Portland board approves alterations at 67 India Street, finds rear concrete addition non‑contributing

The Portland Historic Preservation Board on Feb. 19 approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations at 67 India Street, voting unanimously to allow a new large opening with two operable roll‑up windows and a pedestrian door in the building’s rear concrete‑block addition while finding that addition is not character‑defining for the contributing property.

The decision affects a long, narrow commercial building at the southeast corner of Newbury and India streets in the India Street Historic District. The board found the concrete masonry unit (CMU) rear addition — constructed in 1962 according to the application materials — does not contribute to the historic character of the brick‑clad storefront facing India Street and therefore may be altered under the board’s standards. The board approved the application with one condition: any exterior light fixtures proposed for the work must be reviewed by staff.

Applicant Heather Gilday, the property owner, told the board she intends to convert the building into a community‑oriented café and “third space.” Gilday said she had explored several development options before purchasing the property, including building upward, but abandoned that plan after consulting with a historic‑rehabilitation advisor and an engineer. “I intend to put probably well over a half a million in designing this cafe third space,” Gilday said, adding that she does not plan to pursue vertical expansion.

The proposed work would introduce one large opening into the concrete block rear section; part of that opening would be infilled with a thin black brick veneer to relate visually to the district’s predominant materials, and two operable roll‑up glass doors plus a pedestrian door would provide light, ventilation and a second egress. Gilday told the board the rear door is necessary for life‑safety reasons because the building’s depth requires an additional exit to meet egress limits.

During deliberations board members discussed a threshold question first: whether the rear concrete block portion should be treated as a contributing historic element. Several members described the rear portion as a later, utilitarian insertion distinct from the brick, parapeted storefront that fronts India Street; the board reached consensus that the block portion is not character‑defining for the contributing building in the India Street Historic District. A motion to approve the application (HPBR‑003211‑2025) passed unanimously.

Public comment included contrasting views. George Rowe, who identified himself as a Bayside resident, urged the board to remove the property’s contributing status entirely, calling the designation “made up” and saying the surviving historic fabric is minimal. Bruce Friedman, who said he lives at 113 Newbury Street across the corner from the property, said he supported the proposal and welcomed another coffee shop in the neighborhood. Karen Kaufman, who gave her address as 99 Federal Street, also voiced support.

The board’s approval includes the staff‑suggested condition that any exterior light fixtures associated with the alteration be submitted to staff for review. The record of the motion names the mover as Board member Steven and the second as Shankler; board members recorded voting “yes” in the public roll call as Michael Hutchins, Rob Whitton, Valerie Payton Gould and Brad Miller. The motion language cites the application materials, the staff memo and the board’s standards for review of alterations to contributing properties.

The project file submitted to the board includes historical research showing the commercial portion of the building dates to before 1886 and that a two‑story rear stable was present in early 20th‑century maps and photos; that two‑story rear structure was reportedly replaced by the existing concrete‑block addition in 1962. The applicant told the board she believes the proposed work affects roughly 17 percent of the building’s fabric and that the rear addition is not listed among the historic materials in the local designation packet.

With the board’s approval, planning, life‑safety, health and licensing reviews remain as subsequent steps before construction. The applicant noted she has been in contact with the city’s planning staff and will pursue required permits and inspections.