Board approves amended interpretive plan for B & M Cannery pier, requires additional marker of lost Codfish Building

The Portland Historic Preservation Board on June 18 conditionally approved amendments to previously approved rehabilitation and interpretive work at 1 Beanpot Circle (the B & M Cannery), while directing the applicant to add an interpretation that communicates the volume and footprint of the demolished Codfish Building.

Staff explained that the applicant, represented by SwingPoint Development and formally identified in project materials as Northeastern University, requested a reduced pier footprint from what had originally been approved. Staff said the landmark designation left the pier structure itself outside the board’s purview, but elements above the pier — interpretive displays, light poles, bollards and other built elements — remain subject to the board’s review.

Architect Tim Mansfield and the applicant team described three main drivers of the redesign: a fire department requirement limiting the allowable assembly/congregation area on the pier (the first roughly 75 feet nearest land must be sized to accommodate firefighting access and the location of onshore hydrants), federal tariff-driven material-cost increases, and a desire to maintain the site’s interpretive program while reducing overall cost and scope. Mansfield said the revised design preserves five core interpretive elements including preserved track features at the Cannery entry, a ‘‘viewfinder’’ kiosk intended to show a historic photograph in perspective, a commemorative map panel, reused mooring bollards and light poles aligned to the Cannery parapet.

Public comment included a lengthy statement from West Bayside resident George Roe, who urged the board to require broader documentation and independent evaluation of the applicant’s cost and permitting claims and said the public is losing some of the intended historic amenity. Roe suggested the board request additional permitting materials, including fire-department reports, to better understand alternatives.

During deliberations board members expressed support for the interpretive elements carried forward but repeatedly asked that the proposal find a clear way to indicate the original pier/building footprint and scale. One board member said the revised pier removes ‘‘a little over 50%’’ of the previously approved footprint; several members proposed solutions that would convey the missing building mass — such as a physical marker, pilings or a commemorative element placed on the pier or in the water — while acknowledging permitting, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Maine DEP approvals could limit options.

After discussion the board approved the amendment with three conditions: (1) final shop drawings and plans for proposed interpretive elements must be submitted to historic preservation staff for review to confirm consistency with what was shown in the public hearing; (2) a mock-up of any proposed masonry repair, cleaning or repointing must be submitted for staff review and approval before work begins; and (3) the project must include an additional interpretive element or elements that clearly communicate the volume and footprint of the demolished Codfish Building, with the details to be approved by staff.

The motion passed on a roll-call vote with all members present voting in favor (Hillary Bassett, Michael Hutchins, Robert O’Brien, Brian Sosby, Rob Whitton, Valerie Pickman Gould and Brad Miller). Board member Valerie Pickman Gould recused herself from this agenda item earlier in the meeting and did not participate in the discussion of the amendment. Staff and the applicants noted the revised pier will require amendments to other permitting (planning department, state and federal permits) and that further permitting timelines and requirements may affect design options.

The board’s conditional approval accepts the revised interpretive design while directing the applicant to pursue ways to convey the lost Codfish Building’s scale and footprint and to submit final details to staff for administrative review.