Planning panel shows support for Icon tower in Canton

The bills Dixon introduced would grant Cignal what is called a "major amendment" to Lighthouse Point's "planned unit development." That would allow the company to build more on the property than what the city permitted the center's original developer in the 1980s.

To build as tall as they would like, developers also need an amendment to Canton's urban renewal ordinance.

Anything new along the Can Company site would require similar legislation. With the Tindeco site, however, a developer willing to stay within the 72-foot height restrictions could build right away. Tindeco's owners have no immediate plans for the site, and Cignal has shown interest in acquiring at least part of the adjacent lot to bolster the Icon.

The bills would need the approval of the Planning Commission and the council's land use and transportation committee before heading to the City Council.

Before the design panel yesterday, some Canton leaders vented their frustrations over the Icon and the city's ideas for their neighborhood.

"People feel somewhat betrayed by the process," said Carolyn Boitnott, a longtime waterfront activist. "We were asked for our hopes and dreams, and what they proposed was large buildings."

Added Gerry Aronin, president of the Canton Cove condominium association: "I'm a little upset - a lot upset - that this might become skyscraper row."

Yet the design panel didn't seem to have any problem with the possibility of more high-rises along Boston Street.

"I don't see this as a lonely Icon," said panelist M.J. "Jay" Brodie, who is also president of the Baltimore Development Corp. "I see this as one of a series of towers that creates an urban skyline."

And panelist Stanford Britt, an architect, said he had just one beef with the Icon plan.

"I wish," he said to the horror of the neighborhood critics, "that [the] tower could be taller."

[e-mail]