Panel’s final recommendation: Give counties more power over land use

Posted Dec. 01, 2011, at 12:50 p.m.
Last modified Dec. 02, 2011, at 10:33 a.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

BANGOR, Maine — Two months after convening amid heavy skepticism and scrutiny, a panel exploring ways to reform the Land Use Regulation Commission settled Thursday on a compromise that could give county governments more input on decisions affecting more than 10 million acres in Maine.

The compromise aims to better balance the economic interests of private landowners frustrated with LURC policies with the strong statewide interest in protecting the vast forestlands that make Maine unique. How those recommendations will fare once they reach the political arena in Augusta, however, is another matter.

“We have tried to come up with something feasible and a positive step in the right direction,” said Bill Beardsley, commissioner of the Maine Department of Conservation and co-chair of the panel. “We fully realize that this is not going to be the end of this. The process is just beginning.”

The panel’s recommendation, which received unanimous support from the 12 of 13 members present Thursday, would increase from seven to nine the number of commissioners charged with overseeing planning, zoning and permitting in the largest undeveloped tract of forestland in the U.S. east of the Mississippi River.

While the governor now nominates all seven LURC commissioners, Maine’s chief executive would only pick three members of the revised commission. The remaining six members would be county commissioners or their designees from the six counties with the most acreage in the Unorganized Territory.

The proposal also calls for:

  1. Allowing counties to take on minor permitting responsibilities now handled by LURC, such as issuing permits for new buildings or renovations.
  2. Encouraging LURC — which would likely be renamed — to work with counties to develop regional comprehensive planning and zoning.
  3. Establishing a process whereby counties could withdraw from LURC as long as they meet several criteria, including creation of a planning board and a comprehensive plan.
  4. Transferring permitting responsibilities for commercial wind power projects within the UT to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and enforcement of forestry regulations to the Maine Forest Service.

But to the dismay of some panel members, the commission side-stepped several key issues that have made LURC a political target for years, including the commission’s anti-sprawl policy requiring new development be located adjacent to existing development or infrastructure. Instead, the group recommended that lawmakers address the adjacency issue as well as LURC requirements that seek to minimize the visual impact of developments on the landscape.

“Adjacency has been used to the detriment of a lot of people who had plans for their property,” said Hank McPherson, a panel member and vocal LURC critic who was forced to scale back a development on Moosehead Lake because of the adjacency requirement.

The prospect of a unanimous recommendation on reforming LURC seemed unlikely six months ago.

Lawmakers created the reform panel in June after heated debate over a bill, LD 1534, to eliminate LURC and transfer responsibilities to county governments. But even the makeup of the panel became a political issue, with LURC’s supporters suggesting that Gov. Paul LePage and Republican leaders would stack the panel with people intent on abolishing the agency.

Several ardent LURC critics were named to the group, but dismantling the agency was never seriously discussed. Instead, the disparate parties settled on the plan to give six of the new commission’s nine seats to county commissioners from Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, Aroostook and Washington counties.

That change aims to address criticisms that residents and landowners within the UT do not have enough sway with the current commission and that economic development in the jurisdiction has been stymied by LURC policies.

“If nothing else comes out of this, it is that we recognize that the agency is not fine; it is broken,” said Chris Gardner, a Washington County commissioner and outspoken critic of LURC.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Gardner’s assessment or with the shift toward giving county commissioners six of the nine seats.

Cathy Johnson with the Natural Resources Council of Maine said her organization fears that the proposed commission will be more political and less likely to look after statewide interests in protecting the UT’s natural resources because county commissioners are elected to represent local interests. Johnson also said a recommendation allowing counties to withdraw from LURC runs counter to efforts to create unified statewide standards.

“Obviously we are pleased that they backed away from abolishing LURC,” Johnson said. “But there are a lot of provisions in this proposal that could be major problems.”

Likewise, Alexandra Fields of Environment Maine said the North Woods are at the heart of Maine’s natural identity and she worried LURC’s statewide scope would be diminished with six county commissioners.

