We are writing to you regarding the appearance of the building that is being considered for construction at the above address. We own the house at #36 Atlantic Street, which, we are told, is the property that abuts the site in question more closely than any others.

We would like to suggest that, in order to maintain the continuity and integrity of the neighborhood, the exterior of #42 be more in keeping with other houses on the block. That is: a light colored clapboard with a significant cornice and trim around doors and windows.

If one goal of affordable housing is to integrate neighborhoods with a diverse population, it would seem wise and considerate to help the folks who live there feel comfortable and welcome in their new neighborhood. Residing in a building that resembles others on Atlantic Street in style and character will promote that integration.

Please feel free to follow up on this suggestion with any questions you might have.
Thanks in advance for attending to our opinion.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline and Jim Mann
36 Atlantic Street

——————

My wife (cc'd) and I are the residents and owners of 52 Atlantic St and we have some concerns about the project planned for 42 Atlantic St. I previously attended their neighborhood meeting and so I was made aware of their updated proposal and that I could send you feedback. I have a number of overall concerns, but I understand that for this audience I should keep this focused on historic preservation topics.

First, I really appreciate the work that went into making the building look more a part of the neighborhood in terms of style, materials, and color. This current proposal looks like a better fit in the neighborhood. However, it is still just a big box. I think it would be a better fit with a pitched roof like all of the neighbors. Perhaps dormers could help make that more acceptable for the top floor residents?

Second, I'm concerned about the proposed view renderings, they appear unintentionally deceptive in terms of scale. The proposed building is 4 stories. All the neighboring buildings are 2-3 stories. The tallest in the vicinity may be my residence at 52 Atlantic because it is 3 stories and a widows walk. The renderings (especially the ones from Gilbert Lane) show the 4 stories at a comparable height to the direct neighbors that are 2 stories. I don't understand how that is possible. I do understand that we are on a hill, and visual perspective is a factor, but not to this degree. I'm concerned that this contributes to making the building look more comparable to the neighbors and meet historic requirements when in reality it will tower over the neighbors.

Thank you for taking feedback. I look forward to seeing this project progress and have design iterations make it a fit for the neighborhood.

Brian Partridge

——————

We would like to submit the following comments about the new construction project proposed for 42 Atlantic Street. We are neighbors who live at 37 Atlantic Street. We attended both the neighborhood meeting and the Historic Preservation Board workshop last week. While we support the commendable ambition to provide much-needed affordable housing in this neighborhood and appreciate the legal and economic complexity of bringing such a project to fruition, we have significant concerns about the compatibility of the project, as designed, with its surrounding context.

At this early stage in the development review process, our principal concern is the proposed building’s scale and form. The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance Standards for Review of New Construction states that “the proposed height shall be visibly compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from any street or open space” and “The width of a building shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures when viewed from any street or open space.” At +/- 42’ high and +/- 75’ wide, the proposed building is highly incompatible with surrounding structures, disrupting the rhythm of spacing and structures that characterizes Atlantic Street and the vast majority of the district. The applicants’ efforts to break down this massing, including the shifts in the Atlantic Street facade, are feeble and ineffective.

The architecture of Munjoy Hill is indeed eclectic, and there are certainly 4-story buildings scattered throughout the district. The vast majority of these tall buildings are also narrow, however, with the relief of open space with light and views between adjacent building masses. As noted in the Historic Preservation Program’s Staff Memorandum for this project, one of the “handful of unifying features” of Munjoy Hill’s architecture is that structures are independent, rather than connected row houses spanning wide or multiple lots.

Furthermore, the taller and wider “boxy” buildings on Munjoy Hill are mostly concentrated toward the northeastern edge of the neighborhood along Vesper and Morning Streets, closer to the long view of Casco Bay.

Notably but perhaps not surprisingly, the applicants’ “Neighborhood Analysis” neglected to include photographs of the houses immediately adjacent to the project site: the two houses directly across Atlantic Street (37 and 42) and the two houses directly adjacent to the southeast (34 and 36). We are appending photographs of these buildings to these comments. These houses, plus 48 Atlantic Street adjacent to the northwest, comprise a unique pocket of modest, 1 1/2- to 2-story, pre-Fire of 1866 homes (with 48, 41, 37, 36, and 34 Atlantic Street all built between c. 1840 and 1854). The massive, “boxy” building proposed for 42 Atlantic Street would be jarringly incongruous with this most immediate context.

