PORTLAND, Maine — When husband and wife Todd Swinton and Erin Larson moved to their neighborhood, they immediately fell in love with the nearly 13-acre wooded property where their dead-end Torrey Street came to a stop.

Swinton and Larson led a neighborhood effort to clean up trash and old tires that had accumulated there, built footbridges over streams and established trails. Diverse trees there tower overhead, shading a hidden frog pond and urban throughway for wildlife usually confined to more rural areas, such as deer. Standing in the middle of Canco Woods, so named by area residents for its abutment to Canco Road, one is simultaneously within a short hike of city activity and yet camped in a lesser-known pocket of wilderness.

But while the property has long been used recreationally by hikers, ice skaters, mountain bikers, dog walkers, wildlife watchers and solace seekers, it has always legally been private. And now, a sale of the site is pending, and neighbors like Swinton and Larson are worried about development under the property’s previously dormant light industrial zoning designation.

“If the woods are bulldozed and the area is built-up, we would be devastated,” Torrey Street resident Victoria Kostadinova told the Bangor Daily News. “Our quality of life would decline decidedly. We already feel heartbroken, and our kids just can’t understand why people would want to destroy such a beautiful, peaceful, magical place — a place they love to play in any time of year, and one that is home to so many creatures.”

Danielle Vayenas lives in the home farthest down Torrey Street and closest to the woods. She said she was the first in the neighborhood to notice the “for sale” sign on the lot last month on the way home from work, then she saw the “sale pending” addition appear just a few days later.

CB Richard Ellis/The Boulos Co. has the 12.75-acre property listed for $350,000. According to city records, the site is assessed at a value of $683,600 and is taxed about $12,496.

When she learned of the sale, Vayenas contacted neighbors and began a “Save Canco Woods” campaign and launched a Facebook page for the cause. The group began printing fliers about the threat of development and posting them near the site.

“We just wanted anybody who lives in the area to know it could be totally torn down,” Vayenas said. “That’s a worst-case scenario — that it gets paved over for parking lots, office buildings, a school or warehouses — but it could happen. “

The mystery surrounding who is considering buying the site is part of what’s fueling concern in the neighborhood. Drew Sigfridson, the broker with CB Richard Ellis/The Boulos Co. working the deal, did not respond to a phone call by the Bangor Daily News placed last Thursday.

John Carroll, spokesman for Central Maine Power Co., which owns the property through subsidiary Union Water Power Co., said the utility firm originally acquired the acreage several years ago as potential expansion space for its abutting Canco Road facility. But he said the company has no such plans now and it became excess property. Carroll said Monday he doesn’t know who the prospective buyer is.

Rumors circulated at one point that the site would be purchased by the Friends School of Portland, whose lease for space on Mackworth Island in Falmouth expires in two years and is eyeing potential new locations. But James Grumbach, head of the school, told the BDN Monday that while his team has looked at the site, the school is not the entity with whom a sale is pending.

“We have no plans to move there,” Grumbach said. “We understand the property is under contract — although, we are certainly looking at parcels of land that might lend themselves to construction of a new school.”

District 4 City Councilor Cheryl Leeman said she also doesn’t know who the possible buyer is, but she said she spoke with Sigfridson, and left with the impression the buyer understands the neighborhood concerns.

“He did indicate that he didn’t think the neighborhood would be disappointed by what was being proposed for the property,” Leeman said.

She also said nightmarish smokestacks “often conjured up by the word ‘industrial’” aren’t allowed in the light industrial zone, which is commonly used for small office buildings.

“That area is zoned light industrial, so conceivably it could be warehousing like on [nearby] Read Street, but not factories,” Vayenas agreed.

Leeman said the city owns an easement at the end of Torrey Street, preventing any future development from connecting it through the woods to Canco Road on the other side, a move many neighbors expressed concerns about. She also noted the potential wetlands restrictions that could challenge any future developer.

“There will not be a through street, and that does give us some leverage, too, into how that property is developed,” she said. “It’s 12 acres and it’s so wet that it’s going to be difficult to develop most of that property outside of the part closest to Canco Road.”

