Work began on this housing roadmap with the goal of helping to end our region's housing crisis. EMDC would like to acknowledge the efforts of Mike Roy, EJ Roach, and Ruth Birtz from the Towns of Greenville, and Lincoln, and the city of Old Town for providing valuable guidance and comments on this project, and Maine’s DECD for providing funding and support for this Roadmap. We extend a special thank you to all of the interviewees and event attendees who took the time to speak with us and share their thoughts, projects, and experiences.
EMDC Consultants
Hope Eye | Regional Planner and Community Impact Specialist
Peter Sachs | Regional Planner
EMDC would also like to thank the following for their assistance with the process:
Rick Bronson
Erica Bufkins
David Lloyd
Peter Malia
Robyn Stanicki
Introduction
As Maine is so clearly steeped in a crisis of housing, it is pertinent that it be viewed from not only the state level, but the regional and sub-regional level to get a better understanding of how to solve it.
This crisis affects all people across all housing types. One event participant recounts: “A guy from away came here with a job, but couldn’t find a place to live, so left just as quick”. It is also quite clear that the problem is so complex, and deeply interconnected, as hinted at in the quote above. The obvious problems affecting the entirety of the state are listed below:
1. Economic Disparities
• Wage Stagnation vs. Housing Costs: The cost of housing has outpaced wage growth, making it difficult for many Mainers to afford homes.
• Regional Economic Disparities: Economic growth is concentrated in southern Maine and around urban centers like Portland, leaving rural areas with fewer resources to invest in housing.
2. Aging Housing Stock
• Maine has one of the oldest housing stocks in the U.S., much of which requires extensive repairs or modernization.
• Older homes are less energy-efficient, making them expensive to heat during long winters, a significant issue given Maine's climate.
3. Zoning and Land Use Regulations
• Restrictive zoning ordinances, such as single-family zoning and large lot size requirements, limit the density of new developments and drive up costs.
• Many municipalities are slow to update ordinances to comply with LD 2003 or to encourage affordable housing.
4. Limited Infrastructure
• Rural areas often lack the water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure necessary to support new housing developments.
• High infrastructure costs deter developers from pursuing projects in less densely populated areas.
5. Demographics and Population Trends
• Aging Population: Maine has the oldest median age in the U.S., with many older residents living in homes too large for their needs but unable to downsize due to a lack of suitable options.
• In-Migration: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an influx of people from out-of-state seeking second homes or remote work opportunities, driving up demand and prices, especially in desirable areas.
6. Development Costs
• Rising material and labor costs make housing construction expensive.
• The scarcity of skilled construction workers adds delays and further increases costs.
7. Environmental Concerns
• Strict environmental regulations, while necessary, can increase the cost and complexity of development.
• Climate change exacerbates housing challenges, such as flood risks in coastal and riverine areas, which limit buildable land.
8. Barriers to Financing
• Low-income families and first-time homebuyers struggle to secure financing due to stringent lending criteria.
• Developers often face challenges accessing funding for affordable housing projects, particularly in rural areas where profit margins are slimmer.
9. Public Opposition
• "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) attitudes often lead to opposition to affordable or higherdensity housing projects.
• Concerns about property values, traffic, and neighborhood character can derail needed developments.
10. Limited Rental Market Supply
• Short-term rental platforms like Airbnb reduce the availability of long-term rental units, especially in tourist-heavy regions.
• Low vacancy rates and increasing rental prices leave few affordable options for renters.
11. Homelessness and Emergency Shelter Needs
• Maine's growing homelessness rates put pressure on emergency shelters and transitional housing systems, diverting resources from long-term solutions.
Numbers from The State
The 2023 report highlights significant shortages and affordability challenges. The study estimates that Maine faced a deficit of approximately 38,500 housing units, with projections indicating a need for an additional 37,900 to 45,800 homes by 2030 to accommodate future demand. This brings the total number of new homes needed to as many as 84,300 within the next seven years.
Affordability remains a critical concern, as the percentage of households unable to afford a median-priced home has risen from 56% in 2020 to 79% in 2023. This trend underscores the growing housing affordability crisis in the state.
To further elucidate these numbers, The State organized Maine into three regions.
Although these numbers made it easier to consume the study on a state level, Eastern Maine Development Corporation (EMDC)’s Planning Commission district is made up of the towns in Piscataquis and Penobscot Counties, which fall into separate study regions. Using the data from the Study, we created a table showing what these numbers may look like locally. We also took data from the US Census Bureau (ACS Data) and incorporated them to show additional dynamics at play, including local population, change, housing stock, and vacancy rates.
Thanks to the study and US Census Bureau, EMDC was able to calculate the annual production needed based on certain parameters in 2023 described below.
Table 1: Annualized Production Needs Compared to Annual Building Permits by Region
Table 2. Regionalized Goals produced by the 2023 Maine Housing Production Needs Study
Northeast area: Penobscot County population
Central Western Area: Piscataquis County
population
***This number does not include historic underproduction
Furthermore, EMDC expanded on these calculations, and created a database of information calculated by community to see how much housing may be needed by 2030 using the same data as before. This database may be accessed at: https://files.constantcontact.com/fb3c35bb001/7d5129d4-6a21-4009-b021-3ba38c7f1812.xlsx 1
Maine Housing produced a report that followed up on the study with a report update in January 2025 2. The report indicates that Maine completed 775 affordable housing units in 2024, with an additional 1,005 units currently in progress, 727 of which are expected to be completed within the year. However, despite these advancements, the report acknowledges that housing affordability remains a significant concern, with a substantial portion of Maine households still unable to afford median-priced homes. The report concludes that while economic indicators such as inflation and unemployment rates have stabilized, ongoing efforts in policy implementation,
1 Note: These data are taken from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey. If any inconsistencies arise, contact EMDC for correction.
investment in affordable housing, and the promotion of diverse housing types are essential to meet the evolving needs of Maine residents. 3
In addition to all this, HR&A has also come out with a housing report and roadmap. This report postulates, in the same way as the housing needs study, that the housing crisis has been exacerbated by decades of underproduction, an aging workforce, and an influx of new residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report highlights the importance of aligning state agencies, setting clear priorities, and fostering collaboration among municipalities and private entities to create an environment conducive to housing development. This is a big part of what EMDC is aiming to do with this roadmap.
Housing and COVID-19
The ways in which the COVID-19 Pandemic has shifted Maine’s housing market, and our mindsets is important to highlight here in this report, because so many people around the state have been expressive about it 4 (Shampine, 2025) Yet the crisis did not emerge overnight. In fact, housing production in Maine had been slowing dramatically since the 2008 market downturn, creating what was, in many ways, a ticking time bomb (Garcia, 2024).
Prior to the pandemic, Maine’s housing market had been contending with a persistent undersupply. The post-2008 era was marked by exceptionally low levels of new construction, a trend that significantly impacted affordable housing availability. One study reveals how limited housing production over the last decade contributed to an aging housing stock and an inadequate supply of quality dwellings for new residents and returning locals alike (Garcia, 2024).
With the spread of COVID-19, Maine saw an unexpected influx of remote workers and families relocating from urban centers in search of more space and safety. This demographic shift, coupled with the absence of a robust pipeline of new construction, resulted in a dramatic increase in demand. Demand spikes, when met with stagnant supply, can rapidly inflate home prices and rental costs, thereby deepening affordability issues(Shampine, 2025). Even modest increases in demand during periods of constrained supply can destabilize local markets, leading to economic pressure for long-term residents. As Maine had the highest population growth in New England during the Pandemic, we had no way of accounting for changes in housing demand as it shifted.
In rural areas such as Piscataquis County, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were particularly pronounced. Here, the housing deficit is compounded by factors like the deterioration of existing homes and a lack of investment in rehabilitating or replacing outdated structures. Such conditions leave residents vulnerable to displacement, as the market’s limited supply cannot meet the urgent need for safe and affordable housing.
3 Maine's HousingOutlook. 2025. Maine State Housing Authority. https://www.mainehousing.org/docs/default-source/policy-research/research-reports/outlook-reports/2025housing- outlook-report.pdf
4 Maine Development Foundation. 2024. https://www.mdf.org/measures- of-growth/housing-affordability/
Penobscot County, which includes the urban hub of Bangor, experienced a similar yet distinct set of challenges. rising rents and home prices in regions with mixed urban and rural characteristics can lead to cascading socioeconomic effects. In Penobscot, increased competition for housing during the pandemic accentuated disparities between new arrivals, often with greater financial flexibility, and long-standing local communities, ultimately widening the affordability gap (Erdem and Gider, 2025).
Although temporary measures such as eviction moratoria and rental assistance programs provided some relief during the height of the pandemic, they have not addressed the fundamental supply-side issues. sustainable solutions must focus on incentivizing new housing construction, modernizing and preserving existing units, and ensuring that policy responses are tailored to the unique needs of Maine’s diverse regions.
Additional Historical Context in the USA and Maine
With the above factors showing such great complexity, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the issues that have compounded into our current housing crisis. In addition to these factors, there is deep historical context that lead us here, and is an important factor to consider when trying to solve or at least mitigate the housing modern crisis.
