shall serve as
 methods, affordable housing agreements, and the manager of the Housing Trust Fund. The
 subsequent monitoring requirements. responsibilities of the manager, subject to the
 orders of the City Council, shall include:
17.3 JILL C. DUSON HOUSING TRUST FUND A. Maintaining the financial and other records of
17.3.1 Purpose the Housing Trust Fund.
The purpose of enacting this section is: B. Disbursing and collecting Housing Trust Fund
A. To establish a City of Portland Housing Trust monies in accordance with the Housing Trust
 Fund for the promotion, retention, and Fund annual plan.
 creation of an adequate supply of housing, C. Monitoring the use of monies distributed to
 particularly affordable housing, for all economic successful applicants for Housing Trust Fund
 groups and to limit the net loss of housing units support to assure on-going compliance with
 in the city. the purposes of the fund and the conditions
B. To serve as a vehicle for addressing very low, under which these monies were granted or
 low, and moderate income housing needs loaned.
 through a combination of funds as set out in
 this article. 17.3.4 Housing Trust Fund annual plan
 A. Each fiscal year, the City Council shall adopt a
17.3.2 Establishment of the Jill C. Duson Housing Trust Fund annual plan. The City
 Housing Trust Fund Manager shall submit to the City Council a
The City Council shall establish a special revenue recommended Housing Trust Fund annual plan,
account under the name “City of Portland Jill C. utilizing the revenues of the Housing Trust
Duson Housing Trust Fund” (Housing Trust Fund). Fund as well as any other funds the manager
Deposits into the fund shall include: may propose as appropriate. The housing
A. Contributions from the City’s housing committee of the City Council or such other
 replacement ordinance under Subsection 17.1.8. committee as the council shall designate shall
B. In-lieu fees under Subsections 17.2.3 and 17.2.5. conduct public hearings on the recommended
C. Funds appropriated to be deposited into the plan and refer the matter to the council for
 fund by vote of the City Council. action.
D. Voluntary contributions of money or other B. The Housing Trust Fund annual plan shall
 liquid assets to the fund. include:




17-8 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE


 Page 89