CAPE ELIZABETH – During a regular town council meeting held on Oct. 11, Town Attorney Mary Costigan presented proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance concerning outdoor storage and display. The proposed changes, aimed at addressing issues related to the Lumbery settlement discussion, were introduced for initial discussion and referral to the ordinance committee.

“In order to really move forward and have amendments to the site plan to bring the property into compliance,” Costigan said. “We really need to first go through this step to see if the council is amenable to these proposed changes.”

The chair of the town council, Jeremy Gabrielson, said “This is just starting the discussion tonight and the specific language that is in tonight’s agenda is a draft that would be reviewed and revised through that process with the ordinance committee with that.”

The proposed amendments are a response to the ongoing Lumbery settlement discussion, which primarily concerns the compliance of site plans and the differentiation between outdoor storage and outdoor display. The amendments are critical for bringing the property into compliance with existing regulations. The Lumbery property is situated in the Town Center District, and these amendments would also apply to the Business District A for consistency.

The main change introduced by the proposed amendments pertains to the area allowed for outdoor storage, which is currently limited to one times the floor area of the principal structure. The amendments seek to increase this limit to two times the floor area of the principal structure. For example, if a building has a floor area of 100 square feet, the property owner can have up to 200 square feet of outdoor storage.

To provide clarity, the amendments specify that this limitation applies solely to outdoor storage. Items displayed for sale are not subject to this size limitation. Property owners intending to display items for sale will still need to seek approval from the planning board or code enforcement officer as part of the site plan or building permit approval process. The proposed changes aim to distinguish between storage and display by defining display as items readily available for sale and storage as items not for immediate sale. Specific categories will be determined at the planning board level to provide flexibility for businesses.

During the discussion, Mike Friedland, the owner of the Lumbery, expressed his appreciation for the proposed amendments. He highlighted the relief provided by the use of categories for defining what constitutes storage or display. Friedland responded to the discussion guided by the town attorney, “that was excellent, Mary. Thank you for all the work you put in. So far I am really impressed.”

Friedland also mentioned that certain items, such as soil and compost, are stored on pallets for convenience but are not meant for storage but rather for active use in the store. “So just because it is on a pallet doesn’t mean its storage,” he said. He encouraged the council to consider a streamlined process for minor changes to site plans, reducing the time and cost involved in the application for site plan amendments.

The proposed amendments do not alter the role of the planning board but provide property owners, like the Lumbery, with the ability to identify additional areas for display on their site plan, subject to approval. While the planning board’s role remains unchanged, the amendments emphasize the distinction between storage and display.

Councilor Caitlin Jordan made a motion to refer the proposed amendments to the ordinance committee for further review. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The amendments will go through the regular legislative process, with the ordinance committee preparing written language for discussion, followed by the planning board’s review before returning to the council for final adoption.

The discussion also touched on the ongoing lawsuit related to the Lumbery’s site plan being non-compliant. Councilor Timothy S. Reiniger proposed to reconsider the motion made last month to dismiss the lawsuit. He expressed concern about the impact on various stakeholders, including the business, its employees, and customers. However, there was no final vote on this issue during the meeting. It was decided to make sure the question to dismiss the lawsuit will be on the next agenda in November, and to notify the public.

The amendments have been referred to the ordinance committee for further review, and discussions regarding the lawsuit’s dismissal will continue in the next council meeting.

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.