×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Welcome to the South Portland 2040 Comprehensive Plan Comment Period! 

 

The public comment period is open through February 15, 2025.

The City of South Portland is updating its Comprehensive Plan, which serves as a 15 year framework to achieve South Portland's vision for the future. The City began the process in 2022 with an audit of the existing Comp Plan, which was adopted in 2012. Since then, the Comprehensive Plan Committee has developed this draft update after 3 years of community engagement and public feedback. Now, the final draft is available for public comment.

From now until February 15, the South Portland community can provide feedback on the draft South Portland 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Below, you can view the Plan and provide your thoughts and feedback anywhere in the document. Beginning January 2nd, visit either library or the planning office to review a printed copy. 

Share your feedback! 

We want to hear your comments, questions, and suggestions! Read through the Plan below and provide your input!  

  • Click the "Guided Tour" on the toolbar below the document to learn how to add feedback and navigate the document.
  • Click anywhere in the document to tell us what you think of the draft, including what you like about it and anything you would change.
  • Select a yellow comment bubble Picture 1393290272, Picture to view other people's feedback and add your own comment! 
  • When commenting, you will be asked to provide your name during your first comment. If you are on a public computer, remember to change the name. 
  • To learn more, visit SouthPortland2040.com. If you have any questions, please contact us!

Language Disclaimer

This site offers translation through Google Translate to increase accessibility. Please note that Google Translate is an automated tool and may not provide fully accurate or contextually appropriate translations. Formatting and meaning may occasionally be distorted. For critical information or official interpretations, we recommend referring to the original English version or contacting the City for support.

 
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Guided Tour AI Search Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide
Take a quick tour to see how you can add comments.

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio

Comments

View all Cancel

Add comment

JBDRUM Dec 29 2025 at 3:29PM on page 57

Question
I live on Sawyer Street and it is already difficult to cross Broadway when SMCC is in session. Why are we planning development on a peninsula where there is limited entry and egress? How many residents do you think will use public transportation? Where is there room on Broadway to accommodate more cars without a “taking” of property?

Why can’t we avoid building in areas that are flood prone and within close proximity to low air quality? Who will be the lead in monitoring the air quality and where will funds come from to do so considering the current gutting of Federal agencies?

A policy-alternatives survey distributed to South Portland residents showed that 62% of respondents favored no or minimal development in certain at-risk areas of the waterfront (such as the Shipyard District).

susan henderson Dec 28 2025 at 9:16PM on page 24

Feedback
If there were more residential here, the open space would be more usable.

susan henderson Dec 28 2025 at 8:56PM on page 7

Feedback
the Four takeaways should come right after the vision, They expand on the vision and then the land use and last here. Land use must be driven by a vision

susan henderson Dec 28 2025 at 8:48PM on page 6

Feedback
The community vision does not say much to guide growth. .

susan henderson Dec 28 2025 at 8:43PM on page 5

Feedback
what is difference between vision and community summary vision. if based on community input should be one. Although say climate ready, there is no mention of green

susan henderson Dec 27 2025 at 5:46PM on page 1

Feedback
I have spent ten minutes and am stiill trying to get past Bug Light.

susan henderson Dec 27 2025 at 5:44PM on page 1

Feedback
This online format will likely exclude many older and less affluent residents

Eva DAndrea Dec 27 2025 at 10:46AM on page 47

Feedback
What protections will be put in place so that the unique growth here does not negatively impact the community? Recently Rusty Lantern tried to expand to 24 hours operation despite community opposition. The Rusty Lantern was overruled because the comprehensive plan didn't allow this sort of growth. To allow unique and aggressive development here without strict safeguards is going to negatively impact the community. South Portland already has a lot of strip malls, especially in the mall area. Aggressive development here shouldn't mean that we lose all our green spaces, that businesses here are open 24 hours a day, and that there is no concern for light, noise, or environmental pollution. How will you protect my community?