Although the recession is the most recent memory to bring up when discussing housing issues, a more fitting historical parallel would be to point out the housing crisis of the 1930s and 40’s. This began as a Depression-era crisis characterized by high-default rates and soaring loan-to-value ratios in the residential market. One of the key differences is that in the 1930s no one could afford a house, and in the 1940s, a lack of construction, shortages of building materials, and high demand were touted as the greatest concern. In Bangor Daily News articles (a well-established central Maine publication), the term “housing crisis” was first used in 1940. Reading archival newspapers, very similar, if not the same, issues were stressed then as today. Obviously, both these issues are compounded in today’s challenging market, but we can look to the solutions of the past to mitigate the current predicament.
Office of Housing Expediter
The role of a housing expediter provided an interesting and all but forgotten solution. The Expediter was a federal office established as a part of the Veterans' Emergency Housing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 208), May 22, 1946, and was known as the Office of Home Expediter (OHE). The Housing Expediter worked to address material shortages, streamline construction, and prioritize projects to maximize the housing stock as quickly as possible. Maine was part of OHE Region One, headquartered in Boston, which oversaw regional efforts to meet housing demand in New England.
The relevance of the Housing Expediter to today's housing crisis lies in its example of proactive federal intervention during a time of acute housing shortages. While the context has evolved, with current challenges including rising construction costs, zoning restrictions, and a lack of
workforce housing, the principles of rapid coordination, targeted funding, and prioritization of critical projects could inform modern approaches. However, it’s worth noting that today’s crisis is more multifaceted, involving not only supply shortages but also affordability challenges and inequities in housing access.
Public Housing Initiatives and Zoning Reforms
Another major post-war strategy involved expanding public housing programs, particularly for low-income families. The Housing Act of 1949 declared a national goal of providing “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,” initiating significant federal investment in urban housing projects. While some public housing developments later became controversial due to poor maintenance and segregationist policies, the intent behind them offering affordable, government-supported housing for those in need remains relevant today. Revisiting this model with lessons learned could involve greater emphasis on mixed-income housing, community integration, and sustainable designs.
In addition, many municipalities in the post-war era adopted zoning reforms to accommodate higher-density housing. By relaxing restrictions on multifamily developments and encouraging the construction of apartment complexes, cities were able to house growing populations more efficiently. Today, as zoning laws are frequently cited as barriers to affordable housing, reforms similar to those of the 1940s and 1950s such as upzoning in key areas and streamlining approval processes could unlock significant potential for new housing development.
Not mentioned above were efforts to provide public support, such as the G.I. Bill, and homebuilding solutions like the development of Levittown, which are still used widely in the same way today. History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes, and knowing our history plays an integral role and creating sustainable housing solutions. These historical strategies show how bold, large-scale interventions whether through federal funding, innovative construction, or policy reforms can address housing challenges. Adapting these lessons to modern realities, such as rising construction costs, labor shortages, and sustainability concerns, could pave the way for transformative solutions in today’s housing market.
Eastern Maine Development Corporation’s Role
These problems, and the larger housing crisis, cannot be solved by the state alone. In February of 2024, EMDC was awarded money from the Housing Opportunity Program (HOP) Grant. With this grant, the organization identified 4 tasks to concentrate on throughout the grant period. Each task was designed to inform and guide policy recommendations and practical interventions aimed at increasing housing opportunities. The following sections describe the procedures and analytical techniques implemented for each task.
1. Review municipal ordinances designed to increase housing opportunities.
2. Map and utilize tools to visualize zoning ordinances and housing needs.
3. Prepare educational materials for planning boards, elected officials, municipal boards, and housing committees.
4. Roadmaps for Action.
Three towns signed with us to benefit from this money: Greenville, Lincoln, and Old Town. This report focus’ on EMDC’s efforts undertaken to complete tasks 2, 3, and 4 (with heavy emphasis on the results of task 3) for each town, and implications for the greater regions.
Methodology
The methodologies for completing these tasks employed a creative mixed methods approach that drew from folk knowledge, reports, and case studies from Maine and beyond, and quantitative mapping techniques to formulate actionable recommendations for local housing improvement (Starmans and Friedman, 2012).
Task 1: Review municipal ordinances designed to increase housing opportunities.
In the initial phase, a comprehensive review of existing municipal ordinances was conducted. The objective was to identify and assess ordinances designed to increase housing opportunities across the study region. The review process involved:
• Document Collection: Municipal ordinances were gathered from official city and county websites, local government repositories, and other relevant policy databases.
• Content Analysis: Materials were reviewed to classify areas in need and strategically develop ordinances based on the community's focus (e.g., zoning adjustments, density bonuses, inclusionary housing policies) and intended outcomes.
• Comparative Analysis: Ordinances from different municipalities were compared to determine best practices and identify gaps. This analysis provided an evidentiary basis for recommendations in later project phases.
Task 2: Map and utilize tools to visualize zoning ordinances and housing needs.
For the second task, spatial analysis techniques were employed to map and visualize the current state of zoning ordinances alongside housing needs. The methodological steps included:
• Data Acquisition: Geographic and zoning data were obtained from municipal planning departments.
• Geospatial Analysis: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were used to overlay zoning maps with demographic data related to housing demand (e.g., population growth, income levels, affordability indices). This process enabled the identification of areas where zoning regulations might be contributing to housing shortages.
Task 3: Prepare educational materials for planning boards, elected officials, municipal boards, and housing committees.
Recognizing the importance of stakeholder engagement, the third task focused on the development of educational materials for a diverse audience including planning boards, elected officials, municipal boards, and housing committees. The development process followed these steps:
• Needs Assessment: Input was solicited through surveys and regional housing events to determine informational needs and preferred formats. Relevant stakeholders were selected through community engagement, email, and word of mouth.
• Content Development: Educational materials, such as slide decks, policy briefs, and snapshots were produced. These materials synthesized findings from the municipal ordinance review events, and spatial analyses into accessible, evidence-based summaries.
• Review and Feedback: Draft materials underwent a review process with subject matter experts and representatives from stakeholder groups. Feedback was incorporated to refine the materials for clarity and impact.
Task 4: Roadmaps for Action.
The final task involved creating strategic roadmaps for action that provided guidance on how to implement housing policy changes. This phase included:
• Synthesis of Findings: Data from the ordinance reviews, mapping exercises, and stakeholder feedback were compiled to identify key leverage points and policy interventions.
• Strategic Framework Development: A framework was developed outlining actions. This framework was designed to be flexible and adaptive to the needs of different municipalities.
• Stakeholder Workshops: Interactive workshops were conducted with policymakers, community leaders, developers, and other relevant stakeholders. These sessions validated the proposed roadmap and helped tailor the recommendations to local contexts.
• Documentation: The final action plans were systematically documented and designed to serve as a reference guide for future policy implementation efforts.
Throughout this grant project, an iterative process was adopted to ensure that findings from each task informed subsequent phases, as described by Marianne Lewis (Lewis, 1998). Case-study review was also utilized, as this offers a qualitative foundation on which we can link understanding to on-the-ground results.
Greenville
General Context
In the past, Greenville was a thriving lumber and tourist town, and served as an anchor for all points north and south 5. Then, as now, the principal occupations in Greenville were servicing the needs of tourists, and those who live and work in the region. Greenville's early combination of wood harvesting and recreation (with Moosehead Lake as the centerpiece) shaped the community (AuClair, 2022). Through the 20th century, Greenville grew its role as a hub town, as a set-off point for lumbermen, explorers, tourists, and new settlers of outlying areas. As these numbers of people grew, so did the variety of services Greenville provided, so that between the 1890s and 1930s, Greenville was booming with, perhaps, more businesses and industries than the town has today.
Eventually, the lumber industry was moved overseas, and Greenville leaned more heavily into being a tourism center in the northern woods. During the 1980s, the town’s year-round population grew modestly from 1,837 in 1980 to 1,884 in 1990, indicating a reversal of the trends of the 1960s and 1970s. Population growth within the surrounding region was more dramatic, with the addition of approximately 250 people. Seasonal populations were also increasing, as evidenced by the increase in the number of subdivisions and seasonal residences. Since 1990, the year-round population of Greenville fell dramatically from 1,884 to around 1,623 by 2000, and then increased slightly to 1,646 by 2010. Outdoor recreation and tourism continued to be important parts of the economy, particularly with significant growth in second homes. Forestry continued to be a mainstay of the region, but provided less employment than in the past due to mechanized harvesting.
Through the years, the population and the general wealth of Greenville has increasingly depended heavily on its natural resources: forest products, “wildness”, and Moosehead Lake. Remoteness and the difficulty of earning a living continue to contribute to the town's overall growth.
5 People of the Lake. 2013.https://www.themainemag.com/2300-people- of-theake/#:~:text=From%20the%20mid%2Dnineteenth%20century,rot%E2%80%94hauled%20her%20last%20loa d.