But until a developer completes a sale for the property and unveils plans for the site, Leeman said, neither the neighbors nor city officials can really be sure how to react.

“It’s kind of a waiting game,” she said.

Seth has nearly a decade of professional journalism experience and writes about the greater Portland region.

Join the Conversation

110 Comments

  1.  Understandable that folks would be upset if something they love and have spent time on is being taken away.

    That being said – it’s Portland. It’s a city. It’s going to grow. Be happy parties are interested in investing in the area.

    If you are looking to keep your piece protected, move to Washington County or Aroostook County – not a lot of economic going-ons there.

  2. If someone buys the property then wouldn’t the land and connecting wooods be theirs to do with as they will?  I’m sorry, but isn’t this simple. A lot of people are against development and although I can understand the reasons why, the passion behind it, a persons property is a persons property.

  3. It is private property, if the residents are so concerned about its future they should purchase it! 

    1. This is the kind of attitude–‘someone owns it and can do whatever they want’–that allows greed to destroy the world. 

      1. Thats why I bought 50 Acres and planted the Shack right in the Middle of it!

        If you want Gauranteed free open spaces you have to own it!

        Most people want a a Mcmansion and have to settle for a postage stamp size lot, then they scream when someone builds on land that they use that isin’t theirs!

        1.  Bingo. That is why I live up here and own the land all around me. I do what I want the closest home is over a mile away.

        2.  Yeah, and then the State can decide to build a highway or something (for the common good) through your ‘Shack’ and take it by eminent domain and pay you next to nothing for it.

          1. Interesting how they are selling it at a bargain basement half off price. Not a good business decision…..

          2.  Ask the Dyer family, whose Sail Inn Restaurant was taken for the building of the Penobscot Narrows Bridge about fair market value. Seeing where the restaurant used to be, the building could have been left untouched and there is now at least 3 times more parking area. The settlement was a joke and left these people without their restaurant and put their employees out of work. What the State offered them would not have been enough to rebuild the restaurant nevermind trying to find land to build it on.

          3.  Such an outcome is extremely rare. It is far more common to see situations like the one with the Torrey St. neighborhood, where neighbors use the property and just assume they have the right.

      2.  This is also the kind of attitude that makes land ownership worthwhile.  Funny how people were using the reverse argument when the old man had to tear down his deck.  I don’t know how many times I saw “He owns it, he should be able to do what he wants with it.”  How did you weigh in on that one Spruce?

      3.  The person you are responding to never mentioned ‘someone owns it and can do whatever they want’. He  brought up a very legitimate response to the article.If they want it preserved,they need to purchase it.There is no greed in his statement.Our country gives every person an opportunity to own land,land ownership decides “for the most part”what you can do with it.

        1. Regardless, greed has devastated the planet Earth, and often under the guise of private property rights.  Theodore Roosevelt created the National Park system to keep the super-rich from destroying the beauty of America.

          1. You should do some research, it’s often the rich who donate their land for public use.  Don’t equate all wealth to greed.  That said greed has been a blight on this Earth

      4. Why wouldn’t the owner be allowed to do what they want with it?  So long as it is within the zoning for the property?  I would argue that the residents who are now complaining should be thankful they were allowed to use the land for free for so many years. 
        As others have stated, the only way to ensure the type of land use you desire is to purchase the land.

        1. Again, that kind of attitude has helped badly degrade the beauty and diversity of the planet Earth for hundreds of years now.  Greed has made humans very insensitive and short-sighted.

          1. Do you have a roof over your head?  Do you heat your home in the winter?  Do you have running water?  Yes?  How greedy of you!  Shame on you.  Now go live in a grass hut and eat dirt.

          2. Well he does call himself SpruceDweller. For all we know, he lives up in a spruce tree somewhere.

            With my spouse, I own a humble littl ehome on three acres. If he thinks that makes us “greedy,” well I have no answer for that. We live simply, work, pay our bills, pay our taxes, and are essentially just trying to get by. How greedy of us.

