Officials give developer extension, lecture

BANGOR – City councilors Monday night eased some of the deadline pressure for the developer of a proposed $12 million condominium complex slated for Bangor Waterfront.

But not to the extent that the developer, Penview Associates LLC, would have liked.

“It just created a very difficult situation,” Penview principal Brian Ames said after city councilors’ 4-3 decision to allow dates for several activities to be pushed back, but to hold Penview to its June 30 start date for construction.

The new deadlines were part of a revised schedule councilors adopted during their meeting.

“We just received this two minutes ago,” Thomas Russell, Ames’ attorney, said after being handed a copy of the new schedule during deliberations.

Among the issues he and Ames had with the schedule were that four major events – the deadlines for submitting a certified construction contract, the real estate closing, the submission of proof of all permits, licenses or government approvals, and the groundbreaking – all were set for June 30.

“We’ve got all this happening on the same day,” he said.

Voting to keep with the June 30 start date were councilors Geoffrey Gratwick, Richard Greene, Susan Hawes and Gerry Palmer.

Open to letting Penview start two weeks later were Chairman John Cashwell and councilors Peter D’Errico and Frank Farrington.

During a council subcommittee meeting last week, Ames and Russell requested a seven-week extension of Penview’s option agreement with the city. The extension, they said, would allow Penview to move ahead on a 28-unit condo complex called Belvedere on the Riverpark without missing some key deadlines set forth in its development agreement with the city.

The complex is proposed for a city-owned parcel at the corner of Railroad and Summer streets, the only one designated for residential use in the city’s waterfront master plan.

Several councilors, however, made it clear that their patience was wearing thin.

“I think it’s important that everyone is aware of the time frame” for the project, said Hawes, a member of the council panel that has been overseeing the condo project.

Penview originally was granted tentative developer status on Sept. 8, 2003, she said, listing specific dates. It has sought and received three extensions since then. Monday’s request marked a fourth time, she said.

“And I bring this forward for discussion making the point that there have been many extensions,” she said.

Palmer agreed: “From my perspective, we’ve been at this for more than three years. … I think if it’s going to come to fruition, it’s going to come to fruition. … It’s time to fish or cut bait and I think we’re rapidly approaching that time.”

D’Errico, who was on the losing side of the vote, said he had “no problem” with giving the developer extra time.

“I didn’t think 14 days made a difference. Developers willing to invest in the city are “rare and scarce” and the city should do what it can to support them, he said.

“But at the same time, it has to start sometime,” he said.

Ames and his legal counsel asked last week for an extension of up to seven weeks, which would have pushed the groundbreaking back to mid-August. They said they did not need to extend the completion deadline, now set for Sept. 30 of next year.

In subsequent discussions, they said they could work with a two-week construction delay, Russell said.

Russell said Penview was entitled to negotiate an extension because the city did not obtain title to a needed parcel adjacent to the waterfront development site from its former owner until January.

Under the option agreement, the title to the parcel was supposed to have been dealt with by last November. It was not because a mortgage on the parcel needed to be cleared up first.