The Cape Elizabeth Town Council rejected in a 6-1 vote a request by a citizen to vacate a paper street bordering his land on Stonybrook Road, supporting a petition from 70 neighbors and agreeing with Town Manager Michael McGovern’s recommendation to keep the property in case it was useful as part of the town’s trail system.

Councilor Michael Mowles was the only councilor in support of a request from Sprague Simonds of 71 Stonybrook Road to release the land, on which his driveway now sits. He wants to build a garage on the land.

A paper street is land marked to become a road on a subdivision plan but never actually paved and turned over to the town to be a public road. The residents of the subdivision have rights to use the land, and the town has rights associated with its expected future use as a road. But if the town vacates the paper street, the land ownership passes to the abutting landowners, which in this case are Simonds and the town, which owns the adjoining lot.

The town-owned lot is just under the minimum building lot size of 10,000 square feet. If the town vacates the paper street, the lot size will increase enough to be buildable. That has neighbors worried about losing the open space.

Susan Payne of 72 Stonybrook Drive said Monday that her primary concern is ensuring the lot remains undeveloped. “My issue is not with (Simonds) getting the half of the paper street or even with him building a garage,” she said.

She said there were many reasons why she and her neighbors would like the lot kept as open space. “It’s wooded, it has a stream in it, it’s green and leafy in the summer … people call it an accidental jewel,” she said.

Simonds said he, too, opposes developing the lot. When he initially requested the town release the paper street, it was at the recommendation of the real estate agent who helped him buy the house in May 2004, he said. He said he wanted to acquire ownership of his driveway, and possibly someday build a garage.

He said he wasn’t aware the release of the paper street made the land vulnerable to development. Though he doesn’t want to see the land developed, he hoped the council would accommodate his as well as his neighbors’ requests.

“If there was a compromise that would not have that land developed, that’s what I was hoping for,” he said.

He and Payne had both hoped that the council would adopt a compromise proposed by the Planning Board in which the Town Council would put a conservation easement on the paper street and then release it. The Planning Board made that suggestion in October, after receiving a petition signed by 70 neighbors who supported keeping the town-owned lot undeveloped.

Simonds said that was a workable solution, though Payne worried the town would be unable to find an organization to accept and monitor the easement. “If no one steps forward, then the door would be open to develop that land,” she said.

McGovern recommended the town keep the paper street, saying it could be used for possible greenbelt trail access in the future. “You don’t vacate paper streets unless you’re absolutely positively sure that it’s in the best interest of the community,” he said.

Simonds asked the council, “Is there some way you can think out of the box … to serve all the members of the community. … You’re talking about 10 feet that I don’t own … a slice of driveway that was there when I bought the land.”

Councilor Mary Ann Lynch said Simonds had bought the home knowing the restrictions on the land, and said the public had made clear through e-mails and phone calls that they did not want the paper street released.

The council tabled the question indefinitely, ending debate for the rest of the council year, which ends this month. Simonds could ask that it be discussed again as soon as next month, but said he does not plan to do so.