
Residents said they feared environmental damage to the Saco River and deforestation if the zone change — from Limited Residential to General Develop — were allowed.
During the hearing, one resident suggested a less drastic rezoning for a small area of the campus, which a university representative said on Friday seemed a likely possibility.
Other possibilities discussed by the Planning Board included allowing for “spot zoning” or changing a setback under land use exceptions that would allow for the amphitheater as proposed but which would negate the need for rezoning.
City Planner Greg Tansley said on Wednesday that he would discuss the issue with legal council and the state Department of Environmental Protection, which would have to approve the plan for it to move forward.
UNE Assistant Vice President of Planning Alan Thibeault on Friday said a proposal made by resident Patricia Boston seems “viable,” and also he was “considering” other proposals brought up by the Planning Board.
Zoning and/or land use changes by the river are needed to allow the university to go forward with immediate plans to create a park which would replace an existing parking lot, and a 100-seat amphitheater. The change, to allow for a 75-foot setback from the high water line rather than the existing 100-foot setback, is needed to allow the amphitheater to be built as designed.
Future plans for the area where the university proposed rezoning include a year-round research pier with an access road to allow for additional marine research by students, faculty and staff; an addition to the marine science center; and an addition to the university’s wastewater treatment plant.
All of the elements that UNE is planning should be allowed under Boston’s proposal, which would change the current zoning of a portion of UNE to a Limited Residential, Institutional Zone.
Boston, who is the president of the Hills Beach Association, said Wednesday that the HBA board came up with what they believe is a “compromise” to allow UNE to construct the amphitheater as designed while protecting the Saco River, woodlands, other environmentally sensitive areas.
Among those who came out against the original proposal was the Conservation Commission.
“The Biddeford Conservation Commission recognizes and appreciates the value that UNE brings to the city,” said commission member Steven Reiter. However, he said, members were concerned that the proposed zoning change would have a “profound adverse affect on the Saco River and its habitat.”
A number of other area residents spoke against the UNE proposal.
On Friday, Thibeault said while the matter is still being discussed with university staff, “I believe we will continue to listen to the neighbors’ concerns and make some revisions.”
The Planning Board voted to table the proposal to its next meeting on April 18.
The board did approve final site plan for changes to the university’s athletic fields, which would allow for construction to begin after the end of the spring sports season.
Thibeault said the new and renovated fields should be completed in time for the fall sports season.
Plans include enlarging the existing blue turf field so that it can have room for softball and changing the turf surface to accommodate football; increasing the number of bleachers; building a dugout; constructing another field for stick sports; and installing a storage shed.
— Associate Editor Dina Mendros can be reached at 282-1535, ext. 324 or dmendros@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less