But panel member Don White, who is president and CEO of the timberland management firm Prentice & Carlisle, said he believes the recommendations are balanced and that all interest groups will find parts of the report to like and dislike.

“This would be a big improvement” for landowners, White said.

Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, said landowners believe LURC was increasingly “regulating away opportunities on the land.” County commissioners, Strauch said, will hopefully have a better understanding of the need to balance the economic interests of the landowners with conservation interests.

A staffer within the Department of Conservation will now write the final report to be presented to the Legislature. Lawmakers are expected to consider those recommendations during the legislative session that begins in January, although they are under no obligation to follow them.

Rep. Jeff McCabe, a Skowhegan Democrat who has closely followed the reform debate, said lawmakers may be hesitant to relinquish the right to review and approve LURC members. But he described the overall report as a “good product” with compromises from all sides.

“It is easy to come up with problems,” McCabe said. “They came up with some ways out” of the problems.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    This isnt what most wanted, but its a start

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NXPTPFL746OV2VGR5WBOEUF6W4 Roger

    The board should be made up of LANDOWNERS.. The members should also be from the areas they represent. It should be done opposite of elections. IE the area with more land per person more reps.  We are the ones effected by these stupid laws and rules made by people who have no understanding of owning property.

  • Anonymous

    I like this idea; I wish they would adopt it

  • Anonymous

    Like the fact that there is more local representation. Not sure if political people are the best to address it. However, if it was an elected representative then that might be the best representation. The rest I really question. It doesn’t sound to me like they are streamling the process or even making it more cost effective. What is the opt out? Is it like I don’t like what you people are doing so I’m going to take my ball and go home? Who would even authorize it? Legislature? Whatever they do it should be a benefit to the landowners of the UT first and State second with the weight of input put in the residents hands. It also should be a simple one stop shopping process using current resources or added resources for the most cost efficient and predictable outcome for the people who want to develop. No increase in taxes and predictable development patterns. It is a good step in the right direction and I don’t think it will be an easy process. Good luck to everyone. 

  • Anonymous

    I figured this was a dog and pony show with the plan to eliminate LURC completely.  So, I’m surprised they are proposing keeping it partially around.

  • G. Alan Woods

    Coming soon: the UT littered with rusted out, inoperable and obsolete wind turbines. Goodbye Maine!

  • Anonymous

    If you buy property with restrictions on it, are you really entitled to start griping about the restrictions on it?  Isn’t this more like whining?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7ARBFNYJAE23QMOBALXD7FM4W4 gempaint

    DEP will rubber stamp WIND. I am so sorry.

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t bode well for the people in UTs if the DEP becomes the sole permitting authority for industrial scale wind developments.

    I hope the reform committee will give that issue some serious thought.  At this point, LURC is far more educated and informed on the very complicated topic of Big Wind.  DEP has don’e nothing but rubber-stamp these high-impact, low value developments.

    Respectfully,
    Karen Pease
    Lexington Twp., Maine

  • Anonymous

    RE THESE ADVOCATES INCREDIBLY NAIVE, OR DO THEY REQLIZEWHAT THEY ARE DOING ? if the second possibility, they are trying to fool the public. I have sat on boards and can see that it would be a  rare occsion when a county commissioner would oppose any project that is proposed for any unorganzed territory located in any county because to do so would earn the opposition for any proposed project in the dissenters county. This is the beginning of the end for reasonable protections in our unorganized territories. Besides that, county commissioners will have to become near full time practitioners who will need to be paid accordingly. County tax increases would be part of our future.

  • Anonymous

    As more and more controls and restrictions are progressively imposed on all of us we certainly do have a right to push back and get rid of them.  The statists want us to believe that any restrictions they impose are theirs’ forever — only they can make changes by imposing more.  The notion that private property rights, once gone are gone forever and we have no right to regain our freedom is a thoroughly anti-private property rights, statist premise.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business