Residents speak out on comprehensive plan (Printed Sept. 14, 2007)
Posted by Sentry Editor at 9/21/2007 10:34 AM 
Categories: Environment, Weekly Interviews, Cape News, Open Space, Transportation, Comprehensive Plan
Categories: Environment, Weekly Interviews, Cape News, Open Space, Transportation, Comprehensive Plan
By Ward Peck
Cumberland County Bureau Editor
Of the 88 recommendations outlined in the Cape Elizabeth draft Comprehensive Plan, residents who spoke at Monday’s public hearing on the document seized upon a handful they claim weigh heavily in favor of development that will cost the town its rural character. Following the public hearing, the town council, as expected, tabled a vote on the draft plan in favor of further discussion.
The state-mandated plan, developed over several years by a 12-member committee of town officials, citizens and business owners, will act as the town’s principal guiding document over the next dozen years once it is approved by the town council. Upon approval, town ordinances and other policies, including how land will be used and the nature and intensity of development within the town of Cape Elizabeth will be required to conform to the plan’s conclusions.
About 70 residents attended the hearing. Eleven residents spoke.
Ted Darling, vice president of the Cape Elizabeth Land Trust (CELT), was one of several residents who referenced a telephone survey conducted on behalf of the comprehensive plan committee that found an overwhelming majority of town residents value preserving to “rural character” of Cape Elizabeth by protecting and preserving the town’s wetland’s ponds, wooded areas and farmland. Darling made reference to recommendation 48, found on page 98 of the plan, to “purchase land or conservation easements when there is an opportunity to preserve unique or significant open space, especially where it can be added to the Greenbelt Trail system.” But during the meeting he said the draft plan does not include any funding mechanism for such purchases. He suggested the council include long term financing to fund the purchase valued parcels of undeveloped land, many of which he said are unprotected.
Greg Altznauer, who is running for town council this fall, echoed Darling’s concerns and called the plan “pro-development.” He said several recommendations undermine environmental protections, such as a recommendation eight (page 28) to reduce the resource protection buffer in the town’s small commercial districts. He also criticized the plan’s goal of concentrating development in the Trout Brook watershed, which the State Department of Environmental Protection has determined is an impaired urban stream.
Referring to a June 2006 referendum vote that prohibits the creation of shortcuts by connecting existing roads, Altznauer said recommendation 25 (page 60) to “promote connectivity between neighborhoods when it benefits public safety, traffic circulation and/or developments with a neighborhood character,” goes against the wishes of the town’s citizens.
Resident Dave Clay also made note of the high value placed on the town’s rural character and said the plan “offers few changes or additions to the old plan that serve to accomplish the primary goals set forth in the survey,” according to a copy of his statement.
Clay said one change, increasing the amount of open space required to be preserved from 40 to 45 percent in the growth district “would only conserve an additional 26 acres of land while allowing up to 350 additional homes to be built.”
Farm owner Penny Jordan, whose family’s association with the town dates back many generations, said that while there is a lot of discussion about preserving farmland, the town’s policies do little to preserve working farms. She suggested the town form a committee to look at ways town ordinances can be amended to allow farmers flexibility to be profitable and keep their land productive.
“You don’t make money by selling lettuce for $1.50 a head,” Jordan said. “You make money by turning that lettuce into something else.”
She said such a committee would align perfectly with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Following the close of the public hearing the council voted to table passage of the comprehensive plan until the Oct. 10 meeting. Councilor Mary Ann Lynch suggested the council may need more than one meeting to debate the plan and citizen comments. The council will also use a Sept. 17 workshop to discuss the plan.
While the council did not discuss the plan on Monday night, they did discuss proposals for two new fees related to development in town. The Trout Brook Watershed Community Fee Utilization Plan and the Stormwater Improvement fee, which, town planner Maureen O’Meara said are needed to maintain the town’s policies of directing growth into targeted areas also touch on many of the same land use issues criticized by members of the public. Comments from several councilors, including Cynthia Dill and Sara Lennon, suggest the council may explore reevaluating the location and size of the town’s growth areas much of the town’s land use policies are founded upon. The council tabled further discussion on the two fees until their November meeting.