Additional Contributing Factors
Declining population in Greenville has set the stage for a subtle yet significant imbalance in the local housing market. As younger residents leave in search of education and employment opportunities elsewhere, the town’s population shrinks, but the number of housing units does not adjust downward in tandem. This mismatch results in a growing share of homes sitting vacant, driving up per-unit maintenance and carrying costs for the municipality and property owners alike. Over time, these underutilized dwellings can deteriorate, eroding neighborhood character and reducing the availability of quality, move-in–ready homes for the families and workers Greenville still needs to retain and attract.
Compounding the challenge is the trend toward smaller household sizes. National and regional demographic shifts (fewer children per family, more single-person and empty-nester households) mean that each household occupies fewer bedrooms on average. This translates into higher demand for a greater number of individually owned units, even as the total population count falls. The result is pressure on the existing stock of appropriately sized homes, especially affordable two- and three-bedroom units, while larger, legacy properties remain under-occupied or locked up as second homes.
The concentration of homeownership among a shrinking subset of investors and second-home buyers further tightens supply for full-time residents. When a growing share of properties is held by out-of-town owners who rent them seasonally or leave them vacant, the year-round rental and ownership markets become more competitive and expensive. For Greenville, this means that even modestly priced properties can be snapped up quickly, putting them out of reach for local workers and families.
urrent Housing Needs: The Voice of Community Leaders and Comprehensive Plan
Greenville, like many towns in Maine, faces unique housing challenges driven by its aging population. Smaller household sizes are becoming more common as seniors live alone or couples downsize. This trend increases demand for diverse housing types, such as singlestory homes or accessible units, rather than large family homes, which dominate much of the existing housing stock.
Compounding this issue is the age of Greenville’s housing. Many homes are older, making them harder to maintain, less energy-efficient, and often unsuitable for seniors or families with accessibility needs. Addressing these gaps will require new or renovated housing units to provide
Greenville’s C
safe, modern, and energy-efficient options, particularly as heating and maintenance costs for older homes continue to rise.
As the emblem of the Moosehead Lake region, Greenville experiences significant seasonal housing demand. Many properties are purchased or rented for summer use, reducing the availability of year-round housing for permanent residents. This seasonal demand inflates housing costs and limits options for local families and workers, further straining affordability and accessibility.
The local hospitality and service industries, essential to Greenville’s economy, rely on a workforce that struggles to find affordable housing in town. Without sufficient housing, workers often face long commutes, which are unsustainable and contribute to workforce shortages for businesses, restaurants, and seasonal tourism services.
Greenville has just updated its comprehensive plan, offering a timely opportunity to review and strengthen housing goals. As a boon, this report section not only draws on insights from Greenville’s October 2024 housing event, but on the comprehensive plan's housing and land use chapters, and survey data as well.
Additionally, this analysis incorporates findings from Maine’s 2023 Housing Study and its 2024 update. The updated report highlights that while the housing needs in Piscataquis County are significant, the region is regarded as a low priority for state efforts to increase housing units. This designation underscores the challenge of addressing housing affordability and accessibility for residents increasingly unable to pay for available options.
It is important to note that the community survey for Greenville’s Comprehensive Plan was completed by two hundred and twenty-seven (227) residents in the summer of 2024. That is about 16% of its estimated 1400 population.
The first bar graph indicates the type of housing Greenville wishes to create.
Figure 1. Perceived housing needs in Greenville Maine in 2024. Source: Greenville Community Survey
This next bar graph highlights the housing issues present in Greenville, and which of those residents want prioritized.
What housing issues do you think the town should address? (Please check all that apply) 216 Responses, 688 checks
Short Term Rentals
Accessory unit regulations
Housing Issue
Elderly housing options
Address abandoned property/houses
Improve overall housing affordability (family income under $50,000)
Increase middle income housing (family income of $50,000-75,000)
Figure 2. Perceived housing issues in Greenville Maine in 2024. Source: Greenville Community Survey
Here, it is clear that addressing abandoned property/houses takes precedence. Using these data, it also paints a clearer picture of community aspirations, so that EMDC can craft a more curated roadmap to more and accessible housing. Diving deeper, the AICS Community data from the census bureau show that the age of Greenville’s housing stock is also high, with 45% of Greenville’s owner-occupied housing units being over 50 years old, and about 23% of renteroccupied housing is over 50 years old (graph). The graph below displays the relative amounts of housing constructed each decade since the 1940s. For example, the construction of owneroccupied units built since 1940 peaked during the 1980s and has dropped off significantly since then. A substantial proportion of renter-occupied units (97) were constructed during the 1970s, with additional rental housing constructed during the 1980s and 1990s. These numbers reflect the construction dates of the housing complexes.
It is costlier to repair old housing stock, which may, and in some cases, has led to the abandonment of structures. One solution is to prioritize new or renovated housing units at a subsidy for providing safe, modern, and energy-efficient options, especially as the cost of heating and upkeep for older homes increases.
Takeaways from The Regional Housing Event
A regional housing event was hosted at Greenville’s town office on September 23rd, 2024. For context, the region around Greenville includes the towns of Abbot, Beaver Cove, Dover Foxcroft, Guilford, Monson, and Shirley. Attendants came from as far south as Dover-Foxcroft to discuss housing in Greenville and the region. The event aimed to address any remaining gaps in understanding the housing crisis and also to allow people to network where they may otherwise not be able to connect. The impetus behind the event was that Greenville remains an economic hub for northern Piscataquis County, and yet does not have adequate housing to meet the current and future demands of current and future residents.
The event was held not only for Greenville, but the greater subregion, as the housing crisis affects everyone around the town who commutes there for work. As the slides were reviewed, and conversations flowed, the room seemed to focus more on the tangible solution coming from what Northern Forest Center is doing, as they are in the process of building a housing development in Greenville. According to Mike Wilson, who attended, the project will focus on providing housing for the middle-income, year-round workforce and building the sustainability of the Moosehead Lake region’s year-round economy.
Figure 3: Housing Units by Year Built before 2023. Source: American Community Survey
The Spruce Street development project is an $11.5 million 29-unit build located on a 5-acre parcel in the village area of town. The housing project will incorporate a mix of multi-family buildings, duplexes, and single-family homes to be built over three years. The first two are set to be built by fall of 2025. The Northern Forest Center hopes to use the project to demonstrate the environmental and economic benefits of utilizing mass timber construction. One planned house would be 1,300 square feet with a 500-square-foot porch.
Map 1: Greenville Future Land Use Map. 2024
As of January 2025, Haley Ward is doing site engineering work. Once National Environmental Policy Act approval has been granted, Senior Program Director Mike Wilson and Town Manager Mike Roy will compile requests for proposals. One of these will be from the town for road construction and installation work, and the other will be from the Northern Forest Center for site development and construction. The project does need to go through a subdivision review with the Greenville Planning Board. Once the project is complete, some homes would be presold and other houses would be leased for a time before being sold. This project is Northern Forest Center’s sixth housing project and the first to be built from the ground up.
The Northern Forest Center uses a mix of funding sources to achieve its goal of creating highquality housing that can be rented or sold at rates that median-income earners can afford. That includes the Northern Forest Fund, which integrates private impact investments, donations, and grants from public sources 6 .
Northern Forest also serves New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. In 2017, programming expanded to include redeveloping underused properties to enable young professionals and families to find homes and contribute to rural communities. Some of their previous projects include a $3.8-million redevelopment of a building in Lancaster New Hampshire and, a $ 1 million project in Millinocket that renovated six homes, creating 11 rental units from properties that had been neglected 7 8
Other Key Takeaways are listed below.
• Old Housing Stock continues to be an issue, as costs rise for everything to do with housing.
• Partnerships and regular communication among different aspects of housing are critical to move the state forward on sustainable housing projects.
• A centralized clearinghouse (e.g., HOP-facilitated portal) could demystify grant sources and match applicants to programs.
• The potential for a county housing fund was brought up, with the potential of facilitating a rainy day fund for housing damaged due to natural disasters or severe neglect.
Zoning Analysis
Greenville carefully uses its zoning regulations to plan for the future while remaining true to the spirit of the town's establishment. Its current regulations, updated in 2014, are standard for a rural Maine town of a similar size.
The town's zoning framework heavily emphasizes low-density residential and rural development, with large minimum lot sizes and stringent limitations on multi-family housing in most districts. Additionally, significant portions of Greenville are designated for conservation or resource
protection, further limiting developable land. While these regulations help maintain the town's aesthetic and environmental priorities, they inadvertently restrict the development of accessible housing. By limiting higher-density housing opportunities and adding costs associated with large lot requirements, these zoning rules create barriers to creating affordable and workforce housing options that meet the needs of residents and potential new community members. Without modifications to allow for greater housing diversity, Greenville risks limiting its growth and its ability to accommodate changing demographic and economic demands.
Map 1: Greenville, Maine Land Use Map. 2012.
Using a review of the above map, Greenville’s Comprehensive Plan, and relevant case studies, EMDC has determined to the best of its ability potential changes the town may make to its zoning for increased affordable housing production and preservation.