          3. so do you live in a log or mud built home? Are you on the internet at the public library or are you commenting from the privacy of your own home? If you live in a traditionally built home and have internet at your home then your post about how the rest of us act is meaningless.

      5. What about their greed for building a house next to the woods. Why should they get to dictate what their neighbors do with their land? They get special rights because they like to trespass?

        1. Two wrongs don’t make a right.  And as we point fingers at each other, we continue to destroy the beauty of the Earth more and more.

          1. Why is developing land in the middle of a city wrong? If anything, development in existing urban areas is less damaging than sprawling out into untouched land…

          2.  We are part of the beauty of the Earth.  We deserve to live on Earth, use the bounty available to us and love life. 

      6. Do you own a home and or property? It is not attitude it is there’s they paid for it they have paid the tax on it every year. It may have been there intention all along to use it as a savings for there retirement or other such use. It is not greed it is there land. If they had bought the land and turned it into a park but the residents wanted a grocery store to be built there would you be annoyed at that as well?

        It is people with views like your that forces so many of us landowners in Maine to post our land something I swore I would never do but with year after year of 4 wheelers and people hiking into my back yard and no help form the wardens or police it is posted now.

        Or are you simply against private ownership of land all together?

      7.  What are you talking about?  I bought up a hundred acres last year.  I bulldozed 99 acres and put up a hog farm.  I left 1 acre undeveloped because I want to go green and give back to the earth.  Neighbors give me as much space as I need.  In fact, several have moved out of the area.  Now, that’s considerate!

        What?  Why are you all staring at me like that?

      8. Or steal it back from the people promised it in treaties and in the name of National Parks and such.

      9.  Did you notice the taxes paid on this piece of heaven?  $12,496!  Yikes!  How greedy of the city of Portland!

      10. Hold on, there are many many many examples of land owners in Maine who have either donated their land for public use or preserved it in Trusts for public use.  

        What are YOU doing with YOUR land?

    2. I think the owner of the land should sue this couple for unauthorized building on private property and then do what they want (within the zoning laws) with their highly taxed PRIVATE property.

    3. I agree completely.  If it is so precious to them they purchase it and make it a park.  Why should it be everyones burden.

  4. I feel bad the people are going to lose their green space but (1) they should’ve researched the ownership status and then taken the appropriate actions; (2) people like Roxanne Quimby and Cynthia Dill should be paying closer attention to protecting green spaces in their own backyard and less concerned about what we do up here in the back country where we live.

    I seriously wish the locals luck in acquiring some sort of easement to continue to use it – especially given the amount of work they put in to cleaning out the garbage and building the trails.

    1. Roxanne Quimby did just what some in this comments section are suggesting: she bought her land, it is hers she can do what she wants with it–limit hunting, block off HER roads, donate it to who she wants.  Private property, property rights.

    1. GOOD for you!! Smart people. You now have the LEGAL right to fight something like this.

       Too bad Erin and Todd have nothing but  a pout and  a “It’s not fair” 

  5. Private property is private property. It’s a shame though, when I was a kid I lived in neighborhood like this with 20 acres behind our development. It was private property but it was also a recreational haven for the neighborhood kids..adventures, hikes, playing”army” and so on. I was devestated when it became another development when I was in college.

  6. hmmm..  one has to imagine that where the homes are near these woods are sitting on what used to be more of these woods. If  the people are this heartfelt, i suggest they tear down their homes and replant trees, rather than be choosy as to whom progress is allowed.

  7.  Here’s the real issue and the only one that matters. THEY DON’T OWN THE LAND. I can appreciate the quandary but they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. In the REAL world anyway. 

  8. Good thing they have the media to tell this NON story for them. They don’t own the land, there is no issue.

  9. The biggest travesty here is there are so many people in southern Maine worried about LURC and a National Park that they do not have time to mind their own store. Obviously this woods was used by a variety of people in a well known area. This land could have been purchased and turned into a permanent conservation/recreation easement for a fraction of the funds invested in fighting LURC changes and promoting a National Park in northern Maine. 

