PORTSMOUTH — The Town Council slammed the door on the likes of Target and Home Depot Monday evening by prohibiting retail businesses larger than 45,000 square feet.

Several proposals were on the table for limiting the size of such businesses.

Councilor Karen Gleason wanted to set the cap at 30,000 square feet but she was told that would make several existing businesses non-conforming.

Councilor William West did not want a cap at all.

"People who own land and paid taxes on it have a right to develop it," Mr. West said.

Councilors also considered the advantages and disadvantages of having a "hard cap" versus a "soft cap."

Mr. Crosby explained these terms simply. A hard cap "is basically a prohibition," he said, while a soft cap "establishes a threshold above which an applicant has to jump through more hoops" like funding an economic impact study that would determine if a proposed development would harm the town.

Councilor James Seveney said he wanted to make sure the town did not turn away business by setting a building-size limit that is too restrictive. He supported a soft cap.

"If it's Lowe's or Home Depot, we don't want them in town," Mr. Seveney said. "But if it's a business that's going to bring big jobs, we want them."

But many people at the hearing objected to a soft cap.

John McDaid said that a developer could make its economic impact study look beneficial for the town if it promised to donate money to the schools.

"Suddenly your economic impact turns positive and you don't have recourse in a soft cap," Mr. McDaid said.

Mark Liberatti, attorney for Preserve Portsmouth which advocates for small-scale businesses, said a soft cap would be "creating opportunities, little keyholes (for developers) to work their way out of the process."

Preserve Portsmouth supported a cap at 35,000 square feet —a little larger than Clements' Market, the town's largest single-retail business. At the hearing, Preserve Portsmouth members said they would be amenable to up to a 40,000 square-foot cap.

"It is clear (residents) don't want big-box development," Preserve Portsmouth founder Conni Harding said. She added that the Clock Tower Square complex of high-end retail businesses in several small and well-built buildings is "the kind of development we want."

Director of Business Development Bill Clark advised that a building-size cap and some of the landscaping and traffic-impact requirements "may be setting up hurdles" that would discourage business owners from coming to Portsmouth.

"I would caution you to go slowly," Mr. Clark said. "I think there are ways we can manage the developments as they are coming in."

Sal Carceller said he is concerned that the planning board would be the sole approving entity.

"Members of the planning board have monetary gains to be made sometimes," Mr. Carceller said. Have the economic impact study completed on any proposed retail business over 45,000 square feet and then "put it to a public vote."

Councilors settled on a hard cap, with the exception of Mr. West who was opposed.

They voted on two smaller cap sizes before a building-size limit of 45,000 square-feet was approved by a 4-3 vote. Councilors Peter McIntyre, Hubert "Huck" Little and Karen Gleason opposed because they wanted a smaller cap.

Though it wasn't as small a cap as many hoped for, people at the meeting applauded the council's vote.

Planning board members and some audience members also voiced support for a change in the review process for new retail buildings that are 25,000 square feet or existing businesses expanded above that size. Those proposals will be decided by the planning board under the planned unit development (PUD) ordinance.

The PUD process has been touted by planning officials as the best way to review large projects because it allows the planning board to make all the decisions and negotiate design elements, like traffic impacts, landscaping and buffers between properties. This zoning regulation also requires a development agreement that stipulates when phases of construction must be completed.

Assistant Town Planner Gary Crosby said the development agreement is the best part of the ordinance.

"It's a legal, binding document," Mr. Crosby said. "If (developers) do not satisfy the conditions of the development agreement, the town can sue them."

Councilors unanimously adopted that portion of the regulation into the PUD ordinance. But after that vote their opinions divided.

By Jill Rodrigues

jrodrigues@eastbaynewspapers.com