Comp Plan: encouraging development where it exists (Printed Sept. 7, 2007)
Posted by Sentry Editor at 9/21/2007 10:15 AM 
Categories: Transportation, Zoning, Ward Peck, Open Space, Cape News, Comprehensive Plan
Categories: Transportation, Zoning, Ward Peck, Open Space, Cape News, Comprehensive Plan
By Ward Peck
Editor
Cape Elizabeth is not a peninsula, but from a transportation perspective, it may as well be. While Cape Elizabeth shares significant borders with both South Portland to the north and west and Scarborough to the south and west, there are few opportunities to drive from one municipality to the next for large portions of those borders.
If Cape Elizabeth is the transportation equivalent of a peninsula, the isthmus would be its northern border with South Portland, bracketed by Sawyer Road to the west and Cottage/ Shore Road to the east.
It is the area between Sawyer Road and Shore Road that contains a large portion of the town’s most densely populated neighborhoods or what the Zoning ordinance refers to as the town’s “built up” areas.
Since the existing Comprehensive Plan went into effect in 1993, it has been the town of Cape Elizabeth’s policy to direct development within and adjacent to these built up areas. By directing development where it already exists and discouraging new development where little already exists, the town seeks to maintain the overall “community character,” residents say they value.
That policy has been surprisingly effective.
While only 16 percent of the town is zoned as growth areas (either RC for existing neighborhoods and RB for those outside built up areas), according to Town Planner Maureen O’Meara, between 1998 and 2006, 92 percent of the development occurred within the designated growth areas or immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods.
This has been accomplished with mechanism such as clustered housing and open space provisions.
As these policies have succeeded, their chances of further success are reduced as the amount of available land diminishes. As a result, the committee charged with updating the town’s Comprehensive Plan recommended several changes to the land use zoning ordinance be included in the updated plan. Those changes would allow higher density thresholds in those growth areas.
“Cape Elizabeth has approximately 518 acres of undeveloped land in the RB District, the zoning designation for growth areas. If the current zoning density is maintained, and assuming a development efficiency rate of 50 percent, the undeveloped RB land could accommodate 376 new units,” according to page 147 of the draft plan available on line (www.capeelizabeth.com/news/comp_plan/Draft_Comp_20070714.pdf) Based on the projected growth of 330 units between 2007 and 2020, the existing growth areas should be sufficient to absorb new growth and designation of additional growth areas will not be necessary. In addition, some infill growth is expected to be accommodated in the RC and in or adjacent to existing neighborhoods. If the RB District density is increased, the amount of land currently zoned RB may be sufficient to absorb new growth through the year 2030 without designating new growth areas.”
When the Town Council meets on Monday (Sept. 10) to gather public comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan update, the councilors are likely to hear from residents who believe these areas are built up enough.
According to the draft plan, while 16 percent of the town falls into the growth districts, overall 66 percent of the town is zoned for residential development.
The other 50 percent of residential zoned land is within the RA district, which requires a minimum lot size of two acres. The draft plan recommends maintaining the low-density requirements on RA designated property.
At the same time, the plan recommends increasing the density in the RB districts (outside existing neighborhoods) where public sewer is available, “from 30,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet per lot.” (Page 152)
The higher density would be allowed only under provisions of open space zoning, which gives developers incentives to build residential units close together, leaving more land undeveloped as “open space.”
The higher density would require developers increase the amount of open space from 40 percent to 45 percent of the subdivision.
The plan also contains a recommendation to “eliminate the cap on the number of units per building allowed for multiplex developments located in the RC and RB Districts” (Page 152).
The recommendation also contemplate changing the current building height limit of 35 feet height limit; reducing minimum lot sizes for multiplexes in RC districts (within neighborhoods) from five acres to three acres and eliminating minimum lot sizes in the RB district (outside neighborhoods).
The increased density allowances and height restrictions recommended for multiplex development would be partnered with a mechanism intended to encourage the preservation of farmland and other open space.