Residential District
This district is intended for medium to high-density housing. Recent amendments have reduced the minimum lot size from 10,000 to 7,500 square feet in this district, facilitating increased housing density to align with state mandates to promote affordable housing.
Village District
This district serves as a mixed-use area, which can accommodate both residential and selected light commercial uses. This district allows for a variety of housing types. Similar to the Residential District, the minimum lot size here has been decreased to 7,500 square feet to encourage higherdensity development.
Rural District
According to Greenville’s Comprehensive plan, the focus here is on preserving what the town is known for, with an emphasis on low-density single-family dwellings, agriculture, and open space. Development in this district is limited to one dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet, maintaining the area's traditional use for forestry and agriculture.
Housing Overlay District
Additionally, Greenville established this district on Spruce Street to facilitate the development of a proposed multigenerational housing project. This overlay allows for the construction of 22-28 units without traditional constraints such as minimum lot sizes, setbacks, or frontage requirements, thereby promoting more affordable housing options.
General Observations
Greenville’s zoning framework prioritizes large minimum lot sizes and single-family homes across most residential districts. These requirements drive up the cost of housing development by requiring more land per unit, increasing infrastructure costs, and reducing the potential number of homes that can be built within the town’s developable areas.
In the town’s rural areas, minimum lot sizes can be important for septic and well operation, and in watershed protection areas to ensure groundwater recharge and less runoff pollution. That said, you can achieve the second option by impervious surface measurements. Outside of these cases, most minimum lot size requirements are purely for "community character" or aesthetic reasons.
Like many rural areas in Maine, Greenville has a concentration of large land parcels, some of which remain unused or lack proper maintenance. Many residents see this as a significant barrier to expanding housing opportunities.
Recommendations
Underutilized properties also present an opportunity to support the town’s housing needs. Encouraging their sale or responsible development, through incentives, partnerships, or conservation-minded planning, could help diversify housing options, strengthen the local economy, and ensure that land actively contributes to Greenville’s future growth and vitality.
For communities looking to build more housing, minimum lot sizes more often than not put strains on infrastructure and raise per-unit expenses for utilities, roads, and emergency services. In this instance, Greenville should review its subdivision ordinances, and revamp them in a way that establishes clear policies for ensuring housing is delivered while not degrading the public realm or increasing sprawl. Other options besides reducing minimum lot sizes may be:
Create an Affordable Housing Overlay District and Expand the Current One
This can be accomplished by designating specific zones where density bonuses or fee waivers apply if developers include income-restricted units. Overlay districts allow significant zoning flexibility to more appropriately accommodate current needs in areas with out-of-date zoning laws. Furthermore, it allows for more local control of design and construction decisions, permitting each community to tailor their efforts to meet the specific needs of its community. It also has the potential to conserve natural resources for Greenville.
For the purpose of this Housing Roadmap, the Multigenerational Housing Overlay District is what is looked at in detail, which is established to address housing needs by providing the greatest flexibility in the design and siting of residential buildings. This overlay accommodates a mix of housing types on a range of lot sizes, providing expanded housing choice. This district is not yet featured in Greenville’s Comprehensive Land Use Map, but exists in their ordinances on the area that covers a portion of land located in the Village District, which is indicated on the town’s zoning map.
The town may consider expanding this district to promote denser and cheaper housing throughout town rather than having it concentrated in just one part. This would allow Greenville the freedom to tailor housing expansion to multiple residential areas. These may include areas further from the lake or outside the village district.
Promote Cluster and Conservation Subdivisions
Allowing cluster subdivisions, which concentrate development on smaller lots while preserving open space, as an alternative to traditional subdivisions, can balance housing needs with environmental priorities, particularly in the more rural areas of the town.
These types of ordinances allow or require dense clusters of residential units in one part of the proposed project area, in exchange for permanently preserving open space and natural features (Arendt et al. 1994). As Greenville is highly aware of its beautiful natural landscape as a draw for visitors and residents alike, this would only add to its unique character and landscape. Cluster and conservation subdivisions would be more feasible on the North side of town, where there is much less development, and more emblematic northern Maine beauty. Closer to the airport is another option for this kind of development. Greenville could craft policy language in the Land Use and Subdivision Ordinance that defines “cluster subdivision” and “conservation subdivision” as alternatives to conventional lot-by-lot layouts. The ordinance should articulate Greenville’s goals, e.g., preserving 50–70% of a site as permanently protected open space, maintaining forest connectivity, and minimizing impervious surface.
Greenville could also partner with a local land trust or a developer to assemble a small, “proofof-concept” subdivision on town-owned or donated land in the rural districts. The town can use this pilot to test the ordinance language, refine application checklists, and demonstrate to neighbors how homes can be concentrated on 20–30% of a parcel while leaving the remainder as continuous forest or meadow.
Finally, EMDC created a quick reference snapshot for Greenville to help get a quick guide of the data and process of engagement. The numbers are calculated from the 2023 Housing Needs Study, and the qualitative data were compiled from news, scientific articles, and local housing events.
Lincoln General Context
Officially recognized by the State of Maine in the early 19th century, Lincoln grew as a hub for lumber and paper production, attracting a workforce that relied on modest, functional housing close to mills and waterways. Over the course of a few decades, as the economy shifted and industries modernized, Lincoln experienced gradual population changes, with housing stock expanding to accommodate both permanent residents and seasonal visitors drawn to its scenic lakes and outdoor recreation opportunities. In the 1990s, Lincoln accommodated about 5,587 residents (its peak population), according to the US Census Bureau.
However, the closure of the town’s last mill in the early 2000s marked a turning point. Since then, Lincoln, like Greenville, has faced challenges common to many former industrial towns, including economic restructuring and population decline.
In recent years, Lincoln has faced a steady population decline paradoxically coupled with a reduction in housing availability. Aging housing infrastructure, limited new development, and shifting demographic trends have contributed to a housing shortage that now impacts both affordability and accessibility. Addressing this crisis is essential to fostering economic stability, retaining residents, and supporting the town’s long-term vitality. Through the HOP grant funds, EMDC ultimately sought to empower Lincoln to create a more resilient and sustainable housing landscape, making sure that the community can adapt to current demands while planning effectively for the future.
The Lincoln Housing Event
The Lincoln area is experiencing multifaceted housing challenges. As reported by the Bangor Daily News, home values in Lincoln increased by approximately 96% between March 2020 and March 2025, making it one of the more expensive housing markets in Maine (Norman, 2025). This event underscored the importance of regional collaboration, as Lincoln functions as an economic center for a number of surrounding communities, including Burlington, Chester, Edinburg, Enfield, Howland, Lee, Lowell, Mattamiscontis Township, Passadumkeag, Springfield, and Winn.
During the planning period of Lincoln’s housing event, EMDC’s regional planning team conducted qualitative 1-on-1 interviews with residents to get a clearer picture of some of the opinions on housing that Lincolnites share.
To name just a few mentioned, there are many aging homes in the region which largely limits the availability of housing. The area significantly lacks multiple housing options consisting of rental homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family residences. With the demand for housing increasing, these things present a significant issue.
On August 24th, 2024, EMDC hosted a Regional Housing Event where 20 people were in attendance. The focus of this event was to educate on the housing crisis and also to allow people to network. The impetus behind the event was that Lincoln remains an economic hub for northern Penobscot County, and yet does not have adequate housing to meet the current and future demands of residents.
The event was held not only for Lincoln, but the greater subregion, as the housing crisis affects everyone around the town who commutes there for work.
Key Takeaways:
• Legislative efforts and emphasis on the need for 80,000 new homes by 2030 were a key topic of presentation.
• LD 2003 was largely discussed
• The impact of rising costs on housing affordability and the challenges of zoning regulations were topics of concern.
• Old housing stock is an issue, and the costs add up too much to fix the issues.
• There are more jobs than there is housing availability.
• The role of local businesses and municipalities are important in helping to solve the housing crisis.
• Modular homes are a potential solution, but there is struggle with the homes remaining maintained after being built.
• Community gatherings and conferences are important steps to address these housing issues.
It is important to note that one attendant, Treeline Inc, is currently working to build a small cluster called Maplewood Village. According to the Maine Land Store website, which is a company part of Treeline, the Maplewood Village development will feature over 20 stick-built homes available to own or rent without the burden of owning the land.
This project has been in the works since the early 2000s. The first home was occupied in fall of 2024. The company is building more homes to be finished by 2027. As Lincoln aims to build 120 housing units by 2030 in accordance with the Housing Needs Study, this project offers a robust plan forward 9 .
Zoning Analysis
Taking what was learned from 1-1 interviews and the housing event, EMDC analyzed these data with its current zoning map, and compared these with goals set by Lincoln’s most recent comprehensive plan and future goals to analyze what the current zoning landscape looks like. This was all used to create highly contextual recommendations. The analysis is as follows.
