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.