Staff Recommendation

1

• Staff Recommendation
• Zoning Petition ZP 704
• Rodney and Vanessa Folsom
• Rockwood Strip Twp T1 R1 NBKP
• Somerset County

2
Location of Property Rockwood Strip Twp. T1 R1
NBKP Somerset County
3
Approximate Location of Property Proposed for
Rezoning Located 20 miles north of Greenville and
30 miles east of Jackman Located on the lower
slopes of Blue Ridge No water frontage but
portions of the property are as close as 300 feet
to the Moose River Frontage on Route 15 with
access to existing utilities
4
Proposed Rezoning 54 acres proposed for rezoning
from (M-GN) General Management Subdistrict to
(D-RS) Residential Development Subdistrict, for
the purpose of creating a 14-lot residential
subdivision Property is located within the
heavily developed Rockwood village area, amongst
parcels already zoned D-RS and D-GN Property was
historically used as farmland, currently used
only for small-scale timber harvesting
5
Directly abuts land that has already been
subdivided under Commission permits Petitioners
own about 5 acres on the opposite side of Route
15 with frontage on the Moose River. This
waterfront lot is developed with a pre-Commission
commercial campground. Water access rights would
be deeded to subdivision lot owners across this
lot
6
Preliminary Subdivision Plan
7
Review Criteria

• Statutory and Chapter 10
• Pursuant to Section 685-A,8-A of the
  Commissions Statutes, and Section 10.08,A of the
  Commissions Land Use Districts and Standards,
• A land use district boundary may not be adopted
  or amended unless there is substantial evidence
  that
•  
• The proposed land use district is consistent with
  the standards for district boundaries in effect
  at the time, the comprehensive land use plan and
  the purpose, intent and provisions of this
  chapter and
• The proposed land use district satisfies a
  demonstrated need in the community or area and
  has no undue adverse impact on existing uses or
  resources or a new district designation is more
  appropriate for the protection and management of
  existing uses and resources within the affected
  area.

8
Review Criteria

• Comprehensive Land Use Plan
• In accordance with the Commissions Comprehensive
  Land Use Plan,
• Under Chapter 5, Section II, A, it is the
  Commissions goal to guide the location of new
  development in order to protect and conserve
  forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and
  other natural resources. Further it is the
  Commissions policy in communities or areas
  without prospective development zoning to
  encourage orderly growth within and proximate to
  existing, compatibly developed areas (the
  so-called adjacency criterion) i.e., existing
  development of similar type, use occupancy, scale
  and intensity to that being proposed. As stated
  under this particular standard of its
  Comprehensive Plan, the Commission has generally
  interpreted the adjacency criterion to mean that
  rezoning for development should be no more than a
  mile by road from existing compatible
  development.

9
Review/Public Comments

• Somerset County Commissioners are supportive of
  the economic growth that the anticipated
  development would have but are also concerned
  about the impact of development on
  County-provided services. They have recommended
  that the subdivision covenants include a
  provision for negotiation of service contracts
  between the homeowners association and the
  County.
• State Soil Scientist, Dave Rocque, had no
  objections. He found the soils and slopes to be
  generally suitable for the intended purpose.
• Maine Natural Areas Program stated that no known
  rare botanical features are present on the
  property.
• Maine Department of Fisheries and Wildlife found
  that there is no record of Essential or
  Significant wildlife habitat within the bounds of
  the proposed rezoning. The biologist did warn of
  the possibility of heavy deer browsing on
  ornamental plants in this area.

10
Review/Public Comments

• The Maine Historic Preservation Commission
  expressed concerns that the area may contain
  prehistoric (Native American) archeological
  sites. The petitioner provided a Phase I survey
  that showed no archeological properties the
  Maine Historic Preservation Commission concurred
  with the surveys findings.
• Twelve letters of support were provided from
  local citizens and business people.
• Since the Commission packet was mailed, one
  e-mail has been received opposing the project.
  This individual, who owns a seasonal residence in
  East Moxie Twp, states that the existing zoning
  maps have been developed to protect and preserve
  unorganized territories for appropriate use into
  the future, and that allowing rezoning simply
  for a residential subdivision does not meet the
  criteria of undue hardship (variance criteria).
  He also stated that the rezoning of a piece here
  and a piece there to allow individuals to change
  the zoning from general management to residential
  development will eventually change the character
  of the entire unorganized territories and
  circumvent years of sound land use planning.

11
Conclusions

• The petitioner demonstrated that the proposed
  rezoning is in compliance with Section 685-A,8-A
  of the Commissions Statutes, and Section 10.08,A
  of the Commissions Land Use Districts and
  Standards. Specifically
• A. The petitioner has shown that the proposed
  land use district is consistent with the
  Comprehensive Land Use Plan, especially the
  policy to encourage orderly growth within and
  proximate to existing, compatibly developed areas
  (the so-called adjacency criterion) i.e.,
  existing development of similar type, use,
  occupancy, scale and intensity to that being
  proposed. As stated in the Plan, the adjacency
  criterion generally means that rezoning for
  development should be no more than one mile by
  road from existing, compatible development. The
  proposed location for this 14-lot subdivision is
  adjacent to a development of similar type, scale,
  or intensity of use in that it is directly within
  and adjacent to an area of properties already
  zoned D-RS.

12
Conclusions

• B. The petitioner has submitted sufficient
  information to demonstrate that the proposed land
  use district is consistent with Chapter 5 of the
  Commissions Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
  specifically with the Commissions goals and
  policies to guide the location of new development
  in order to protect and conserve forest,
  recreational, plant or animal habitat and other
  natural resources. The proposed rezoning is
  located in a heavily-developed village area and
  is sited to avoid areas of significant natural
  resource values, including wetlands and steep
  slopes. The configuration of the proposed
  rezoning would enable the petitioner to conform
  with the Commissions design standards for
  subdivisions, thereby ensuring that existing uses
  (including forestry and recreation) and existing
  natural resources (including fisheries, wildlife,
  physical and cultural resources) would not be
  unduly harmed.

13
Conclusions

• C. The petitioner has submitted sufficient
  information to demonstrate a need for the
  proposed rezoning in the community or area as
  related to the Commissions Guidelines on
  Demonstrated Need, Specifically
• (1) Community Support The petitioner has
  provided twelve letters of support for the
  project. Letters were received from private
  citizens and local business people. The letters
  reflected the importance of this type of a
  proposal to the local community and to the
  economic development of the area.

14
Conclusions

• (2) Compatibility with Community Character The
  proposal is consistent with community character,
  in that the type of proposed residential
  development (seasonal and year-round) is similar
  to that already existing in the area, the type of
  infrastructure required (utility service, access
  roads) already exists, and the proposal will not
  significantly alter the communitys character.
• (3) Availability of Vacant Lots/Units At the
  time of the petition, there were fourteen other
  lots of similar size and situation available in
  the Rockwood area, however none of these
  available lots have deeded water access.
• (4) Impact on Community Services The
  petitioner has provided letters from the Rockwood
  Transfer Station, the Rockwood Volunteer Fire
  Department, and the Somerset County Sheriffs
  Department indicating their ability to provide
  services to the proposal.

15
Conclusions

• The petitioner has demonstrated that the project
  will not have an undue adverse impact on existing
  uses or resources.
• Specifically, the area proposed for rezoning is
  located close to existing, compatible
  development, as well as existing roads and
  utility lines, thereby minimizing impacts upon
  public services and infrastructure.

16
Staff Recommendation

• Based upon the above information, staff
  recommends that Zoning Petition, ZP 704 as
  proposed by Rodney and Vanessa Folsom be approved