Map 3: Lincoln Zoning Map. CAI Technologies. 2024
9 Treeline Inc., The Maine Landstore. 2025. https://themainelandstore.com/news/maplewood-village/
The zoning map for Lincoln delineated various districts, each with specific land use regulations. This analysis solely pertains to districts for housing. The primary zones pertinent to housing include:
Downtown Residential (DR1 and DR2)
These zones support residential development within the downtown core and to provide a variety of residential densities and neighborhood characteristics, within the service area of existing public water and sewer. This type of zoning is best for housing because it promotes mixed uses where residents may live closer to shopping centers, better use their home to do business, reduce automobile congestion, and promote public interaction.
Recommendations
As Lincoln’s primary areas for higher-density housing, these zones should be optimized to support compact, walkable development near existing infrastructure and services. Allowing multifamily housing (three or more units) by right rather than requiring special approvals would streamline development processes and encourage investment.
Additionally, further reductions in minimum lot sizes and setbacks could facilitate infill development, while permitting zero-lot-line construction would allow for more efficient use of available land (Zhang et al., 2025). To support affordability more fully, Lincoln could consider reducing or waiving parking minimums for developments in areas with access to shared or onstreet parking. Encouraging adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial buildings for residential use would also help address housing shortages.
Generally, the areas that might benefit best are the lots adjacent to Mechanic Street, Main Street, and Burton Street. Additionally, construction along or adjacent to Route 2, as Enfield turns into Lincoln, may benefit.
More specifically, as noted by some of Lincoln’s residents, areas like Abbie Lane, Department Street, Grindle Street, Haynes Street, and Railroad Street’s would benefit from these changes to zoning and ordinances. Another area, Perryville, has been marked for years as having longer time on the market and lower selling prices. This area encompasses Perry, 2nd, Ayer, Holmes, Lindsay, and Washington streets. These streets and the homes on them live in the shadow of the old paper mill, which once dominated as the town’s dominant source of income. Without the mill, it is appropriate to reevaluate the zoning structure on these streets to help alleviate some of the issues that have arisen since the mill stopped production (Lee & Lin 2018).
Mobile Home Park (MR)
According to Lincoln’s ordinances, the purpose of a Mobile Home Park Residential Zone (MR) is to allow existing mobile home parks to expand in their existing locations; to allow future mobile home parks to be developed in a number of environmentally suitable locations; and to protect the residential character of mobile home parks.
Mobile home parks have a troubled history, as their presence often evokes a stigmatized image (MacTavish, 2007). Delineating them to be separate from other types of residential zones may contribute to this stigma by reinforcing the perception that mobile home parks are distinct from and inferior to other forms of housing. As MacTavish notes, mobile home parks have often been associated with social and economic marginalization, with residents facing negative stereotypes about poverty, transience, and lower property values. These perceptions can influence local attitudes and policies, further isolating mobile home parks and limiting their integration into the broader housing landscape.
That being said, Lincoln does not restrict mobile homes solely to designated mobile home parks. As long as ordinance requirements are met, mobile homes may be placed throughout the town. The purpose of the MR ordinance is to ensure that mobile home parks meet specific standards, particularly when they are investor-owned or resident-owned communities. This approach allows for a degree of flexibility in mobile home placement while still maintaining regulatory oversight for parks as a distinct housing arrangement.
If mobile homes are confined to designated park zones, Lincoln’s zoning regulations may inadvertently limit affordable housing opportunities. This separation restricts the potential for mobile homes to be placed within established residential neighborhoods, where they could provide affordable homeownership opportunities and increase housing diversity. Research suggests that when mobile homes are integrated into standard residential zones rather than clustered into separate parks, they are more likely to appreciate in value, blend with existing community aesthetics, and avoid the stigmatization often associated with traditional mobile home parks (Franzese 2018).
Recommendations
As Lincoln remains a more rural part of the state, mobile home parks remain too, an essential component of the town’s affordable housing landscape. While Lincoln’s MR zone provides space for mobile home parks to expand, it is critical to ensure that zoning policies do not reinforce the perception of mobile homes as separate or inferior housing.
To further integrate mobile homes into the housing market, the town could update its design standards to encourage better alignment with traditional residential neighborhoods. Encouraging resident-owned mobile home cooperatives could enhance long-term affordability and stability. Something similar is being created a 30-minute drive south, in Bangor. 10 Additionally, revising infrastructure requirements to support mobile home parks while allowing them to blend more seamlessly with other housing types would further reduce barriers to attainable housing.
10 WGME. 2025. Residents of Cedar Falls Mobile Home Park in Bangor buy their park https://wgme.com/news/local/maine-housing- crisis-residents- of- cedar-falls-mobile-home-park-buy-theirpark-bangor-maine
The Maine Legislature recently passed L.D. 337, which ensures that manufactured homes are permitted wherever single-family dwellings are allowed and subjects them to the same requirements as site-built homes. 11 The hope here is to help curb our state's underproduction, and dispel the stigma of prefabricated homes. Using this legislation will provide another good tool to make housing more attainable for Lincoln.
Rural District (RR1 and RR2)
The Rural residential zones are intended here to preserve areas that are presently rural in character and use; provided opportunities for those who desire low density living and are willing to live in remote areas and are willing to assume the costs of providing many of their own services and amenities (as described by Lincoln’s land use ordinances).
Generally, the ordinances surrounding residential zones are highly restrictive and hinder the development of more and affordable housing. As described in previous sections, minimum lot sizes reduce the number of units that can be built within a given area, thereby decreasing the overall housing supply. This scarcity can drive up property values and rental rates, making it challenging to provide affordable housing options.
Larger setbacks limit the size and design of potential housing units, reducing the feasibility of constructing multi-family dwellings or accessory units that could offer more affordable living spaces.
A 40-foot height limit restricts the number of stories a building can have, typically capping structures at three to four stories. This limitation can prevent the development of multi-story apartment buildings, which are often more cost-effective and provide more units within the same footprint, thereby enhancing housing affordability.
Mandating a minimum of two parking spaces per parcel increases development costs and consumes valuable land that could otherwise be used for additional housing units or green spaces. Reducing or eliminating parking minimums can lower construction expenses and promote the development of more affordable housing, especially in areas with access to public transportation.
Recommendations
These zones are recognized to play a crucial role in accommodating residential growth while maintaining Lincoln’s desired ruralness. To support housing development, the town could introduce cluster development provisions, allowing homes to be grouped more closely while preserving open space. Similarly, permitting small-lot subdivisions would create more housing opportunities without extensive land consumption. This may be a promising option for areas close to Lee Road (Route 2) on the way to Lee or toward Winn, where vacation residences are
more likely to be built, or where potential farmland might be found. Most of Lincoln designating itself as RR2 gives the town greater potential to choose where it wants housing to be developed.
The town can adopt strategies based on Model Open Space Subdivision Ordinances. There is a great example developed by the Kennebec Valley Council of Governments (KVCOG). These encourage efficient land use and reduce infrastructure costs, Lincoln could implement more flexible lot size and frontage requirements, allowing for creative subdivision designs that balance housing needs with conservation. 12
For example, a cluster development could be designed on a 50-acre parcel. Instead of dividing the land into traditional 2- to 5-acre lots with dispersed homes, a cluster subdivision could allocate 60% of the land (approximately 30 acres) as permanent open space, preserving forested areas, wetlands, or agricultural land. The remaining 20 acres could be divided into smaller lots, around 0.5 to 1 acre each, allowing for 20-25 homes while maintaining significant green space. This would reduce infrastructure costs by shortening road lengths and utility extensions while enhancing the rural character.
Similarly, in RR1, where land is somewhat closer to town amenities and main transit routes, a small-lot subdivision could be implemented with a focus on affordability. By allowing smaller lot sizes (e.g., 5,000–10,000 sq. ft.) and flexible setbacks, the town could create a neighborhood-style development that accommodates starter homes, workforce housing, or even small-scale cooperative housing. Integrated walking trails and shared community amenities could further enhance the development’s appeal while preserving scenic and natural resources.
Cottage court developments, where small homes are arranged around a shared green space, could provide an alternative to traditional single-family housing. These types of developments incentivize affordable housing through density bonuses and modifying road frontage requirements to allow for more flexible lot layouts would further expand Lincoln’s housing potential. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has built examples and ordinances to help developers get started. 13
More General Recommendations and Broader Considerations
1. Overlay Zoning for Housing Growth Areas
Lincoln here would have the opportunity to investigate where more housing is best suited. Once the town identifies locations (maybe near downtown or where key services are located), it may start creating this flexible zoning where higher-density housing is encouraged.
12 Kennebec Valley Council of Governments. 2009. Model Open Space Subdivision Ordinance https://www.maine.gov/dacf/municipalplanning/docs/Open_Space_Subdivision_Ordinance_model_KVCOG_ 7_09.pdf
13 The National Association of Home Builders. 2019. https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/toppriorities/housing-affordability/nahb-2019-small-homes-research-report.pdf
2. Get Rid of Parking Minimums
While parking minimums in some areas may sometimes be necessary, Lincoln is rural enough where there are situations where parking lots are impractically bloated would encourage the use of land more practically for greater greenspace and walkability.
