A Cape Elizabeth business owner is requesting an change to the town’s wetland zoning ordinance that the Town Planner said is not necessary for what the business owner wants to do.
Currently, the ordinance prevents clearing and development within 250 feet of wetlands. Mary Page, the owner of Two Lights General Store on Ocean House Road, told the Town Council at a public hearing on the issue on Monday night that she was requesting the buffer be reduced to 100 feet so she could clean up her property, which she said has become a dumping ground over the last 30 years.
“This is our business, our livelihood and reflects on us. We want it to be a neat, clean area,” Page said. She said her and her husband were not planning on extending the business, but only wanted to properly manage the land.
Town Planner Maureen O’Meara said if Page wanted to clean out the trash on her property, she could.
“There is nothing in Cape Elizabeth’s wetland zoning ordinance that prohibits removing trash from property within the buffer zone,” O’Meara said. The real issue she said is the removal of vegetation, which is prohibited. “Naturally occurring vegetation does a great job of absorbing water and pollutants,” she said. It also prevents erosion.
Page said she needed to take down some trees “choked with sumac” to be able to get in and clean out some larger pieces of trash such as stoves and sofas from the 100-by-40 foot area.
Page also pointed out that the critical wetland was only discovered to be there last year, when the property, in the Business A zone, was being researched for possible sale.
There are accepted exemptions that would reduce the 250-foot buffer to a 100-foot buffer. Page’s business doesn’t meet any of the criteria, though a developer who has proposed buying land from Page and building a two-story structure within the 250-foot buffer does.
The Planning Board has not approved the plans yet, but the proposed Two Lights Professional Center does meet the criteria for a reduction in the buffer zone because it is already located in a densely developed area. The buffer reduction is allowed if a property owner can prove six structures are located within a 250-foot radius of the center of the structure. The new development meets those criteria, while Page’s business does not.
The change Page is seeking would add another exemption to reduce the buffer to 100 feet for property owners in the BA district who are hooked up to public sewer and water.
Cape residents Gail Schmader, who lives on Ocean House Road next to Two Lights General Store, and Carl Best, who lives on Pond View Road, echoed each other’s concerns.
They both saw the need for the business owner to clean her property and hoped provisions could be made to allow for that. But, they both warned changing the whole ordinance could produce a dangerous precedent. Schmader asked if a variance could be offered to allow the business owner to clean her property rather than changing the whole ordinance. Best said the Town Council should “look very hard at the doors we are opening here.”
The Cape Elizabeth Conservation Commission has recommended against the amendment.
Town Councilor Jack Roberts said he is not very fond of the 250-foot setback because no one has been able to explain to him why that amount of space is necessary. He also said there is no right of appeal in the wetland ordinance, which is unheard of in other ordinances. But, he was opposed to changing the ordinance until he could be convinced that the amendment was the best way to protect the wetlands.
Councilor Carol Fritz agreed with Roberts. She said the most important thing about retaining the wetlands was not to protect the wildlife, but because they absorb floodwaters.
Councilors Mary Ann Lynch and Michael Mowles supported the amendment. Lynch said the change was not a big threat to the environment because the BA district is so small – it stretches from Jordan’s Lawn Care to Two Lights General Store – and Mowles pointed out that Cape Elizabeth’s wetland zoning ordinance far exceeds the state standards.
Lynch added that the area behind Page’s business did appear to be a mess and said, “the business owner, Mary Page, is here for all the right reasons.”
Town Council Chairman Anne Swift-Kayatta said she was on the fence, but an e-mail urging caution from Cape resident Dan Chase persuaded her to not support it at this moment.
With the councilors who were present the amendment would have failed 3-2, but the issue was tabled in deference to Councilor Paul McKenney, who was absent completing his National Guard duties, but has been known to support the amendment in the past. Councilor Backer recused himself from the vote because his law firm has done legal work for Mary Page in the past.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
