Click here to view:
(Adobe's
Acrobat Reader is required )
06/14/05
Wetland buffer amendment tabled
to July Town Council meeting
Opinion was passionate and varied, but by a close vote Monday night the Town
Council postponed discussion of a proposed wetlands ordinance change until
one absent councilor could join.
Councilors voted 3-2 to table discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment
that would reduce the buffer around a critical wetland in the Business A
District from 250 to 100 feet. The council will take up that matter again
next month, when Councilor Paul McKenney returns from National Guard duty
at Fort Dix.
McKenney's absence, and Councilor David Backer's recusal from discussion,
left the amendment at a disadvantage for getting the four votes required
for passage. "I'm concerned about having a vote tonight with Councilor McKenney
gone," said Councilor Mary Ann Lynch, who said she favored the proposal to
reduce the buffer around the critical wetland in the Business A District.
The town charter requires at least four votes of the Town Council for ordinance
passage.
Council Chairman Anne Swift-Kayatta, Councilor Michael Mowles, and Lynch
voted in favor of tabling to the July 11 meeting.
The amendment was first presented to the Town Council last October by Mary
Page, owner of the Two Lights General Store at 517 Ocean House Road.
"We are just looking to clean up the property," Page told councilors at a
public hearing June 13. She said the area in back of the store had been a
"dumping ground" for the last 30 years, but that the 250 foot wetland buffer
prevents her and her husband from cutting into the area to retrieve the stoves,
sofas, bricks and other debris that has accumulated.
The existence of a critical wetland there was only discovered a year ago,
Page said, when she was researching possible sale of a portion of the property.
"This is our business. This is our livelihood, and this is a reflection on
us," Page said.
Current regulations set a 250-foot buffer around a critical wetland. The
buffer may be reduced to 100 feet if:
1. There is a topographical divide between the wetland and the proposed
development that allows drainage away from the wetland; or
2. The wetland is within 250 feet of densely developed areas; or
3. The wetland is 2 acres or smaller; or
4. The wetland is a coastal sand dune.
The amendment would add a fifth criterion, allowing construction within 100
feet of the wetland if the property is in the Business A District and served
by public water and sewer.
Page said she has no current plans to build, and that the area in the buffer
they wish to cut measures approximately 100 by 40 feet.
The size of the area; and restriction of the amendment to the business district
stretching from the Two Lights General Store to Jordan's Agway, 541 Ocean
House Road; were reasons that Lynch and Mowles said they were in favor of
the amendment. Lynch said also that in this instance, where the business
in question is a restaurant, the requirement for sewer connection is an added
benefit.
"This is not a big change to our ordinance," said Lynch. "Basically we are
talking about a fairly low value wetland," Lynch added, saying the amendment
would not apply to wetlands of moderate or high value for wildlife.
However, other councilors said they saw the amendment as a dangerous precedent
eroding the Town's protection of natural resources. In addition to their
importance to wildlife and open space, "the most important thing about wetland
protection is to absorb flooding," said Councilor Carol Fritz, who along
with Councilor Jack Roberts voted against the motion to table. She emphasized
points brought out in an email sent by Dan Chase, a citizen and former member
of the Conservation Commission. Additional construction such as parking lots
could result in additional runoff and pollution if the buffer were reduced,
Fritz said.
Two other speakers at the hearing asked councilors to carefully consider
the possible consequences of approving the buffer reduction. Gail Schmader,
a neighbor at 511 Ocean House Road, asked if the cleanup could not be allowed
with a variance or other action less far reaching. "Do we really want to
change this very precious wetlands ordinance?" she said. "What you are
considering is a very big change to the land in Cape Elizabeth," Schmader
said.
Carl Best, Pond View Road, said he recognized the need for cleanup, but that
he agreed with the current Conservation Commission's recommendation against
the amendment because of the precedent it would set. "We need to look very
hard at the doors we are opening here," Best said. He said he hoped the
Comprehensive Planning Committee, which has begun work on revising the town's
13-year-old comprehensive plan, would look at short- and long-term impact
of the amendment.
In April, the three-member Town Council Ordinance Subcommittee voted 2-1
to recommend the amendment to the council. Councilor Jack Roberts voted against
the amendment in committee, and said Monday night that he would not support
it at the council level. "If you could show me the data that this is in the
best interest of the surrounding wetland, then I would support it," he said.
"If this is just a means to expand the business district at the cost of the
environment, I can't support it," Roberts said.
Voting for the amendment in committee were McKenney and Anne Swift-Kayatta.
Swift-Kayatta, chairman of the council, sat on the committee in place of
Councilor David Backer, who has recused himself from all discussions.
Although she voted for the amendment in committee, Swift-Kayatta said she
had been somewhat persuaded by the Chase email and was now "on the fence."
She did, however, agree with Mowles and Lynch that no vote should be taken
without McKenney present.
Stormwater ordinance approved
In other ordinance matters, the council approved amendments to the conservation
ordinance regarding stormwater.
Public Works Director Robert Malley said amendments grant enforcement powers
and allow the town to regulate discharge from non-stormwater sources such
as washing machines.
The amendments are an outgrowth of the stormwater management plan approved
by the council in September 2003, in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act,
Malley said.
The vote was 5-1, with Councilor Mary Ann Lynch opposed.
Previous stories:
|