Looking closer at Lincoln’s downtown area, development of parcels around main street, Burton street, Clay street, and the lots surrounding the old mill site and Walmart would benefit from transformation into housing, or into green spaces as a cheap and worthwhile shift to accommodate gatherings.
Where has this been done where its worked:
In Chattahoochee Hills GA, where the population is roughly the same, the town has reformed its parking standards, where instead of minimums, the town opted to initiate parking maximums. More about this can be found in the towns ordinances. 14
Closer to home, Auburn has also reformed their parking standards in 2021 as part of their comprehensive plan update. 15
Since implementation, new businesses have been opening as a result of the reduced minimums, especially in downtown. According to one article in the American Planning Association (APA) Planning Magazine, “Later that autumn, the Olive Garden restaurant chain looked to open in Auburn and eyed the Ruby Tuesday's site, but the company wanted to build more square footage. Under the old parking regulations, Olive Garden would have had to supply more parking spaces. But now it didn't.”
3. Incentives for Affordable Housing
Offer reduced fees, expedited permitting, or tax breaks for developments that include affordable units. One strategy is to start an affordable housing fund, where money is set aside to be rewarded to help buyers off-set the cost of repair on dilapidated housing. No money is currently allocated to this goal at the local level.
Allow Co-Housing & Shared Housing Models
Modify zoning to explicitly permit co-housing communities, tiny home villages, and shared housing arrangements.
Shared housing arrangements can vary from short-term, transient housing to long-term, permanent housing. The range of possible setup options means that shared housing can benefit many people, including those new to a city; those in search of affordable housing who may not qualify for or receive housing assistance; transient workers in need of housing while working on a contract; senior homeowners looking for long-term assistance to age in place; individuals wanting to live communally in an “intentional community”; families living in multigenerational arrangements; or homeowners simply wanting to reduce their housing cost burden. The different shared housing models can offer flexibility for individuals not ready to commit to long-term housing solutions or for those wanting to save money for other housing options.
An example Lincoln may look to for this would be the Two Echo Cohousing Community in Brunswick, which successfully integrates private residences with shared spaces, fostering a tightknit community. This model could provide inclusive, affordable, and smart housing solutions that strengthen the town’s social and economic fabric.
4. Streamline Approval Processes
There are many ways Lincoln can reduce bureaucratic barriers for housing projects that align with community goals, or expand on regulations that already exist. Some examples include:
• Develop a clear and user-friendly permit guide.
This could look like a short, illustrated document (and web page) that walks developers, homeowners, and contractors through the local permitting process.
• Create a Permitting Flowchart or Checklist.
This is simpler and less cost-prohibitive, and involves developing a flowchart/checklist for each common housing project type
• Adopt Minor/Major Review Tiers.
This can be achieved by dividing permit reviews into “minor” (e.g., single-family, duplex, ADU) and “major” (multifamily, subdivisions), with lighter reviews for minor ones.
• Creating pre-approved or permit-ready housing designs.
• Developing pattern zones, where certain designs are mapped onto specified parcels.
Finally, EMDC created a Quick reference snapshot for Lincoln to help get a quick picture of the data and process of engagement. The numbers are calculated from the 2023 Housing Needs Study, and the qualitative data were compiled from news, scientific articles, and local housing events.
Old Town
General Context
The Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) Describes Old Town as a Priority Geography. This designates the community as one that has an affordable housing need greater than a threshold calculation for one of three measures. The threshold calculation is determined by the need of the 90th-percentile jurisdiction (top 10%) for each factor as computed, comparing only jurisdictions with greater than 50,000 population. This being true of Old Town only strengthens its needs for more, and greater access to, housing.
Map 4: 2024 HUD Pro Housing Priority Geography Map Highlighting Old Town, ME as a priority geography. Source: https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/HUD::pro-housing-prioritygeography-map/explore?location=44.915926%2C-67.707979%2C7.34&path=
Historically, Old Town thrived as a mill town, with industries like pulp and paper serving as the backbone of its economy. The Penobscot River, running through the town, was integral to this development, providing resources and transportation that supported industrial growth. However, as the 20th century progressed, the decline of the mill industry led to economic shifts, population stagnation, and challenges in maintaining the town’s housing stock.
Today, Old Town faces a housing crisis marked by insufficient affordable and quality housing options. The town’s designation as a HUD Priority Geography underscores its critical need for housing solutions. This federal recognition highlights persistent challenges, including aging housing stock, rising demand for affordable units, and economic vulnerabilities that limit development. Additionally, Old Town’s close ties to the University of Maine bring unique pressures to the local housing market. The university attracts a transient population of students, faculty, and staff, creating demand for rental properties while also driving up competition for available units.
These historical and contemporary dynamics have converged to leave Old Town with a housing landscape that struggles to meet the needs of its diverse population. Addressing these challenges requires a careful balance of preserving the town’s historic character while fostering innovation
in housing development to ensure that all residents, long-term and temporary, have access to safe and affordable homes.
Old Town’s Current Housing Needs: The Voice of Community Leaders and Its Comprehensive Plan
Old Town has recently begun work on its Comprehensive Plan Update. In it, the town identified types of housing available, how its housing stock currently fares, and several factors contributing to its housing shortage. The chapter also identifies some housing opportunities.
Of the 3,797 housing units in town, 3,256 we occupied, meaning that the 541 that were vacant are for sale, rent, seasonal housing, or simply abandoned. This section does not consider "group quarters" type housing (including those living in nursing homes).
One factor of note is that, like other towns in Maine, average household size has steadily decreased, which means that in order to facilitate housing for the average household size (2.31 people), Old Town would need 433 housing units to accommodate 1,000 people. Furthermore, housing categorized as “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use” in the ACS, makes up about 2% (72) of vacant units. An additional 367 units are listed as "other vacant," of which some might be for other kinds of seasonal use (like by a caretaker or janitor). 16 This figure is up by 600% from the 2010 Census when the number of "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" housing units was 12. This suggests that there may have been conversions from year- round to seasonal housing or vice versa.
On August 21st 2024, EMDC and the city of Old Town hosted a Regional Housing Event at Old Town Public Library where roughly 30 people were in attendance. The region as described include Alton, Bangor, Bradley, Indian Island, Milford, Orono, and Veazie. The main focus of the event was education and casual networking for the benefit of Old Town’s housing. Pizza and drinks were purchased for guests, and the energy in the room was great throughout.
Attendants ranged from Municipal and non-profit staff from Old Town to Bangor, federal staff, landlords and architects, housing nonprofits, and a couple of people wanting to purchase homes there as well.
16 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table 52504
Note: According to the definition of the Census Bureau, the "Other vacant" category, "includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held for personal reasons of the owner."
Key Takeaways
• Old Town will receive help from Bangor on ADU ordinances
• A survey has been created and distributed to the residents of Old Town for residents’ views on the housing crisis.
• Although the US Census Data is a little unreliable, the attendees were interested in having access to it.
• Aging stock is a big problem for mobile homes in Old Town, specifically
• Attendees want a bigger follow-up meeting on the heels of the affordable housing conference
• The first hour was education/ and prep work for the conversations I wanted attendants to have.
• There was a common theme throughout the meeting of wanting to understand how to capitalize on LD 2003.
• There seemed to be a keen interest in working with Maine APEX Accelerator to find grants to build housing stock. Furthermore, Key questions to remember going forward:
• What do we do about factoring in known costs – Does that make rural housing ultimately more expensive?
• Some communities have little to no public transportation, but it’s hard to find parking. What can we do to remedy this?
It was brought up during key challenges that rural access to transportation is becoming increasingly difficult, and that it should be added to the necessary costs of housing to have personal vehicles. If there is further discussion on this matter, Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation System (BACTS) should be involved. What is also not included in housing costs are things like internet, sewer/ water, and electricity. These are all essentials in housing costs, yet are excluded from the true costs of housing.
As a whole, this meeting could and should have been longer. There were aspects that should have been included, like looking at prime development zones on a map of a town (designating them), so that there may be a better idea of where housing development could occur. For the intended purpose, the time frame was just right. Continued meetings may not be funded, but are essential for Old Town's continued efforts towards more housing.
Zoning Analysis
Old Town has a comprehensive zoning map that distinguishes several districts created to promote sustainable growth and prevent uncontrolled and chaotic expansion. The town has five districts allocated for housing specifically. These are the general residence district, the low-density multifamily district, the low-density district, the rural residence and farming district, and the seasonal housing district. All the information on all of Old Town’s districts are available on ecode360.com 17 . Below is an analysis by district based on available data from case studies, to discern how best Old Town can meet its housing goals by 2030.
What’s Already Happening
Before a zoning analysis is completed by EMDC, it’s important to consider all the efforts made in town so far to mitigate the housing crisis. These will be factored into further analyses and potential solutions. Note: These are taken directly from Old Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Multifamily dwelling units (defined as a building containing three or more dwelling units or
17 Old Town Codes and Ordinances. https://ecode360.com/OL4196
Map 5: Old Town Zoning Map. Sewall. 2010.
where three or more dwelling units located on an undivided lot such that individual buildings are not located that lots conforming to the requirements for one or two-family dwellings in the zoning district could be provided) are allowed in the R-2, R-3/R-3A (with performance standards outlined in 111.2(c)(12)), R-5, and C-1 zoning districts. In most instances, multifamily dwelling units require Planning Board approval under either site plan or special exception review.
