## Facts

- Lakesites, Inc. owned a 92-acre tract on Raymond Pond planned as “Spring Valley Development,” a residential subdivision of about 90 lots.
- The lots ranged roughly from 20,000 to 53,000 square feet; Lakesites began work including clearing, grading, and constructing an access road.
- The Maine Site Location of Development Law required prior notice to the Environmental Improvement Commission for developments that may substantially affect the environment, including “commercial development” occupying more than 20 acres.
- Lakesites obtained approval from the Town of Raymond Planning Board but did not notify the Commission before beginning construction.
- After learning of the project, the Commission ordered Lakesites to stop work until it sought Commission approval and conducted a hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether a large residential subdivision offering lots for sale constitutes a “commercial development” under the Site Location of Development Law, triggering Commission jurisdiction and preconstruction approval requirements.
2. Whether municipal planning-board approval negates or replaces the state site-location approval requirement.
3. Whether the Commission could bar further work when the developer failed to prove the project would not substantially adversely affect the environment, public health, safety, or general welfare.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court) affirmed the Commission’s order.
- The court held the Spring Valley subdivision was a “commercial development” within the statute because it involved subdivision and sale of lots for profit on a scale capable of substantially affecting the environment.
- The court rejected the argument that local planning-board approval displaced the independent state approval requirement.
- The court upheld the Commission’s determination that Lakesites failed to carry its statutory burden to show no substantial adverse effects, and the Commission could prohibit further development absent approval.

## Legal Principles

- Environmental siting statutes are construed to effectuate legislative intent and their protective purpose; terms such as “commercial development” may be interpreted broadly to reach large-scale land-development activity undertaken for profit.
- A residential subdivision may be treated as “commercial” for purposes of environmental review when the developer’s activity is the commercial enterprise of improving and selling subdivided lots.
- Municipal subdivision approval does not preempt separate state environmental permitting requirements designed to address impacts that may extend beyond local concerns.
- When a project falls within the statute, the proponent bears the burden before the agency to demonstrate the development will not substantially adversely affect the environment, public health, safety, or general welfare.
- Reviewing courts generally sustain agency action supported by the administrative record and consistent with the statute’s purpose, including the agency’s application of statutory standards to the facts.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed state environmental jurisdiction over a 92-acre residential subdivision marketed for profit, holding it qualified as a “commercial development” under the site-location law and could not proceed without Commission approval after the developer failed to meet its burden to show no substantial adverse impacts.


In re Spring Valley Dev., 300 A.2d 736 (Me. 1973)