Portland commission approves zoning changes to implement Public Act 25‑1, adds middle‑housing standards

The Portland Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve amendments to the town’s zoning regulations meant to implement Public Act 25‑1, the town’s planning staff said. The changes add standards for so‑called “middle housing,” require mixed‑use ground floors in affected commercial zones, set minimum design and lot requirements, and include an affordability component intended to preserve some lower‑cost units.

Town planner Dan Beret, who led the presentation, said the ordinance package is the town’s effort to “construct this” within the constraints of the state law. “This is kind of our best effort to . . . give the town the best set of regulations . . . to administer this new housing, apartment expansion and parking changes,” he said. He emphasized the changes are not optional guidance but regulatory edits intended to narrow how developments permitted by the state statute can be built locally.

The commission and staff described core elements of the adopted rules: they restrict the applicable zones to the town’s commercial/village zones (B1, B2 and B3), require a single building with a nonresidential use on the ground floor in those zones, set lot and building configuration standards, and require usable outdoor space. Staff said the affordability requirement is mandatory: for proposals of four units, one unit must be affordable; for larger proposals (after eight units) two units must meet affordability targets. The transcript records staff describing affordability thresholds as roughly 80% and 60% of the area median income tied to Middlesex County medians.

Commissioner Chad pressed staff on definitions and scale, asking “what is middle housing and what is affordable housing and why are we waiting,” and warned about potential impacts in village areas. Dan responded that “middle housing” under the town’s approach is housing of two to nine units (the state’s parking provisions can apply to slightly larger projects in some contexts) and defended the package as the town’s attempt to add “meat” to the state’s statutory framework.

The record shows several development‑control mechanisms meant to limit unwanted outcomes: off‑street commercial parking may not be counted toward required unit parking; residential units must provide on‑site parking; the ground floor must be reserved for business use where mixed‑use is required; and staff added a 100‑square‑foot minimum of usable outdoor space per dwelling. Commissioners also requested one wording change in the village‑district language (replace “special exemption” with “special permit”); staff indicated that edit was made in the draft.

A roll call vote approved the motion to adopt the regulations. Commissioners voting in favor identified themselves as Jen Talone, Tom Bradfield, Joe Spa and Bob Ellsworth; no votes were recorded in opposition and the motion passed. Staff indicated the regulation changes will be effective July 1.

The commission’s packet and the meeting record contained inconsistent item numbering during the motion reading; staff clarified the correct application number before the final vote.

What happens next: staff said the commission (and the council of governments that engaged a consultant) can refine the standards later if adjustments are necessary, and that other related products (parking text, map overlays) would follow separate notices and hearings.