Historic Preservation Board adopts findings for 42 Atlantic Street after court remand; motion passes 4–1–1

The Portland Historic Preservation Board adopted amended findings of fact on Feb. 4 to respond to a Superior Court remand in the appeal over the board’s conditional approval of a new four‑story building at 42 Atlantic Street.

City associate corporation counsel Amy McAnally told the board the court returned the matter because "the HPB did not make adequate findings," and directed the board to issue "findings of facts and conclusions of law" tied to the existing record rather than reopen the evidentiary record. McAnally said the court did not vacate or reverse the prior decision and that this meeting was limited to drafting and adopting findings for the judge’s review.

The decision followed a line‑by‑line review of a staff‑draft notice of decision and the board’s prior record, including two workshops and a May 29, 2024 public hearing. Members debated whether the draft findings appropriately tied each design standard to the evidence in the record. Concerns included whether the applicant supplied primary facade elevations showing adjacent buildings and whether surface treatments and material changes were sufficient to make a wide facade visually compatible with neighboring structures.

One board member said the proposed building’s width appeared large in context — "This building ... is 70 feet wide," the member said — and argued that the record did not show enough direct comparison with immediately adjacent houses. McAnally and others countered that the draft findings were drawn from the staff memorandum and the board’s prior deliberations and could be amended to better reflect what was discussed.

After members proposed edits standard-by-standard (height, width, proportion, roof shape, scale, materials and openings), a motion was made "to approve the proposed findings of fact as amended to supplement the conditional approval of application HPBR‑002814‑2024 from 05/29/2024." The roll‑call vote recorded four votes in favor, one abstention and one opposition; the motion carried. A board member who abstained said they could not clearly say how they would have voted at the original hearing because they had not been part of that deliberation.

The board did not accept new testimony or reopen the public hearing; the adopted findings and the record will be forwarded to the court for its consideration of the remand. The meeting adjourned after the vote.