If the width of the proposed building (or two buildings) were closer to 30’, as is typical along Atlantic Street, the project would, with the right detailing, have a much better chance of fitting in with the surrounding context. At double the width of the vast majority of buildings in the district and certainly the immediate surroundings, the proposed building would be a significant disruption to the neighborhood as a whole and particularly incompatible with the unusual group of small, older homes directly surrounding it.

We certainly appreciate the varied and evolving architecture of Munjoy Hill. Since the City has collectively agreed that the historic fabric of our neighborhood is a valuable asset worth maintaining, however, we ask the Board to give serious consideration to the proposed building’s potential rupture of our neighborhood’s character and streetscape.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,
Ananda & Bernard Moor-Jankowski

——————

I live at 33 Atlantic Street and obviously have a keen interest in this project.

I am writing today to formally request that the applicant provide several renderings of the next proposed design that demonstrate what the proposed building will actually look like in real space. The initial rendering was pretty much inadequate to the task. I appreciate that HP staff and members of the HP board are probably well-used to visualizing what elevations and other drawings might look like, but the public does not have this expertise. Simply put, we can’t begin to imagine what the proposal will look like without modern, appropriate renderings and illustrations.

Joe Lewis

——————

I live in and own the property at 20 Atlantic Street. I attended the neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed new construction at 42 Atlantic Street. Although I support the construction of low income housing for the site, the massive scale of the proposed project is horribly out of scale to the surrounding properties. Further the failure to provide any parking for 26 units will create a parking issue for Atlantic Street. The proposed design stands out like a sore thumb. I would fully support a scaled down project with a design more compatible with the neighborhood.
Thanks for listening.
Tom Pearson
20 Atlantic St.

——————

Reviewing the following documents:
Historic Preservation Public Workshop & #2 25 March 2024 & Historic Preservation 17.1 Purpose
Points 17.1 C, E, F, & G appear at direct odds with the proposal.
Given its size, placement, and design, the building is remarkably unlike any house in the immediate vicinity. It will be immediately noticeable and dominant, not fitting the neighborhood's present character.

The persons/sqft (assuming ~50 persons in 26 units) of land is estimated to be ~4 to 5 times that of the current density and at least twice as big as everything else, making it difficult to
claim that it “ensures compatible new construction.”

It is difficult to imagine the construction will “Stabilize and improve [e] the values of the properties and areas,” given the added traffic, congestion (Atlantic St. is already tight with two
cars), and added parking that would be needed.
I want to urge you to reject the plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
John “Jack” Lesko
33 Atlantic St. #2

——————

I live at 17 Atlantic Street, a few houses down from the proposed affordable housing development at 42 Atlantic St. I have lived here for almost 30 years and have seen the historic characteristics of this working-class neighborhood erode. I support the building of dense housing for low and middle-income residents in my neighborhood.

There are other large, tall, and relatively densely populated buildings just a street away in either direction. Most houses on Munjoy Hill used to have lots more people in them. I understand your purview is the architectural quality of this project; I'll spare my speech about why this project is important.

I do want to share a few brief thoughts about how the visual characteristics of this proposed building could better speak to the characteristics of the existing neighborhood.

The project has strong vertical lines. Looking around the neighborhood, there is a strong horizontal quality to the typical building design. The vertical lines 'hold a building up', but the horizontal texture is the predominant feature of the face of most buildings. I think this helps give them a human scale; the eye is drawn across, not up. I think this building would benefit from a greater emphasis on some horizontal
features.

The pictures on slides 27 and 28 of the packet (if you're seeing the same thing as me) give a hint of how the horizontal quality could be emphasized over the vertical quality. Slide 19 mentions how the vertical panels "distinguish zones" but I don't know what that means; there no reason why the facade needs to reference internal zones. The facade should serve as the face, holding together all the parts as a cohesive whole, perhaps with 'brows' and 'foreheads' and such that give definition to windows, doors, etc.

