|
|
|
By Diana Bowley of the News Staff - GREENVILLE - Instead of a lengthy critique of Plum Creek's proposed development and conservation plan, Greenville selectmen voted Wednesday to provide the company a generic list of local concerns. Some selectmen believed it was premature to critique a plan that is under revision. The selectmen made their comments in a special selectmen's meeting, during which they allowed some public comment. Plum Creek had initially requested a zone change on about 426,000 acres in the Moosehead Lake region to pave the way for the phased-in development of 975 house lots, a resort in Lily Bay, three recreational vehicle parks, a lodge on Brassua Lake, a commercial or industrial site, four commercial sporting camps, and an unlimited number of rental cabins. A 30-year conservation plan was offered on about 382,000 acres to offset the development. The company is revising that plan in response to concerns raised earlier at scoping sessions held throughout the state by the Land Use Regulation Commission. That agency will act on the zone request because most of the proposed development is in unorganized territory. Town Manager John Simko had provided selectmen with six pages of recommendations for consideration in their critique of Plum Creek's original plan. That evaluation included a broad spectrum of issues relating to Greenville that could be affected by the development. The issues ranged from the increased use of the Junction Wharf to downtown raffic congestion and affordable housing. "It feels to me we're asking for some things that aren't as strategic as they should be," Selectman Dan McLaughlin said during the meeting. He questioned why the town would include such topics as the Junction Wharf and the industrial park, for examples. "I think a lot of these issues are Greenville specific. I think we're diluting what we should be discussing with them." McLaughlin said he categorized the comments aired locally at a public meeting held on the plan last week into five areas: tourism- and nature-based recreation, planning, traffic, and preservation of the area and its resources. Another category included the "let's take advantage" of the opportunity. These are the subject areas that should be forwarded to Plum Creek, he suggested. Simko countered that selectmen earlier had suggested it should address those issues that could affect Greenville. If the development were in place, the Junction Wharf, which needs repair and has limited parking, could see increased use, he said. He suggested the time is ripe for the town to have its say while the plan is under revision. "We need to look out for the town of Greenville, and to me, this addressees that," board Chairman Bonnie DuBien said about Simko's critique. Greenville resident Loren Ritchie, who viewed Simko's recommendations as a little like a "wish list," worried that such a critique could close the door to other recommendations. It could be perceived as the end-all of Greenville comment on the proposal, he said. As a result of Wednesday's discussion, the selectmen asked Simko to draft a "high-level" letter to Plum Creek, noting briefly the areas of concerns categorized by McLaughlin and any other local concerns of the board. Selectmen agreed to send a letter of comment to LURC on the proposed Burnt Jacket development-conservation project planned in Beaver Cove. Points to be highlighted by town officials include septic waste, increased traffic flow and the need for the developer to work closely with the town of Beaver Cove. Greenville provides some services to this small community. In view of the two projects and any future development, selectmen agreed to ask LURC to conduct a comprehensive plan for the Moosehead Lake region, similar to one prepared for the Rangeley Lakes
region. |