Eva DAndrea Dec 27 2025 at 10:34AM on page 47

Feedback
This strip where the electric towers are act as a green space that buffers the houses behind the gas station. This gas station was placed against community outcry and is polluting this community with carcinogenic and odorless benzene. In addition to continuing to work with the gas station to honor their commitment to shield the neighborhood from noise and light pollution and gas (the city never cared about benzene pollution to the households here) this strip should remain as a green space. It is important in a community that there not just be isolated parks but green spaces for the animals. This strip is home to groundhogs, possums and many song birds. I absolutely oppose any development of this strip. This residential community deserves the same care and concern as the Willard Beach community. Instead the city council has shows over years to completely disregard the working class communities in this town.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:47AM on page 102

Feedback
school biz roundtable efforts with Econ Dev. seem to fit in this nicely, wondering if it shoudl be mentioned.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:47AM on page 102

Feedback
should we add: Econ Dev. here as another responsible party on the business outreach?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:43AM on page 93

Feedback
Agree!

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:42AM on page 93

Feedback
Agree!

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:42AM on page 92

Feedback
Who is responsible for this? Is there the professional expertise for this on staff? This seems like it's already something part of development process with the professional community/state processes, etc.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:41AM on page 90

Feedback
I'd add this for both City and private development. Feasibility is a big underline here.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:40AM on page 88

Feedback
I would add, and maybe this is with library as well, a English Language learner program establishment" Boston public library system has a great volunteer led, hosted @ libraries throughout, ELL programs that are free. This could be great in support of the Community Ambassador/new Mainers programs. Would be happy to help here.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:38AM on page 87

Feedback
Ok except we have to consider the offset of public benefits vs. taxes, for example. If we require private properties to provide public benefits, we have to consider the offset - is that via tax relief on the areas that are designated for public use (that the private property owner has to maintain, insure, etc.?) or, is it that DPW maintains (and no tax offset, etc.).

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:34AM on page 83

Feedback
Good idea

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:33AM on page 82

Feedback
This seems it should be studied/done in conjunction with Economic Development so as not to put undue burden on all the development throughout this plan.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:32AM on page 81

Feedback
extra " here

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:30AM on page 79

Feedback
Agree on this page and its support of housing development.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:27AM on page 78

Feedback
This I do not agree with. While certainly some building lay vacant for too long due to neglect, many are vacant due to market demands, location, code improvements being too costly to offset the rents/sale pricing, etc. This should be workshopped into a more equitable way. Strapping what are likely already strapped property owners with further fees due to vacancies is not business friendly. This should be something that the Economic Development team works out with other city teams/public to come to a more business friendly solution to achieve all goals.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:23AM on page 76

Feedback
yes!!

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:21AM on page 74

Feedback
I'd add: "preserve strong existing professional employers" as well here.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:19AM on page 73

Feedback
What future open space properties specifically? Should we define? Otherwise this point seems really broad in it's governance.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:16AM on page 71

Feedback
In coordination with businesses in waterfront.
also what are other communities doing throughout ME and elsewhere for this?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:15AM on page 71

Feedback
in coordination with Code and Historic

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:14AM on page 71

Feedback
This is just a nod at my comments throughout re: making private developments include public spaces. This is counter to acreage unit minimums, etc. Want to make sure we're consistent on messaging and development in our City is predictable in what we want/what we don't this seems at odds specifically in the Maine Mall area.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:12AM on page 71

Feedback
This will need to be established in great collaboration. Throughout/above we talk about parking minimums for units, if we implement maximums, we really hone in on parking for private developments, is this really restrictive at top and bottom of parking standards the City's role? Shouldn't the uses and private market dictate what the parking needs may be? Also, I think you mean parking lots and not necessarily talking about structures here, though that will need clarification.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:08AM on page 70

Feedback
I wonder if the biodiverse green roofs are too specific here. Does it make sense to be broad about adopting policies that encourage green development - an example is what if you want to put solar array on roof for electrifying building / you now have competing priorities. What is the ultimate goal for the specify of green roofs?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:06AM on page 70

Feedback
Good goal but in practice, what are the implications? want to make sure we're balancing the priorities here in a reasonable and economic development friendly manner. How can the City help resource these businesses/waterfront operations. Overall, comment would be let's seek to collaborate on solutions together with stakeholders and not impose solutions.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:05AM on page 69