    If anyone from down south (or anyone who supports LURC and a Park) can justify why it is not important to buy and conserve parcels in urban areas like this, please do so. This seems like a huge blunder for environmentalists to me.

    1. I think they want to recreate in the play woods, not the real woods of northern Maine. There’s a sense of “community.” I’m glad I don’t live anywhere near this area or these kinds of people. Give these two that land for free and see if they sit on it for the good of their neighbors, the  birds and the other animals. .

  10. It called…being in business. If you want to keep something they way it is then buy it, restrict it and do with it what you wish. Just as this new owner will do with it what he/she wishes

  11. Would you expect anything different for buying a house next to a vacant 13 acre lot that is zoned as industrial? I could see this being an article if it was zoned as residential and the city approved a zone change. These people have just been lucky something didn’t happen sooner.
    Should have started a campaign to buy the woods, not a campaign to save the woods.

    1. I know.  It is odd that anyone would assume that undeveloped land belonged to them, or was public land.  Any undeveloped land that people want to see conserved must not be left to wishful thinking.  Organized, group ownership, with protections is the only right answer.

  12. We see this syndrome all over Maine. It’s called “LAST MAN IN.”  I did it, but you can’t. These yuppies don’t know it, but I’d bet that one of their neighbor’s grandfathers deer hunted those woods and were not impressed when their houses were built in their hunting area.

  13. If it was private property they technically had no right to do what they did to someone else’s property. I know how they feel. Where I grew up an old set of woods became a neighborhood, and what is left has no tresspassing signs. A disappointment.

    These older folks who own these majestical places cannot afford to keep them anymore or have past on and their heirs do not have the means either.

    Personally, I think the city of Portland needs more spaces like these. I know another neighborhood in Portland where someone else bought a house that has three wooded acres behind them. It is a nice little retreat in the biggest city in Maine. There are no spots like that in or near the Old Port, or near the greenbelt walkways. We humans evolved in the natural landscape too, it is understandable we have so much fun in there.

    It would be nice if we opened up park rules so neighborhoods could do things like they have to the wooded lot. It is nice that Brewer bought Sherwood Forest for the neighborhoods in the south side of town that lost most of their woods, and I think it is sad the north side of town is still losing woods and catching up, if not caught up.

    How many cities have places where one can walk through the woods to get across town and be quicker and easier than driving the long way to everything? Also a cool place to run in the summer.

    Oh yeah, we still have some snow mobile trails outside the city of Bangor, or the Bangor Woods, or the Audobon Society, but again, one has to drive there, and how about those in the city without vehicles? How many patches of woods remain in the middle of the city for the city residents?

    1. Sherwood Forest (Brewer, ME) is a perfect example of what people can do IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD. Someone should get a community award for Sherwood Forest…

    2. The magic word Brewer “BOUGHT” Sherwood Forest.. What did the people in Portland think,  That that they could traspass forever????  These people bought their house on a lot, In Portland.. They made a choice as to where to live… If they want more woods they should move to Millinocket… These people choose to live in a high poplulated area…

  14. I am always stunned by people who trespass on someone else’s property and think it theirs.

      A similar thing happened  a few years ago in a local community. A code enforcement officer received a call from a townsperson asking what a soils company was doing digging holes in a property adjacent to hers. Code told her they were taking samples as part of the process to build new homes. She responded with… “They can’t do that!!! That’s where I walk my dog!!!”

  15. Wait, so let me get this straight.

    Quimby is bad because she wants to develop her land into something else, and those who denounce Quimby are good because that land ought to be less restricted and allow people to use it recreationally.

    Yet here, the Canco Woods owners are good becasue they want to develop their land into something else, and those who denounce the owners are bad because that land ought to be less restricted and allow people to use it recreationally.

    Seems a little inconsistent and lacking in principle.

    1. fwteagles, You are missing the point.

