Maine smart growth project rejected (Dunston Crossing)

Between 1982 and 1997, developed land in the Portland, Maine, region grew by 108 percent while the population grew by just 17 percent. A 150-acre parcel in Scarborough, just south of Portland, is zoned for just 65 single houses — a number which is guaranteed to add to the low-density, single-use development pattern, if the site is built according to the ordinance. Developers John and Eliot Chamberlain, however, proposed a plan with higher density and a mix of uses in a pedestrian-oriented layout. Dunstan Crossing, with 397 houses and 50,000 square feet of commercial, garnered the support of official agencies and opinion leaders — from the state planning office and department of transportation, to town council, and to local newspapers. It was dubbed the Great American Neighborhood, or GAN. Yet after a zoning change was approved to let Dunstan Crossing move forward, residents in opposition to the project organized a successful petition drive to put the question on the ballot. The voters, concerned with higher density, the influx of school children, and traffic in suburban Scarborough, soundly defeated Dunstan Crossing. Many neighbors were scared by the scale of the project — modest by the standards of other states, but quite large in comparison to most new development in Maine. Media coverage The episode was portrayed by the press as a defeat for smart growth in Maine, a state with no experience in large-scale New Urbanism. “The rejection by Scarborough voters of a residential development that planners see as a model for curbing sprawl could keep builders from pursuing similar projects,” reported the Portland Press Herald immediately after the vote. “If other builders shy away from efforts like the Dunstan Crossing project, the impact would be broad. Cookie-cutter subdivisions, chopped into two- or three-acre house lots, would continue to chew up southern Maine’s open space. Traffic levels would climb in what are now rural areas.” Following the defeat at the polls, the developers sued the town, claiming that the zoning is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. This is not the first time that a TND has failed to move forward in Maine, according to landscape architect Terry DeWan, who planned Dunstan Crossing. Andres Duany planned a community in West Rockport a decade ago which never received utility approvals, DeWan points out, and another project in Belfast died because a developer backed out. But Dunstan Crossing was the highest profile plan to stumble. “Everybody said this was the poster child for smart growth,” he says. fragmented plan Dunstan Crossing was laid out in four sections — a village center, senior housing, and two small hamlets. The layout is more fragmented than most new urban plans, and this was due to topography, assembly of the parcels, and a feeling that Route 1, the main road by the village center, is too pedestrian-unfriendly, according to Rick Chellman of TND Engineering, a consultant on the project. Nearly half of the parcel was left in open space. In addition, developers offered the town $1 million for the purchase of open space elsewhere in the town. As part of the development package, the state Department of Transportation agreed to spend several million dollars to fix two intersections with existing problems on Route 1 adjacent to the site (an offer the state rescinded after the referendum). Developers spent several years and an estimated $400,000 on the project design, neighborhood charrette, and approval process to move forward with what was — for upper New England — an innovative community. “Dunstan Crossing was a case of a plan that on a rational basis was a win-win for everybody,” says Chellman. “And it went down because of emotion.”