Feedback
How does this impact all of the existing waterfront businesses that need investment though 2040? Is this even feasible for many business owners? While managing this climate issue is imperative, so is supporting what we have and as we have it to maintain the vibrancy of our community on the waterfront. Want to ensure we're balancing those priorities and understand that they naturally and unintentionally compete. Is this contemplated throughout? How do we support what we have and ensure we're preparing for the climate changes to come without imposing undue pressures on existing waterfront businesses/operations?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 11:02AM on page 69

Feedback
Do we have this resource at City level? or who is responsible for this? Also I think we should say "reasonable" in front of effective. There are costs associated with this and we don't want to, in our wording, discourage this effort from happening by being not being collaborative/seeing all sides.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:57AM on page 62

Feedback
Wondering if we should add: Allow student dorms and student support spaces (i.e. dining, lounges, study areas, etc. etc.)

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:56AM on page 62

Feedback
Agree!

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:54AM on page 57

Question
Does City have on staff qualified to review this or what professionals are responsible for this?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:52AM on page 57

Feedback
The words "substantial and publicly accessible" pose challenges for reasons I've noted above/throughout. We should better define so that developer have clearer understanding of the desire. The word substantial is subjective. What's the objective? Also we should say "open space" here in lieu of "publicly accessible" and work with developer in collaboration on what's open space and why. Without guidance, we leave too much room for interpretation and not enough guidelines for a collaborative process.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:49AM on page 57

Feedback
This seems like it's not appropriate to have under the comp plan as it's out of the purview and governed by DEP/others and a threshold requirement for development.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:47AM on page 57

Feedback
agree here re: heights of buildings should accommodate flood mitigation measures.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:47AM on page 57

Question
who at city level has the credentials to assess this?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:45AM on page 56

Feedback
same comment as before re: turner island industrial work

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:38AM on page 56

Question
RE: "..this area has significant potential to connect the community to the waterfront..": but it is blocked by 21 (except for small parcel adjacent to marina). Eastern Waterfront Coastal Area. Isn't this note better put in #21?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:36AM on page 56

Question
Is there a reason we step up in housing heights? Would like to understand the why behind the complex stories here. Looking for a fact based rationale as to why. Thanks!

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:34AM on page 56

Feedback
There are lots that block (i.e. 21a and 21b) access to the shoreline so D. is not something that can be achieved in 22. and seems like it should be put into "21. Eastern Waterfront Coastal Area".

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:18AM on page 52

Question
Generally, what are our local resources to manage the "ensuring new construction is resilient to future flood risks"? In other words who ensures this? Are we looking to be more or less restrictive than state (and flood insurance!!) requirements?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:15AM on page 50

Feedback
Based on the land left in this area (which I imagine is limited), do these %-ages work? Have they been "mathed out" to make sure these strategies are congruent with the actual lots left for development? Seems that parking standards and landscaped area requirements could be at odds with one another when land is limited, which takes precedence and why - I assume we have good rationale but want to make sure (again all in aim to help and support the critical residential shortage we have in our state).

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:12AM on page 50

Question
Are the impact fees limited to this area?

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:03AM on page 46

Question
I am not clear on the intent here.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 10:03AM on page 46

Feedback
RE: "is the city's current downtown...."
do we intend for this to remain the "downtown area" or should this be called the existing Village center? Seems based on the growth promotion we're looking for by Maine Mall area that we're looking for that area to grow into a more Urban center (with more density/taller buildings, etc.) and we're looking for Mill Creek to largely remain the "historic" (or other word) Village and Community Center of the City as it is today with modest level of development (ie.. with smaller restrictions of 12 units per acre and height restrictions in Mill creek and 20 units per acre and no height restrictions in Maine Mall). Generally, just want to make sure our designation of "downtown" is congruent with our "land use/zoning strategies" and it seems in review that we're pushing for more growth in Maine Mall then we are in Mill Creek.

Julie C. Dec 26 2025 at 9:57AM on page 44

Question
We say 4-stories here and 5-stories in "scale preferences above" - just want to clarify the intent here - is it 4 or 5 stories? Thanks!
View all