Cumberland County Bureau Editor
Of the 88 recommendations outlined in the Cape Elizabeth draft Comprehensive Plan, residents who spoke at Monday’s public hearing on the document seized upon a handful they claim weigh heavily in favor of development that will cost the town its rural character. Following the public hearing, the town council, as expected, tabled a vote on the draft plan in favor of further discussion.
The state-mandated plan, developed over several years by a 12-member committee of town officials, citizens and business owners, will act as the town’s principal guiding document over the next dozen years once it is approved by the town council. Upon approval, town ordinances and other policies, including how land will be used and the nature and intensity of development within the town of Cape Elizabeth will be required to conform to the plan’s conclusions.
About 70 residents attended the hearing. Eleven residents spoke.
Ted Darling, vice president of the Cape Elizabeth Land Trust (CELT), was one of several residents who referenced a telephone survey conducted on behalf of the comprehensive plan committee that found an overwhelming majority of town residents value preserving to “rural character” of Cape Elizabeth by protecting and preserving the town’s wetland’s ponds, wooded areas and farmland. Darling made reference to recommendation 48, found on page 98 of the plan, to “purchase land or conservation easements when there is an opportunity to preserve unique or significant open space, especially where it can be added to the Greenbelt Trail system.” But during the meeting he said the draft plan does not include any funding mechanism for such purchases. He suggested the council include long term financing to fund the purchase valued parcels of undeveloped land, many of which he said are unprotected.
Greg Altznauer, who is running for town council this fall, echoed Darling’s concerns and called the plan “pro-development.” He said several recommendations undermine environmental protections, such as a recommendation eight (page 28) to reduce the resource protection buffer in the town’s small commercial districts. He also criticized the plan’s goal of concentrating development in the Trout Brook watershed, which the State Department of Environmental Protection has determined is an impaired urban stream.
Referring to a June 2006 referendum vote that prohibits the creation of shortcuts by connecting existing roads, Altznauer said recommendation 25 (page 60) to “promote connectivity between neighborhoods when it benefits public safety, traffic circulation and/or developments with a neighborhood character,” goes against the wishes of the town’s citizens.
Resident Dave Clay also made note of the high value placed on the town’s rural character and said the plan “offers few changes or additions to the old plan that serve to accomplish the primary goals set forth in the survey,” according to a copy of his statement.
Clay said one change, increasing the amount of open space required to be preserved from 40 to 45 percent in the growth district “would only conserve an additional 26 acres of land while allowing up to 350 additional homes to be built.”
Farm owner Penny Jordan, whose family’s association with the town dates back many generations, said that while there is a lot of discussion about preserving farmland, the town’s policies do little to preserve working farms. She suggested the town form a committee to look at ways town ordinances can be amended to allow farmers flexibility to be profitable and keep their land productive.
“You don’t make money by selling lettuce for $1.50 a head,” Jordan said. “You make money by turning that lettuce into something else.”
She said such a committee would align perfectly with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Following the close of the public hearing the council voted to table passage of the comprehensive plan until the Oct. 10 meeting. Councilor Mary Ann Lynch suggested the council may need more than one meeting to debate the plan and citizen comments. The council will also use a Sept. 17 workshop to discuss the plan.
While the council did not discuss the plan on Monday night, they did discuss proposals for two new fees related to development in town. The Trout Brook Watershed Community Fee Utilization Plan and the Stormwater Improvement fee, which, town planner Maureen O’Meara said are needed to maintain the town’s policies of directing growth into targeted areas also touch on many of the same land use issues criticized by members of the public. Comments from several councilors, including Cynthia Dill and Sara Lennon, suggest the council may explore reevaluating the location and size of the town’s growth areas much of the town’s land use policies are founded upon. The council tabled further discussion on the two fees until their November meeting.
Comments