WESTBROOK – More than a dozen residents living in Westbrook’s Prides Corner neighborhood spoke out against a proposed development plan for the former Prides Corner Elementary School Monday night, just prior to a 3-4 council decision that blocked a 98-unit condominium project from moving forward.

On Tuesday, South Portland developer Vincent Maietta said he was surprised, but isn’t taking it personally, and is moving on from the project for now, instead focusing on existing projects under way in Bangor, Scarborough and Portland.

“I was a bit surprised,” he said. “They voted to put it for sale, and now they don’t want to sell it anymore.”

On the table Monday was an updated purchase and sale agreement between the city and Maietta’s company, V&E Enterprises, worth $650,000, which would have turned the former school into a market-rate condominium complex. Maietta said the project would include condos for sale and for rent.

In late October, city officials hosted a public forum for Prides Corner residents, where Maietta fielded concerns from neighbors, including the scope of the project, building setbacks, type of housing, and its possible effect on Westbrook’s school system.

In a project sketch shared with residents Monday, the school building made up the base of the complex, with two additional three-story buildings added. Maietta, however, said it was just one way the project could unfold.

“I thought we were doing what everyone had asked for, but it’s their property, and they’re certainly entitled to change their mind,” Maietta said, citing changes such as lengthened buffer zones and limiting the apartments to market-rate.

“I think if they’re unsure, it’s a wise move,” he said Tuesday. “There’s no hard feelings, we tried to give it our best shot.”

On Monday, neighborhood residents echoed the concerns first raised during the October meeting, arguing that the project did not fit the neighborhood. Joe Moger, whose home abuts the Prides Corner property, feared that he’d soon be looking directly at the complex from his bedroom window.

“You can tell me that I’m not going to be looking into someone else’s bedroom, and someone else looking in mine?” he said. “You’re soft pedaling us right now that you’re going to do this.”

Another concern raised was a boost in traffic in an area that already sees congestion stemming from Route 302. Shirley Lawrence, another neighbor abutting the property, said Pride Street already serves as a cut-through for traffic coming to and from Route 302.

“This is just too much traffic,” she said. “What are you going to do for all these people? It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood.”

In the close vote, councilors Michael Foley, Paul Emery and Victor Chau voted in favor, while Brendan Rielly, Michael Sanphy, John O’Hara and Gary Rairdon opposed the development plan.

“I hope that this evening we consider this request as an effort to potentially net some significant money for the city, and some significant future tax dollars,” Foley said. “I think this would be a valuable addition to that area.”

The vote was seen as just the first step in the process, as the deal was still contigent on a successful zoning change from the Planning Board, with at least two public hearings. It would have come back to the City Council for further vetting.

“I will support this tonight understanding that all of your fears will be addressed in the process, and people are going to listen to you,” said Emery.

Sanphy, whose district includes the neighborhood, said during the meeting that he feels the building should be kept as a school, as the property presents more than enough area for expansion on the current site.

“If we have to buy land in the future, it will probably be three times what we’re currently selling it for,” he said. “It’s an ideal location for a school and I think we should keep it that way.”

“Buildings come and go, but land doesn’t,” said Prides Corner resident Sue Sage. “It’s a beautiful plot of land and I think we should really reconsider a building like this that will never go away.”

However, according to City Administrator Jerre Bryant, reopening the school is not being considered by school officials, and that if there is an effort to expand, “they would not look at this location.”

Maietta added that there was no indication that the city would work with him to pursue another course for the property.

“It sounded to me that they were just going to hold onto it for now, and perhaps keep it for the community,” he said.

City Engineer Eric Dudley commented on the current state of the building, which led to questions of whether the building could be feasibly renovated. Dudley listed the roof, heating and ventilation, and major mold issues as just a few items that would make the building unusable without what could possibly be millions of dollars in work.

“The mold issue should not be underestimated,” he said. “The type and severity of mold we have in there is significant, and does not come without a cost.”

Dudley added that the city has looked at the building and weighed options for reuse in the past. However, just a basic upgrade of the building’s heating system could cost roughly $500,000.

Copy the Story Link