Under the provision, an owner of a lot of land can sell his development potential to another. “The receiving lot can then be developed at a density equal to both the sending and receiving lot” (page 150). Further density bonuses could be granted if the development is targeted for residents 55 years or older.
Editor
Cape Elizabeth is not a peninsula, but from a transportation perspective, it may as well be. While Cape Elizabeth shares significant borders with both South Portland to the north and west and Scarborough to the south and west, there are few opportunities to drive from one municipality to the next for large portions of those borders.
If Cape Elizabeth is the transportation equivalent of a peninsula, the isthmus would be its northern border with South Portland, bracketed by Sawyer Road to the west and Cottage/ Shore Road to the east.
It is the area between Sawyer Road and Shore Road that contains a large portion of the town’s most densely populated neighborhoods or what the Zoning ordinance refers to as the town’s “built up” areas.
Since the existing Comprehensive Plan went into effect in 1993, it has been the town of Cape Elizabeth’s policy to direct development within and adjacent to these built up areas. By directing development where it already exists and discouraging new development where little already exists, the town seeks to maintain the overall “community character,” residents say they value.
That policy has been surprisingly effective.
While only 16 percent of the town is zoned as growth areas (either RC for existing neighborhoods and RB for those outside built up areas), according to Town Planner Maureen O’Meara, between 1998 and 2006, 92 percent of the development occurred within the designated growth areas or immediately adjacent to existing neighborhoods.
This has been accomplished with mechanism such as clustered housing and open space provisions.
As these policies have succeeded, their chances of further success are reduced as the amount of available land diminishes. As a result, the committee charged with updating the town’s Comprehensive Plan recommended several changes to the land use zoning ordinance be included in the updated plan. Those changes would allow higher density thresholds in those growth areas.
“Cape Elizabeth has approximately 518 acres of undeveloped land in the RB District, the zoning designation for growth areas. If the current zoning density is maintained, and assuming a development efficiency rate of 50 percent, the undeveloped RB land could accommodate 376 new units,” according to page 147 of the draft plan available on line (www.capeelizabeth.com/news/comp_plan/Draft_Comp_20070714.pdf) Based on the projected growth of 330 units between 2007 and 2020, the existing growth areas should be sufficient to absorb new growth and designation of additional growth areas will not be necessary. In addition, some infill growth is expected to be accommodated in the RC and in or adjacent to existing neighborhoods. If the RB District density is increased, the amount of land currently zoned RB may be sufficient to absorb new growth through the year 2030 without designating new growth areas.”
When the Town Council meets on Monday (Sept. 10) to gather public comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan update, the councilors are likely to hear from residents who believe these areas are built up enough.
According to the draft plan, while 16 percent of the town falls into the growth districts, overall 66 percent of the town is zoned for residential development.
The other 50 percent of residential zoned land is within the RA district, which requires a minimum lot size of two acres. The draft plan recommends maintaining the low-density requirements on RA designated property.
At the same time, the plan recommends increasing the density in the RB districts (outside existing neighborhoods) where public sewer is available, “from 30,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet per lot.” (Page 152)
The higher density would be allowed only under provisions of open space zoning, which gives developers incentives to build residential units close together, leaving more land undeveloped as “open space.”
The higher density would require developers increase the amount of open space from 40 percent to 45 percent of the subdivision.
The plan also contains a recommendation to “eliminate the cap on the number of units per building allowed for multiplex developments located in the RC and RB Districts” (Page 152).
The recommendation also contemplate changing the current building height limit of 35 feet height limit; reducing minimum lot sizes for multiplexes in RC districts (within neighborhoods) from five acres to three acres and eliminating minimum lot sizes in the RB district (outside neighborhoods).
The increased density allowances and height restrictions recommended for multiplex development would be partnered with a mechanism intended to encourage the preservation of farmland and other open space.
Under the provision, an owner of a lot of land can sell his development potential to another. “The receiving lot can then be developed at a density equal to both the sending and receiving lot” (page 150). Further density bonuses could be granted if the development is targeted for residents 55 years or older.
Comments