Elderly housing (separately defined as a multi-unit dwelling specifically designed for residential needs of elderly persons conforming to the requirements of state and/or federal programs providing for housing of the elderly and not to be used (by covenant) for any other purposes in the 40 years following construction) is an allowed use In the R-1 (so long as there are no more than four dwelling units per structure), R-2 (so long as there are no more than 12 dwelling units per structure), R-3/R- 3A, and C-4 zoning districts. As above, ln most instances, elderly housing would require some level of Planning Board review.
The minimum parking standards are the same for both single- family and multi-family dwellings. The requirement is two spaces per dwelling unit, except that the Planning Board may reduce the total number of parking spaces to be constructed for a particular development to no less than one space per dwelling unit. The exception to this is elderly housing projects, as defined, where the parking count is one space for every three dwelling units.
In terms of providing affordable housing, the City relies on the Housing Authority of the City of Old Town, which was created to provide low-income housing and related management activities (the properties that it manages are inventoried in the Affordable Housing section, above). Within the region, other providers such as Penquis and Bangor Housing develop affordable housing.
General Residence District
This district is an example of housing that existed before zoning. Most housing within this district is single-family residences and is located close to the commercial district. Its zoning restrictions on building height, lot size, and setback requirements may limit the development potential for new housing, especially multi-family units that could address broader housing needs (City of Old Town, 2023). The limited scope for increasing residential density hinders the town’s ability to fully meet its housing demands. Additionally, high construction costs, coupled with restrictive renovation guidelines, can complicate the repair and modernization of older properties.
The city has already amended its ordinances to comply with LD 2003. To create further opportunities for expanded housing, the city can work with architectural firms to make permitready housing that complies with the guidelines set by LD 2003, and streamlines the process.
There are already some companies that have options available, and Old Town is already familiar with this process using prefab or modular housing. Local companies that have established experience building model Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) are listed below:
· Unity Homes in New Hampshire
· BrightBuilt Home in Portland
· Knickerbocker Group in Portland
· Croft in Rockland
· Modern Elm in Saco
· Backyard ADUs in Brunswick
· Tiny Homes of Maine in Dyer Brook
These recommendations can also be applied to all districts
Recommendations
1. Leverage LD 2003 Opportunities:
Actively encourage the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multi-family housing by streamlining the permitting process and creating clear guidelines for builders.
Promote awareness of LD 2003 among local developers and homeowners, emphasizing the benefits of ADUs as affordable housing solutions for families, students, and older residents.
Provide technical assistance or workshops to help property owners understand how to comply with LD 2003 and maximize their properties' potential.
2. Encourage Permit-Ready Housing Plans:
Partner with architectural firms to develop a library of pre-approved, permit-ready designs for ADUs, duplexes, and other small-scale multi-family housing.
Highlight existing prefab or modular housing companies that offer customizable options aligned with Old Town’s aesthetic and zoning requirements.
Work with local builders to create incentive programs, such as reduced permit fees, to encourage the use of these designs.
3. Modernize Older Properties:
Offer grants or low-interest loans to help property owners renovate older homes, focusing on energy efficiency upgrades and code compliance.
Revise renovation guidelines to make it easier and more affordable to update historic properties without compromising their character.
4. Encourage Transit-Oriented Housing:
With the district’s proximity to the commercial district, prioritize housing developments that cater to walkable and bikeable lifestyles.
Improve pedestrian and transit infrastructure to connect the district more effectively with downtown amenities, making the area attractive to students, young professionals, and families.
5. Collaboration with Local Companies:
Work with local modular and prefab housing companies to develop affordable housing options, emphasizing sustainability and efficiency. Highlight firms (see above) that already have experience with ADU and modular builds in the area.
Establish public-private partnerships to reduce construction costs and accelerate housing production.
6. Promote Mixed-Use Development:
Consider allowing limited mixed-use developments within the General Residence District, enabling small-scale commercial enterprises like corner stores or cafes that complement residential needs. This would increase the area’s vibrancy and make it more appealing for new residents.
Low-Density Multi-Family District
This district is designated to support low-density multi-family housing, which could serve as a middle ground between single-family and high-density multi-family units. Generally, it boasts both traditional and innovative family dwellings on both individual lots and in attached development arrangements to promote a stable, healthy, and desirable residential environment. Although it creates the ability for multi-family housing, the low-density aspect is intended to restrict high-density, allowing for the potential of urban sprawl, a concept that is well known for isolating residents and creating an urban-rural split. This kind of districting can also disincentivize students, singles, and low-skill laborers from moving in, particularly with its proximity to the University of Maine in Orono.
Recommendations
1. Increase Density Limits in Key Areas: Identify specific areas within the district that can accommodate slightly higher-density multi-family housing without sacrificing character. For example, near i95 and route 2.
2. Streamline Approval Processes: Simplify permitting for low- to medium-density multi-family developments to encourage investment while maintaining oversight for quality design and environmental considerations.
3. Incorporate Workforce Housing Incentives: Offer density bonuses or reduced fees for developments that include affordable or workforce housing units.
4. Explore Mixed-Use Opportunities: Encourage mixed-use zoning in this district to integrate housing with retail or service-based businesses, particularly near the University, to attract younger residents and professionals.
Low-Density District
Primarily intended for single-family housing, the Low-Density District’s stringent zoning restrictions limit residential development potential. Requirements for substantial lot sizes and setback distances often restrict the number of housing units that can be built. These standards aim to preserve a suburban character, but they inadvertently limit the ability to increase housing supply in the town, especially affordable options (City of Old Town, 2023).
Recommendations:
1. Cluster Housing Development: Permit cluster housing, which allows homes to be built on smaller lots while preserving open space, offering a balance between density and environmental protection.
2. Include Zoning Flexibility: Introduce flexibility to accommodate duplexes and townhouses in areas currently limited to single-family homes.
Rural Residence and Farming District
The Rural Residence and Farming District covers large areas intended for low-density and agricultural uses. While this district allows for Old Town to have residential farm land meant for self-sustaining practices, its restrictions on residential development mean that housing growth here is highly constrained. Additionally, infrastructure in these rural areas is often underdeveloped, lacking adequate roads, water lines, and sewage systems, which would be necessary for new housing developments (City of Old Town, 2023).
Recommendations:
1. Develop Infrastructure Improvement Plans: Collaborate with state and federal agencies to improve infrastructure in rural areas.
2. Incorporate Flexible Zoning for Rural Development: Allow for limited residential development clusters that preserve farmland while enabling small-scale housing projects.
3. Promote Agrarian Communities: Encourage housing models that integrate small-scale farming with residential living to maintain the rural character while meeting housing needs.
4. Create Housing and Farming Incentives: Offer tax incentives like the Maine Homestead Exemption and Open Space Tax Program or reduced permitting fees for developers building affordable housing or mixed-use farm communities.
Seasonal Housing District
The Seasonal Housing District supports temporary or seasonal homes, which are critical for the local tourism economy. However, the designation and regulations restrict long-term residential development, limiting the potential for permanent housing options in these areas. Building codes and zoning requirements geared toward temporary structures may also complicate upgrades or conversions to year-round residences (City of Old Town, 2023).
Old Town could reassess zoning policies to allow for more year-round occupancy options in this district, potentially converting some seasonal residences to full-time homes. Adjustments to zoning to allow limited long-term residential use could provide new housing while still supporting the seasonal economy. Additionally, infrastructure enhancements could make year-round residence more feasible in this district (MaineHousing, 2023).
Recommendations:
1. Allow Limited Year-Round Occupancy: Revise zoning regulations to permit selective conversion of seasonal homes to year-round residences, especially in areas with adequate infrastructure.
2. Incentivize Year-Round Housing Upgrades: Offer grants or low-interest loans for homeowners who wish to upgrade seasonal homes to meet year-round occupancy standards.
3. Improve Infrastructure: Invest in road maintenance, water, and sewer upgrades to make yearround residency feasible in specific parts of the district.
4. Maintain Seasonal Character While Diversifying: Preserve the district’s appeal to tourists while allowing more flexibility for full-time residents, ensuring a balanced approach.
More General Recommendations and Broader Considerations
To mitigate the more generalized obstacles that stand in the way of housing, the city can follow the lead of larger cities in Maine and across the United States that are working to increase safe and affordable housing for its residents. It would also be beneficial to look to cities of similar sizes and situations, like Madbury, New Hampshire, located next to Durham and University of New Hampshire 18
There are other solutions that Old Town can implement across almost all of its districts. They are as follows:
1. Develop an Affordable Housing Task Force: Establish a group to explore barriers and recommend actionable solutions for affordable housing production across all districts. This can be a subcommittee, or work directly with the Old Town Housing Authority.