The darker vertical panels are what really define the facade here and draw the eye. I wonder what it would look like with stronger horizontal bands (above windows?) with vertical features serving more visually as columns, or lines that provide a lighter definition to the skin.

In general, this is a important project. There are so many constraints placed on the construction of much needed housing, especially affordable housing. We have a housing crisis. We should be removing obstacles to building urban housing. I hope the board can at least help this project move around some of our existing obstacles.

My 2 cents.
Markos Miller

——————

I am writing regarding the proposed new construction at 42 Atlantic Street on Munjoy Hill. I live in the neighborhood, on O'Brion Street, and am opposed to this new development for the following reasons:

The building, even with the adjusted façade, has no visual continuity with the rest of the street. It's a box. The exterior design doesn't fit or complement the neighborhood - instead it would dominate. Neighboring buildings, as noted in the meeting packet, have common characteristics like bay windows and ornate detailing - this development lacks all of those historic features.

The proposed building is roughly twice as big as other buildings on the street. The unusual size combined with the façade would result in a significant change to Atlantic Street - one that would noticeably stick out.

Gilbert Street, for obvious reasons, is special and currently has minimal development along it. Adding an 80' stretch of building that has no complementary historic character would overshadow, literally and figuratively, this pedestrian walkway.

I am very much in favor of densifying Portland and creating more housing opportunities for all. This project, though, does not fit into the historic preservation guidelines and I hope this board will provide strong feedback to the developer to continue to adjust their proposal accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration - and for all the work you do!
Sincerely,

Emma Etnier
O’Brion Street

——————

I have lived on Munjoy Street for over 30 years, and my daily walks take me up and down every street in this neighborhood.

The proposed building at 42 Atlantic Street is a shocking departure from the local streetscape. Although there are flat-top buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood (the working-class “three-deckers” built inexpensively a hundred years ago and earlier), the rooflines overall are an engaging mix of sloped roofs at various angles, mansard roofs and the occasional flat roof.

Newer buildings in this area with flat roofs are much smaller and less commandeering than the proposed structure, which is too big, both visually and experientially (in terms of how long it will take to walk past it). It will dominate Atlantic Street and will devastate Gilbert Lane, which is a lovely little cobblestone byway that links Atlantic Street to St. Lawrence Street and forces pedestrians and the occasional vehicle to slow way down and experience the streetscape.

You have only to glance at the latest drawing, which shows the contrast between the massive box and the graceful human dwelling across the lane at 48 Atlantic, which has been a family home for generations.

There are many newer buildings in the neighborhood, and most were built before the creation of the Munjoy Hill Historic District. Some of these developments have attempted, with varying levels of success, to fit in with their immediate neighbors to the extent possible. Those that preferred to stand out certainly helped advance the enactment of the historic district – which now is seemingly being discounted to enable the construction of a maximum number of residential units at minimum construction cost. Certainly the proposed building’s width, proportion, scale, and rhythm show little to no attempt to conform with Historic Preservation Standards for Review of New Construction.

Thank you for giving neighborhood residents the opportunity to weigh in.
Karen Harrison
34 Munjoy Street

——————

I am the resident at 29 Atlantic Street and I am writing to express my concern for the proposed development at 42 Atlantic Street. The rendering of the building in the context of our historic street is shocking. The scale of this building is so out of context with the buildings around it, being at least twice as big as anything around it. Visually it simply overwhelms the neighborhood around it. The character of our street, with the original architectural styles of the mid-1800s will be determined by this oversized, box-shaped building that has no design or architectural merit whatsoever.

My house is from 1844 and I spent nearly two years preserving a derelict building back to its original form. Nearly all of any of my neighbors have also preserved their home's architectural style. I hope the board will take into consideration our investments in historic preservation when determining if this building passes your standards.

The board is here to ensure compatibility of new construction in the historic district, and to protect and enhance neighborhood character. (Chapter 17.1(E) of the Land Use Code) I hope that the board will consider how this proposed development follows the board's mission.

