Staff Recommendation for Denial of Zoning Petition ZP 701 Burnt Jacket, LLC Beaver Cove, Maine June 7, 2006. Town of Beaver Cove. Zoning Petition ZP 701 Administrative History. Pre-Submission Meetings between petitioner and staff Concept Plan vs. Rezoning/Subdivision
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
for Denial of
Zoning Petition ZP 701
Burnt Jacket, LLC
Beaver Cove, Maine
June 7, 2006
Pursuant to Section 685-A,8-A of the Commission’s Statutes, and Section 10.08,A of the Commission’s Land Use Districts and Standards,
“A land use district boundary may not be adopted or amended unless there is substantial evidence that:
A. 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
B. 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.”
In accordance with the Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
A. Under Chapter 5, Section II, A, 7, it is the Commission’s 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.
B. UnderChapter 5, Section II, A, it is the Commission’s goal to guide the location of new development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and other natural resources.
C. Under Chapter 5, one of the broad goals of the Commission is to conserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of the jurisdiction primarily for fiber and food production, nonintensive outdoor recreation and fisheries and wildlife habitat.
D. UnderChapter 5, Section I,F,1 it is the Commission’s policy to discourage development that will interfere unreasonably with continued timber and wood fiber production, as well as primitive outdoor recreation, biodiversity, and remoteness and support uses that are compatible with these values.
E. UnderChapter 5, Section I, H, it is the Commission’s goal to conserve and protect the natural beauty and unspoiled qualities of the waters, shorelands, mountains, plant and animal habitats, forests, scenic vistas, trails and other natural and recreational features in order to protect and enhance their values for a range of public recreational resources.
F. UnderChapter 5, Section I, J, 4, it is the Commission’s policy to conserve and protect lakes, ponds and rivers and their shorelands which provide significant public recreational opportunities.
G. UnderChapter 5, Section I, M, 3, it is the Commission’s policy to protect the scenic values of coastal, shoreland, mountain, recreation, and other scenic areas.
Pursuant to Section 10.08, B of the Commission’s Land use Districts and Standards, the review standards listed in Section 10.25, A must be considered in applying the above criteria to proposed changes in subdistrict boundaries adjacent to lakes.
Under the provisions of Section 10.25, A, Review Standards for Structures Adjacent to Lakes, of the Commission’s Land Use Districts and Standards,
“The standards set forth below must be met for all subdivisions and commercial, industrial, and other non-residential structures and uses proposed on land adjacent to lakes. These Standards must also be considered in applying criteria for adoption or amendment of land use district boundaries, as provided in Section 10.08, to proposed changes in subdistrict boundaries adjacent to lakes.
In applying the standards set forth below, the Commission shall consider all relevant information available including the Maine Wildlands Lake Assessment Findings (Appendix C of this chapter), and relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
1. Natural and cultural resource values: The proposal will not adversely affect natural and cultural resource values identified as significant or outstanding in the Wildland Lakes Assessment (Appendix C) of this chapter;
2. Water quality: The proposal will not, alone or in conjunction with other development, have an undue adverse impact on water quality;
3. Traditional Uses: The proposal will not have an undue adverse impact on traditional uses, including without limitation, non-intensive public recreation, sporting camp operations, timber harvesting, and agriculture;
4. Regional diversity: The proposal will not substantially alter the diversity of lake-related uses afforded within the region in which the activity is proposed;
5. Natural character: Adequate provision has been made to maintain the natural character of shoreland;
6. Lake management goals. The proposal is consistent with the management intent of the affected lake’s classification; and
7. Landowner equity. Where future development on a lake may be limited for water quality or other reasons, proposed development on each landownership does not exceed its proportionate share of total allowable development.”
The Petitioner stated the following:
The majority of public comment was in opposition to the proposal.
The public expressed concerns regarding the proposals adverse effects on:
A. 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 70 lot subdivision is not adjacent to any development of similar type, scale, or intensity of use.
B. The petitioner has not shown that the proposed land use district is consistent with Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, specifically with the Commission’s goals and policies to guide the location of development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat, water resources and scenic resources.
The location of the proposed development does not conserve and protect the natural beauty and unspoiled qualities of the waters, shorelands, scenic vistas, and trails in order to protect and enhance their values for a range of public recreational resources. The proposal and its location in a remote area of the peninsula which is not adjacent to other similar type and compatible development uses, degrades the existing unspoiled nature of the remotest and most visually prominent and naturally pristine part of the Burnt Jacket peninsula and the recreational, scenic, and water uses that historically have occurred both on and around the peninsula.
C. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the project satisfies a demonstrated need in the community or area. According to information in the record, of the residential lots in the existing Beaver Cove development, 52 are vacant residential lots.
The petitioner has not shown that there exists any justification, no less a demonstrated need, for an additional 70 lots in the community or area.
While a few letters from community leaders were generally supportive of the project, several also raised concerns regarding the potential negative or unknown impacts on services such as fire protection, police protection, septage disposal, and compatibility with the community.
A. The proposal is not consistent with Section 10.25, A, 3, in that the proposal will likely have an undue adverse impact on traditional uses of public recreation and forestry.
B. The proposal is not consistent with Section 10.25, A, 5, in that adequate provision has not been made to maintain the natural character of the unusually pristine, natural and visually prominent shoreland involved in this development rezoning proposal, whereas development of some other areas within the petitioner’s ownership would not pose such problems.
Among other things, the rezoning proposal for the shoreline development, which is linear along the shoreline, does not provide adequate lot depth or separation to allow for maintaining the natural character of the shoreland. The shallow depth of the proposed Development Subdistrict does not allow for a concentric lot design and back lot areas.
The hillside lots will inevitably be visually prominent from the lake if they are to have views of the lake.
The particular location of the proposed development is on the most remote portion(s) of petitioner’s property, an area which has been identified by the Commission as having the highest ratings of natural values among lakefront in its jurisdiction.