      People do not want a National Park because that means federal government control over our land. If Ms. Quimby wants conservation or to add to Baxter, that is fine. Some people don’t want snow mobile trails and hunting banned but that is the way of private property. Certainly Ms. Quimby could do a better job with neighbor relations than she has, but in the end it is her land. Again, if it goes to the National Park (or some other federal ownership control) that is the core issue.  We don’t want it.
      The Canco users should have bought the land (consistent argument) and then they would not have the issue they are facing. Conversely, if Ms. Quimby (and others in the Portland area) would focus on their own backyard (and not our backyard), they could have invested their resources locally (where local people actually wanted or could have used the help) and preserved this site. Instead, people from the south are so consumed with restricting what we do up north, that they let a prime piece of urban greenery (an emerald) slip right through their fingers.  
      I would guess the funds spent on consultants to lobby against changing LURC and to the pro-Park lobby could have bought that site and dozens more like it in the Portland area many times over. If you add the land bought for the National Park, you are really upside down.

      No inconsistency. 

      1. It’s inconsistent. It’s still others trying to dictate what happens with something that isn’t theirs. You can find discrepancies between the two examples (as with anything), but largely, it’s the same issue. But if those small details are enough for your to feel satisfied, then whatever.

        1. I am totally satisfied.  The messaging here is: pay attention to your own backyard before you concern yourself with someone else’s backyard. Consistent.

          1. That’s fine if you’re satisfied. But to me, Quimy’s property doesn’t exactly seem to qualify as “your own backyard”. 

    2. Quimby doesn’t want to develop anything, She wants the Federal Government to develop something. Get your lies straight.

      1. Irrelevant. It’s still other people trying to dictating what happens with something that isn’t theirs. I didn’t lie either.

        1. What some pro park people refuse to see, is that NOBODY is saying Quimby can’t do what she wants on her land. BUT, giving it to the federal gov. will mean all the surrounding land will be effected too. This is something people have a right to fight. If Quimby wants a park, she can make one – on her own land and even name it after herself if that is what she wants. Putting the entire area under federal control would make everything around it subject to that federal control and regulations. Let Quimby “save” her land, we can take care of the rest of the state- as a state. The North Maine Woods is the way it is because those of us here have cared for it all along-without Quimby or the feds help.
          Then, there is that elephant in Quimby’s closet…the one where she states she wants this “gift” to be a SEED for RESTORE’s 3.2 million acres. NO PARK FOR ME!!!!!
          Maybe Cynthia Dill can convince Quimby to buy the land and do something for southern Maine…but then again, perhaps she would then not be able to expect as large a donation to her campaign this time around if she were to ask for some for the residents in southern Maine.

  16. Private Property is the foundation of Public Justice.  If these people can steal someone else’s belongings, someone else can steal yours.

  17. “If the woods are bulldozed and the area is built-up, we would be devastated.”  I guess your house must have been there since the ice age.

    NIBYism at its’ finest…

    1. You left out the “M”.   Dispensing with the cliched and misconstrued “NIMBYisms,” what is worrisome here is that, even now, in 2012, people assume that vacant land will remain so.  Seeing further than your own nose, would be the better, more current, phrase:  SFTYON

  18. I understand their feelings. My property abuts a wetland. As long as the law prevents development, I have a pristine view of a lake and mountain. If I lost that view, I’d consider moving away.

    1. So, it needs to be purchased.  Trouble is, you can’t get any of the conservation groups involved in a “small parcel,” that is not available to throngs of people.  You would have to find a way to buy it yourself, or with some neighbors or friends.

  19. Living in the other Maine, the one southern Mainers always tries to control,  I will lobby for a salvage yard there… or maybe a homeless retreat, low income housing perhaps…
     
    And they are allowed to vote…

  20. “Our quality of life would decline decidedly. We already feel heartbroken, and our kids just can’t understand why people would want to destroy such a beautiful, peaceful, magical place — a place they love to play in any time of year, and one that is home to so many creatures.”