Thank you for considering my perspective,
Susan Grisanti

——————

As one of the plaintiffs in the Willis Street suit, I am grateful that you are continuing the important work of challenging the Historic Preservation Board and above all, the Planning Board. As you probably know, ReCode left plenty of contradictory goals that can be manipulated to promote very incompatible projects.
We found that, under the streetscape study (and streetscape is a critical factor in determining compatibility) done by the city for the Munjoy Hill Conservation District that preceded the Historic Preservation District, the average roof height for Montreal and Willis Streets was between 1.5 and 2 stories. New buildings must fit within that. I am not sure what the streetscape study, conducted by Jeff Levine and a graduate student, showed for Atlantic, but it must be less than three storeys.
Setback for this project also seems inappropriate: where will snow be shoveled? Finally there is the parking issue. I urge residents of Gilbert and Atlantic to seek parking permits right away.
Finally, the design compatibility consideraations: it is quite obvious the lack of trim around windows as well as absence of corner boards, as well as cornices under the roof, do nothing to make the building less alien.
I wish you the very best.  Thank you for doing this.
Nini McManamy
10 Willis St.

Re: HPBR-002814-2024; 42 Atlantic. January 29, 2026

Dear Historic Planning Board Members Paquin-Gould, Sottery, DeSerres, Miller, Hutchins, Whitten, and Bassett,

                  This letter is to express my concerns about the proposed development of 42 Atlantic Street.

                 I understand that the Superior Court remanded this matter back to the HPB for findings as to the conclusion that the project met the Standards of Review of New Construction of the Historic Preservation Code. I understand those standards to require a project in a historic district be visually compatible with its surroundings.

                  The appeal in this matter was based in part on the deficiency of the project’s renderings – specifically that there was no rendering of the entire width of the project, no rendering of the project in relation to its immediate neighbors, and no rendering of the back of the project. The appeal also alleged the submitted  renderings were deceptive. I believe these deficiencies to the record still exist.

                  For some context: to the immediate left of the project is 36 Atlantic Street, a Cape built in 1850. It is a 1.5-story, single family home, about 1,400 square feet, with a pitched roof.  34 Atlantic Street, next door, was built in 1846 – also a single-family, 1.5-story home with a pitched roof. To the right of the project is 46 Atlantic Street: built in 1840, a single-family, 1.5-story home.

              I believe that a question before this board is whether a 4-story, flat-roofed, 30-unit rectangle is visually compatible with this streetscape of modest, 1.5-story, single family homes.

                  Looking to Atlantic Street as a whole, there are a total of about 37 buildings on the street with about 70 residential units. The largest of these buildings has 6 units. It is the only 6-unit building on Atlantic Street. Many of the Atlantic Street’s buildings are Italianate, their narrow ends facing the street with inviting porches and picture windows, and driveways between buildings promoting privacy and negative space.

               The project is a 72-foot wide, 42-foot high wall up to the sidewalk. I respectfully suggest this large box is not visually compatible as proposed to 42  Atlantic and needs to be reimagined.  

I appreciate your consideration of my input and work on behalf of our city,

Maryellen Sullivan

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Planning Board Members,

We support the request for specific findings as to how the Standards of Review were met. There were no factual findings about the project or analysis of it specifically as related to the absence of resident parking.  

Our concerns regarding parking are detailed below.

There is no parking available for residents of this building.  Although parking currently exists on this lot, this would be eliminated so the building can fill the total lot footprint.  

•  It is unrealistic to assume that residents won't have cars or need cars to get to work or go to a grocery store.  

• Some residents will have cars and with 30 units, most designed for multiple tenants, this translates into many additional cars parked on the street. Street parking, already tight, will become more of a problem, and is already challenging in the winter with snow, and in the summer with people who want to visit the hill parking on side streets

It is critical to collect and disseminate current research and data to inform and support the by-pass of parking requirements for this very large new construction.

Thank you, 

Leslie Rothman & Dave Gailus, Residents of 63 Atlantic St. for 34 years

Jean  Bull, Resident of 68 Atlantic St. for 34 years 

*************************************************************************************************************************************************