By Nate Jones

Staff Writer 

Final approval of the 46 unit, 40 acre Eastman Meadows condominium complex will be delayed until May after the Cape Elizabeth Planning Board found several inconsistencies with the construction application during their meeting earlier this week. Most of the issues were discovered as part of an entire review of the proposal initiated by Board member Scott Collins.

Owens McCullough of Sebago Technics represented the developer, Wyley Enterprises, at the meeting, and began by detailing several large changes to the planned development, which include shifting the entire condominium complex and road layout farther to the east side of the property to avoid damaging protected wetlands. 

“Instead of putting buildings and roads in that area we had to conserve it as a buffer, we found the amount of open space actually increased in size,” McCullough said.

Wyley Enterprises also proposed the construction of another access road to the development, which would follow the eastern border of Mary Brock’s property, which combined with another road on the western side of her property, would surround the lot with access roads to Eastman Meadows. 

While board members said they were satisfied with the efforts made by Wyley Enterprises to work with Brock in constructing the roads, they were concerned about the proposed 20-foot road width.

“The entire development will be private, containing no right of ways, have its own underground utilities including power and sewer,” McCullough said. “The roads will be 20 feet as opposed to 22, which is the standard. Twenty feet is not an uncommon width.” 

Town Planner Maureen O’Meara said it is very common for condominium complexes to have their own private roadways rather than the 50-foot wide roads required for the operation of town equipment. 

“Cape Wood Drive is the only development in town that gets plowed by Cape Elizabeth Public Works,” she said.

Planning Board Chairman Barbara Schenkel said she was concerned about the safety of the road width, which had not been approved by recently appointed fire chief Peter Gleeson.

“We do have a code, this is a big project for Cape Elizabeth, and the minimum is 22 feet,” she said. “I do think it’s not in the spirit of the code, or even the letter of it at this point.”

O’Meara said she believed the developer may have to obtain a waiver to allow the narrower roads, but was wary of the implications it could have for other developments in town containing similarly sized streets that are not considered an exemption to the code.

Board member Elaine Falender said she believes all local roads should be 22 feet wide, per the town’s building code.

Falender requested a new traffic analysis of Eastman and Sawyer roads based on the changes to the roadways as well. 

“I didn’t anticipate we’d have this discussion over road width, let us talk to the fire chief,” McCullough said. “There are some differences, I think, between these and a public road.”

Board member Peter Hatem encouraged McCullough to “make the case” for having narrower roads as part of an effort to reduce the amount of pavement in the condominium complex in an effort to be more environmentally friendly.

Cape Elizabeth resident David Plimton, who said he lives about two miles away from the proposed development, expressed his concern about Wyley Enterprises’ calculations in meeting the town requirements for the amount of net residential area to be developed.

“There is a huge disconnect between calculations the developer has made and what the ordinance requires,” Plimton said. 

Plimton said Wyley Enterprises has not taken into account a “huge portion” of the property classified as wetlands, which he believed was environmentally protected by a Resource Protection Wetland 2 (RP2) zone, and therefore not developable land.

“This ordinance is being misinterpreted and is being applied improperly. Apply it where it should be applied correctly, then let the chips fall where they may,” he said.

Plimton also said he believes the density calculations should also take into account the sidewalk and driveway spaces included in the proposal, as he said were included in the ordinances reference to “access drives” and “parking spaces.”

Plimton’s concerns were addressed by O’Meara, who made references to instances in past developments where RP2, or environmentally sensitive wetlands had been considered developable land, and sidewalks and driveways excluded from the net residential calculation.

“I’m concerned about the continuity here,” she said. “A property owner ought to be able to look at the ordinance and have an idea of what they can do. Under the list of RP2 there are several types of construction allowed. [Resource Protection 2 Wetland zone] hasn’t ever been deducted.”

O’Meara also pointed out specific wording in the ordinance which defined a “parking space” as a space for three or more vehicles, a “much more formal setup than a driveway” and the term “access drive” which she said “suggests to me, driving” rather than sidewalks.

“The ordinance should be interpreted in a way that takes into account the broad area it is meant to cover,” Plimton said.

In addition to suggesting Wily Enterprises consider offering three low-to-moderate-income housing units rather than the planned six moderate-income units, Schenkel made the observation that the existing farmhouse on the property, which is not considered part of the complex, had frontage on Eastman Road, in direct conflict with the requirements of such a development.

“No individual lot can have the required frontage on a public road,” O’Meara said.

She explained the ordinance was designed to encourage developments to contain their own internal roadways to prevent the construction of large, “snaking” developments along the sides of public roadways.

“We’ll take a look at that,” McCullough said before suggesting the next reading of the proposal be postponed until the May 20 meeting.