Are you looking for the FRLLA to support the Amended Petition? If so, we are certain that the license holders will want to know the approximate cost and timing of the lot sales.
We would be pleased to have the lease holders association support the petition filed with LUPC, which outlines what we feel is a long term responsible future development plan. I will reiterate that we have not been focused on any potential sale of lots at this time, as we have been focused on creating a broad comprehensive plan to guide future development. The current process we are in for review and approval may change the plan as may input from State agencies, which also makes any potential date to discuss possible sales impossible at this point.
Many license holders will also want to know what their status will be if they can’t or choose not to buy. Can they continue indefinitely to lease the lot and on substantially the same terms as at present? Will Irving allow them to sell or convey their camps to others and continue leasing the lots to new owners?
If at some future date if it is decided the lots will be sold instead of licensed, then the owner will work with individuals to accommodate a continuation of licensing for some period of time. However if the goal is to sell these then it will not be for an indefinite period of time. I cannot speculate on future license terms as we try and keep the pricing in line with the Maine market, and we often need to respond to changes in tax policies and other items that the State imposes.
Is there any estimated time frame for selling of the lots?
No. There has not been any decision on selling or continuing to license the lots, let alone any timing associated with potential changes.
Why did the wording about selling the lots change from the 2014 submission to the current submission?
I cannot speak specifically why this changed but over the course of the past 2 1⁄2 years we changed the wording on many sections of the plan to clarify our intent. Some on our own and some based on the comments of the LUPC staff. The overall intent has not changed, but the language has been changed to be more appropriate to the regulatory process we are in at this time.
Does it matter to Irving if a majority of license holders no longer want to purchase their lots if the cost is significantly higher than the State assessed value?
If the decision is made to sell lots in the future and the current license holders are not interested in purchasing, and it is a large number in some areas, I don’t feel we will want to have a mix of licensed lots and sold lots in a given area or on a certain road. These lots could continue to be licensed, or sold as a package to someone that may want to continue to license them.
If the Concept Plan is not approved, would Irving still consider selling the lots? What is the significance of tying the Concept Plan approval with selling the lots?
No decision has been made on selling any lots. However if future development plans are not approved, certain areas may be determined not to be eligible for sale if it creates fragmented areas of old developments amongst the working forest. The goal of long term planning is to focus development in certain areas, and selling small lots surrounded by working forest is not of interest in the long term.
Is the inclusion of backlots required in the lot sales?
Yes, any future potential sales will include the backlots to make these properties less non-conforming to current rules for development. Moving forward these back lots may also be incorporated in to the License agreements. These back lots are seen as providing flexibility for users for upgraded septic, or just more land for use as storage, etc. Also due to some lot sizes, road alignments, and ability to create a back lot, not all existing lots will have back lots.
There are several places in the plan that mention a road association owning and maintain portions of access roads and other common elements, yet on the Back Lots maps, Note 2 states, “Back lots will typically include the area under the access road.” This is confusing; can you explain how road ownership is planned?
In discussions with LUPC in order to allow the backlots to be created, and make existing lots less non-conforming they need to be connected. In order to accomplish this with the existing roads, we would envision that the current license holder would take ownership of all land from the lake to the backlot including the lands under the road. Each landowner would then be granted an easement over that property to allow access to adjacent lots. Any road association may own access roads with no lots directly on them, and have the responsibility to maintain the roads.