2. Adopt Inclusionary Zoning Policies: Require new developments to include a percentage of affordable housing units.
3. Leverage State and Federal Resources: Further utilize funding opportunities, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HUD programs, to finance affordable housing and infrastructure projects.
4. Increase Public-Private Partnerships: Expand collaboration with developers, non-profits, and institutions like the University of Maine to create innovative housing solutions.
5. Implement a Comprehensive Housing Plan: Integrate these zoning recommendations into the broader housing strategy that addresses immediate and long-term needs for Old Town residents.
Finally, EMDC created a Quick reference snapshot for Lincoln to help get a quick picture of the data and process of engagement. The numbers are calculated from the 2023 Housing Needs Study, and the qualitative data were compiled from news, scientific articles, and local housing events.
Conclusion
Across Greenville, Lincoln, and Old Town, and indeed throughout Piscataquis and Penobscot counties, the housing crisis is not a single-issue challenge, but a constellation of interrelated barriers: aging and under-maintained housing stock, restrictive zoning and large requirements, seasonal pressures in tourism-oriented communities, insufficient infrastructure in rural areas, and financing gaps for both residents and developers.
Table 3: Shared Strategies among Greenville, Lincoln, and Old Town.
Key Regional Themes
Aging stock & abandonment
Zoning constraints
Seasonal vs. year-round demand
Rural infrastructure gaps
Workforce-housing mismatch
Shared Strategies
Subsidies/grants for renovation & adaptive reuse
Expand affordable-housing overlays; reduce minimum lot sizes; eliminate parking minimums
Permit conversions of seasonal units; incentivize year-round occupancy
Public-private partnerships, modular and preapproved designs, local housing funds
Throughout these discussions, common to nearly every participating town in the region, a recurring concern emerged: the accumulation of undeveloped “hoarded” land by a small number of owners. Motivations for this practice vary, ranging from timber management and the desire to retain property within a family for future generations, to the deliberate restriction of development. In more urbanized settings, land banking is often used strategically to influence market values and sustain elevated prices (Guthrie 2021). Because existing zoning regulations
offer no direct remedy for this phenomenon, addressing it will likely require targeted policy intervention.
Policy Intervention and Implications
To address the concerns surrounding the housing crisis, there are several laws under consideration in Augusta. These Include:
• LD 140 would raise the homestead property-tax exemption from $25,000 up to $50,000 over five years easing burdens on year-round homeowners and freeing up disposable income for maintenance or modest additions.
• LD 632 would authorize municipalities (upon voter approval) to add up to a 2% local sales tax on short-term lodging (e.g. Airbnb’s), with all revenue ring-fenced for local affordable-
housing initiatives. Unfortunately, this bill already died in early April, so it may not be brought up again until next legislative session.
• LD 1082, which would exempt both buyers and sellers from Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) when the purchaser is a first-time homebuyer using MaineHousing programs, removing what can be a 1–2% transaction cost barrier
• LD 1768 would treat sales of mobile home parks differently by lowering or reshaping the RETT burden on these transactions to help stabilize an essential affordable-housing segment
• LD 1798 would boost state revenue-sharing for towns that cap senior homeowners’ tax increases, helping stabilize municipal budgets while protecting vulnerable households.
Beyond these recent bills, other options were posited during housing events and interviews. One solution sought to tax second homes, designated as seasonal, or vacation homes, at a higher rate. In the past, LD 1337 was proposed in 2021, which would have let towns impose a vacancy “impact fee” on non-resident camps. It failed amid concerns over heritage and tourism impacts. 19 If this were to be re-proposed, it could focus on a second-home surcharge (e.g., an extra 0.5–1% of assessed value) on properties not designated as primary residences, with revenue dedicated to local housing trusts.
To fix the land hoarding issue stated earlier, an interesting solution may be to put maximum landholding caps & “intent-to-use” plans in place. Any purchase over, say, 20 acres would trigger a requirement to file a Land-Use Plan, detailing intended development, conservation, or resourceharvesting activities, subject to municipal approval and periodic review. A similar issue being faced in Great Britain proposes a land value tax, which is simply a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property, and other improvements upon it. To make sure it is enforced, graduated holding fees or redevelopment bonuses to incentivize bringing land into active housing supply may be utilized.
Limitations
This evaluation may have been made more robust if data were more up-to-date. The ACS contains larger standard deviations, and, therefore, cannot be relied upon with great certainty. Much of the analysis also relies on the 2023 Housing Production Needs Study. That, and ACS 5-year estimates, predate late-2024 and early 2025 market shifts. There have been rapid market changes that this evaluation has not been able to account for. In a follow-up effort, real-time buildingpermit data and monthly MLS listings should be woven into the analysis so that emerging trends are detected as they unfold, rather than a year or more later.
On the community-engagement side, we heard from dozens of participants at each regional event, yet captured almost no data in a widely distributed survey. If repeated, the study should incorporate greater and stratified random sampling, making sure that renters, seasonal workers,
19 Maine Chamber of Commerce. 2025. https://www.mainechamber.org/impact20220324.html
low-income households, and non-English speakers have a seat at the table. Focus groups with service-industry employees, for example, would reveal the true cost burdens those workers face, and interviews with tribal communities could surface culturally specific housing preferences that our general survey missed.
Finally, our roadmap laid out dozens of regulatory changes (overlay expansions, parking-minimum eliminations, permit-ready designs) but stopped short of mapping the political terrain needed to implement them. Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) opposition, staff capacity constraints, and priorities of community leadership will all shape what actually happens. A next-generation study must include stakeholder mapping, and build in consensus-building tools such as citizens’ juries or deliberative workshops. Once reforms are in place, a formal evaluation framework with plando-study-act cycles, and a regional implementation committee will ensure that the roadmap adapts to real-world feedback, rather than gathering dust on a shelf.
In telling this story of both what we accomplished and where we fell short, we hope to guide not only the three towns at hand but any rural community seeking to turn underproduction into sustained, equitable housing growth. This information will hopefully facilitate the next replication of this study for delivery of even more precise, durable, and inclusive housing solutions across Maine and beyond.
Implications for future research and practice involve (a) longitudinal evaluation of pilot cluster subdivisions and overlay-district expansions to quantify impacts on unit production and affordability; (b) cost-benefit analyses of regional infrastructure investments tied to housing outcomes; and (c) assessment of the Housing Hub model’s effectiveness in reducing municipal capacity constraints. Furthermore, comparative studies across New England’s rural regions would elucidate the transferability of these findings.
Utilizing a mixed-methods approach that combined quantitative GIS analyses, municipal ordinance reviews, stakeholder networking, and case-study comparisons, EMDC has helped to diagnose some systematic constraints that jointly inhibit attainable housing production. Evaluating targeted municipal reforms is but one way the housing crisis may be addressed. We hope that this will lay the groundwork to increase housing supply for the Towns of Greenville and Lincoln, and for the City of Old Town, while preserving community character. It is also our hope that these strategies can be utilized and adapted by other municipalities in our region to reach any housing goals while achieving economies-of-scale and policy coherence.
Bibliography
Arendt, R., Brabec, E. A., Dodson, H. L., Reid, C., & Yaro, R. D. 1994. Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Planners Press, American Planning Association. 441(1) pp. 229-32.
Auclair, S.M. 2022. Moosehead Lake Region: Gateway to Maine’s North Woods. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN: 9781467108867
Erdem, O. and Gider, Z., 2025. The Pandemic Puzzle: The Causal Impact of Government Stringency on Housing Prices. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis.
Franzese, P.A., 2018. An Inflection Point for Affordable Housing: The Promise of Inclusionary Mixed-Use Redevelopment. UIC L. Rev., 52, p.581.
Guthrie, G., 2023. Land Hoarding and Urban Development. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 67(4), pp.753-793.
Lee, S., & Lin, J. (2018). Natural Amenities, Neighbourhood Dynamics, And Persistence In The Spatial Distribution Of Income. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(1), 663-694.
Lewis, M.W., 1998. Iterative Triangulation: A Theory Development Process Using Existing Case Studies. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), pp.455-469.
MacTavish, K.A., 2007. The Wrong Side of The Tracks: Social Inequality and Mobile Home Park Residence. Community Development, 38(1), pp.74-91.
Norman, Z., 2025. The Parts of Maine Hit Hardest By The Housing Crisis Are Far From The Coast. Bangor Daily News. https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/04/23/business/businesshousing/parts-of-maine-hit-hardest-by-housing-crisis-joam40zk0w/
US Census Bureau. 2023. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP05?q=greenville,%20piscataquis%20county,%20 maine
Shampine, S., 2025. New England's Housing Markets: Supply and Demand Factors Affecting Housing Prices Across the Region. New England Public Policy Center Policy Report, (25-1).
Starmans, C. and Friedman, O., 2012. The Folk Conception of Knowledge. Cognition, 124(3), pp.272-283.
Zhang, X., Yang, E., Huang, L. and Wang, Y., 2025. Incremental population Density Improvement Via Missing Middle Housing Under Density-Based and Form-Based Zoning Ordinances. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 18(1), pp.87-105.