    Let’s not forget that same thing happened when the road was first constructed and houses were built, including the ones people on this street are making the complaints. I am sure where the houses once stood, someone and their kids felt heartbroken and nobody could understand why such a beautiful place must be destroyed to make room for houses and a road, such great place to play, walk any time of the year and home to so many creatures at the time too….

    1. “Oh but that’s different.” is what the response would be, I am sure. All a person has to do is look at a map of the greater Portland area from a few hundred years ago when it wasn’t called Portland to see the changes over the centuries. How typical of them.

  21. I think the intro to this story should have said (change in Capital letters) …  When husband and wife Todd Swinton and Erin Larson moved to their neighborhood, they immediately fell in love with THEIR NEIGHBOR’S nearly 13-acre wooded property where their dead-end Torrey Street came to a stop…

    I wonder if Todd and Erin would mind if I came over to their back yard this weekend and had a BBQ.  Of course I would not call first or ask permission. 

    1. How about I come down their with a few tents. We could “occupy” their front lawn. Yeah I’m sure that would go over real well.

  22. This same thing happened to me.  17 acres behind my house went up for sale.  Saw some developers looking at it and ran to the Realtors office and bought it myself.

    Was not looking forward to spending the money, but was well worth it.  No neighbors, no development, I still enjoy MY area and I can sell all of it or some of it anytime I wish.  An investment I get to enjoy.

    All those neighbors could get together to buy the parcel themselves and solve the problem forever.

  23.  Where’s your B-ROll BUD?!? You are in the woods, how could you not find some cool critters and leaves and spring growth, to cover up the most static boaring shot of all time. Jeez-a-lou, who wants to watch that? Great cause, crap video

  24. Where’s the B-ROLL BUD!?!  Who wants to watch the most static shot of two people standing in the woods talking for a straight 2 minutes? Cover that up with some sweet shots of critters, Leaves, Spring growth. You are in the woods doing a video on the woods, be a little creative, Jeeze! Great Cause Crap Video – Get on it BDN

  25. hmmm if Iwanted to make sure I had beloved urban woods I wouldn’t have moved into a “light industrial zoning designation”   just sayin

    1. Thats a good one!  No one likes Roxanne Quimby except when developers are about to take a dump on your quaint Maine neighborhood and turn it into a noisy urbanized cesspool.

  26. That is why i am buying/moving to a nice quiet street,area on  Cape Cod instead of Southern Maine or NHampshire.  Cape Cod is close to 100% developed.  All streets,communities of Cape Cape that are  still quiet,nature areas will remain that way forever, because the geology of the ground will not support any development.

    Maybe the people in the story will buy my property up in Skowhegan. Skowhegan is a nice quiet little town.

    1.  I am certain you have been intelligent before making the Cape Cod purchase, and checked with town hall to see who owns all the land around yours, and the zoning for any potential development.

      It always amazes me how people buy in a neighborhood and just assume that what they see across the street will always remain that way.

  27.  “our kids just can’t understand why people would want to destroy such a
    beautiful, peaceful, magical place”

    And tell me exactly what you think your house lot looked like before your home was  built???

  28. We want to have our house in the woods, but no one else should be able to.  Is this the basic idea?   Glad I live and work in the unorganized territories.  

  29. The neighbors should pool their resources and purchase the property, if they want to see it preserved in its present state. Otherwise, as long as the new owner abides by the current zoning laws, the neighbors have no standing to protest the development.

    Anyone who purchases property needs to review the surrounding land at their municipal offices, and look at what could potentially happen around them.

  30. The old not in my back yard whiners at it again. I would dare say if I bought a home in Portland with their inflated real estate prices and their out of control property tax base you can bet I would be looking at the available land near my home and the chances of that land being developed.

  31. It is the same thing all over the place, keep paying the taxes so we can use your land for our enjoyment. God forbid if the landowner wants to sell or develop the property to recoup some of the taxes they have paid all these years, There is a simple solution purchase the land pay the annual raxes and continue to enjoy the land forever.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *