Gardner Land Company, Inc.

1

• Gardner Land Company, Inc.
• T3 R1 NBPP, Bill Green Pond
• Penobscot County

Staff Recommendation Zoning Petition ZP 706
2
Location of Property T3 R1 NBPP Bill Green
Pond Penobscot County
3
Approximate Location of Property Proposed for
Rezoning Located east of Town of Lincoln, south
of Town of Lee (along town line)
4
Approximate Location of Property Proposed for
Rezoning
5
Proposal

• The petitioner proposes to rezone 71 acres to a
  D-RS subdistrict for the purposes of a 15 lot
  residential subdivision. The preliminary
  subdivision design proposes shorefront lots
  ranging from 2 to 4.5 acres and slightly larger
  back lots. Final subdivision design and lot size
  will reflect information that is developed as
  part of the subdivision application and the
  Commissions guidelines for subdivision design.
  

6
(No Transcript)
7
Existing Development

• Existing development is located approximately 1
  mile away by road at the intersection of the Arab
  and Engstrom Roads. This area is populated with
  a cluster of dwellings along the Arab Road and
  the southern and eastern shore of Silver Lake in
  Lee which appears to be a mixture of year-round
  and seasonal dwellings. This contiguous
  development along the Arab Road and around Silver
  Lake consists of well over 50 dwellings.

8
(No Transcript)
9
Existing Uses

• The petitioners property has historically been
  managed for commercial timber harvesting,
  traditional outdoor recreation, ice fishing,
  snowmobiling, and recreational camp leasing.
  Bill Green Pond abuts the property.
• The nearest development zone is a (D-RS)
  Residential Development Subdistrict located
  approximately 2 miles to the east in along the
  northern shore of Number 3 Pond also in T3 R1
  NBPP. This (D-RS) Residential Development
  Subdistrict was rezoned under a Zoning Petition
  in 1988. There are 6 lots within the subdistrict
  with seasonal camps already developed on some of
  the lots.

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
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.

13
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.

14
Review/Public Comments

• CWA Lake Street Real Estate cited local
  interest in purchasing lakefront lots and
  asserted the positive impacts of this type of
  development on the local economy.The Maine
  Snowmobile Association supported the project,
  citing its mix of shorefront and back lots and
  the positive economic impacts it would have
  locally.The Selectmen of the Town of Lee
  supported the project, citing positive economic
  impacts locally. The Penobscot Valley Council
  of Governments took no position regarding the
  proposal, but noted no negative land use impacts
  associated with the development based on
  available municipal and regional planning
  documents.The Penobscot County Commissioners
  supported the project, citing the mixture of
  shorefront lots and commercial forestland,
  positive economic impacts, the addition of
  housing stock in the Lee-Lincoln area, and the
  modest number of lots which will ensure the pond
  remains available for traditional recreation.

15
Review/Public Comments

• The Maine Historic Preservation Commission
  expressed concerns that portions of the project
  within 50 meters of the lakeshore are sensitive
  for prehistoric archaeological sites and require
  a Phase I archaeological survey. (The Phase I
  archaeological survey will be conducted prior to
  the subdivision permitting stage)The Maine
  Natural Areas Program indicated that there are no
  rare or unique botanical features within the
  vicinity of Bill Green Pond in T3 R1 NBPP.The
  Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
  Wildlife, Enfield Wildlife Division, commented
  that there are no areas identified as Essential
  or Significant Wildlife Habitat on or around Bill
  Green Pond.
• The LURC Planning Division confirmed that the
  proposed rezoning is approximately 1 mile from
  existing, compatible development on Silver Lake
  in Lee. It found that the existing development
  on Silver Lake is of a similar type, use,
  occupancy, scale and intensity to that being
  proposed.
• The State Soil Scientist indicated that Bill
  Green Pond has suitable soils and slopes for
  development.

16
Conclusions

• The proposed rezoning of approximately 71 acres
  from a (M-GN) General Management Subdistrict and
  a (P-GP) Great Pond Protection Subdistrict to a
  (D-RS) Residential Development Subdistrict is
  consistent with the standards for district
  boundaries, the Commissions Comprehensive Land
  Use Plan, and the purpose, intent and provisions
  of 12 M.R.S.A., Chapter 206-A

17
Conclusions

• The petitioner has submitted evidence to show
  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

18
Conclusions

• 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 most rezoning for
  development should be no more than one mile by
  road from existing, compatible development.

19
Conclusions

• The existing development along the Arab Road and
  around the southern shore of Silver Lake meets
  the so-called adjacency criterion in that the
  development consists of well over 50 dwellings of
  a similar type, scale, and intensity of use. This
  existing development is located approximately one
  mile from the proposal which meets the
  interpretation of generally being within a mile
  by roadway.

20
Conclusions

• 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 configuration of the
  proposed lots, to be finalized at the subdivision
  review stage, must conform with the Commissions
  subdivision design standards for subdivisions. In
  addition, the petitioner will continue to conduct
  timber harvesting on the undeveloped portion of
  the property and will continue to allow
  traditional outdoor recreation on the remainder
  of its holdings in T3 R1 NBPP.

21
Conclusions

• 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 a number of letters of support for the
  project. Letters were received from local and
  county government officials, local realtors, and
  a recreational organization. The letters attested
  to the importance of this proposal to the local
  community and its businesses.
• (2) Compatibility with Community Character The
  proposal is consistent with community character,
  in that the type of seasonal residential
  development proposed is similar to proximate
  seasonal development in Lee and will not
  significantly alter the character of the
  immediate area.

22
Conclusions

• (3) Availability of Vacant Lots/Units There is
  currently one waterfront property in T3 R1 NBPP
  Township available for sale. There are relatively
  few recreational properties available for
  development in the surrounding communities.
• (4) Impact on Community Services The petitioner
  has provided letters from the Penobscot County
  Sheriffs Department, trash hauling and disposal
  services, and well drilling and septic services
  regarding their ability to provide services to
  the proposed development.

23
Conclusions

• D. The petitioner has submitted sufficient
  information to demonstrate that the proposed
  rezoning will have no undue adverse impact on
  existing uses or resources. Specifically, the
  area proposed for rezoning is located close to
  existing, compatible development and roads,
  thereby minimizing impacts upon public services
  and infrastructure.

24
Conclusions

• The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
  provisions of Section 10.25,A of the Commissions
  Land Use Districts and Standards, in that the
  proposal would not adversely affect the natural
  resource values, water quality, traditional uses,
  regional diversity, or natural shoreland
  character of Bill Green Pond the proposal would
  cause no landowner inequity and the proposal
  would be consistent with the goals for Management
  Class 7 lakes.

25
Staff Recommendation

• Based upon the above information, staff
  recommends that Zoning Petition, ZP 706 as
  proposed by Gardner Land Company, Inc. be
  approved.