By Amanda Estes

Staff Writer

With the adoption of two new development impact fees, Cape Elizabeth
aims to eliminate disincentives for development in the town’s
designated growth areas, located primarily in an urban impaired
watershed, by instituting requirements for all town land.

Cape Elizabeth’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan designates a
significant portion of the Trout Brook Watershed as future growth
areas. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has
designated Trout Brook – a tributary that forms part of the border
between South Portland and Cape Elizabeth – an “urban impaired stream.”
As a result, developers are required to mitigate any adverse impacts to
the watershed by either improving water quality at an off site location
or contributing to a compensation fund, in this case, the Trout Brook
Watershed Community Fee Utilization Plan (CFUP).

During the 2007 council’s last regular meeting, councilors unanimously
approved the adoption of the Trout Brook CFUP, however, Councilors
Cynthia Dill and David Backer opposed the creation of a related local
stormwater improvement fee system.

The stormwater fee, which passed (5-2) will apply the same fee
calculation to any development outside the Trout Brook Watershed and is
intended to counter any disincentive the Trout Brook CFUP creates. The
fee would be used to fund projects such as stormwater drainage
improvements and street sweeping. Like the watershed requirements, the
fee would apply to any project creating 20,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface, according to a memo from Town Planner Maureen
O’Meara.

After receiving confirmation from O’Meara that there is enough
undeveloped land outside of the Trout Brook watershed to absorb the
town’s projected growth over the next 13 years – roughly 330 homes –
Backer said he didn’t favor burdening land owners with a new fee.  

“I haven’t quite bought into the notion of creating a fee that will be
an overlay over every part of the town, but the Trout Brook Watershed,”
Backer said.

Dill shared Backer’s concerns about the potential burden of new fees.

“I understand the need for money to address stormwater issues, but it
seemed in this particular case it was just an unjust fee on development
outside of the watershed that just gets passed along to homebuyers and
makes housing more expensive and out of reach for middle class people,”
she said on Tuesday.

Councilor Mary Ann Lynch said, philosophically, she is against impact
fees, however, she said she believed these two were reasonable.

“This is a case where new development is adding impervious surface,”
she said. “There is a potential for incremental decreases in water
quality.”

As it currently stands, O’Meara said the DEP has said the Trout Brook
CFUP is a viable plan. The current list of projects includes data
collection, buffer restorations, stormwater outfall erosion control,
channel work and street sweeping upgrades.

Initially, the DEP was opposed to the town using funds to purchase
conservation easements as a way of maintaining natural buffers along
the edge of Trout Brook, however, the agency is now willing to look at
that possibility with the town, O’Meara said. The creation of
vegetative buffers whether it is meadows or forestland is the least
expensive way to improve water quality, O’Meara said.

When a development is proposed for the Trout Brook Watershed, the DEP
will review the proposed project and determine the compensation fee to
be paid into the fund.  The town will determine when sufficient
funds have built up in the interest bearing account to begin one of the
CFUP projects. If a mitigation project is located in South Portland,
approval from the city council will be required.

Developers will still have the option to complete off-site mitigation
projects, but O’Meara said many developers would rather hand over a
check. She said developers tend to go toward the easiest mitigation
projects such as retrofitting parking lots in South Portland.