Plum Creek News & Updates

Editorial: A stronger LURC

Wednesday, August 08, 2007 - Bangor Daily News

In a surprise filing last week to the Land Use Regulation Commission, two environmental groups argued that LURC cannot approve a rezoning petition from Plum Creek Timber Co. for its land around Moosehead Lake because the commission lacks the authority to do so. LURC may have broad discretion in setting land-use standards in the Unorganized Territory, but this is another example of how lawmakers need to review LURC‘s mission and better delineate its powers
.
The groups RESTORE: The North Woods and the Forest Ecology Network say LURC lacks the explicit statutory language to make zoning changes that would remain in place for 30 years. They say the commission cannot adopt a Plum Creek concept plan for development and conservation easements that would prevent future constitutional or statutory changes for the duration of the plan, and that the scale of the Plum Creek plan means that it deserves special scrutiny.

LURC has given all interested parties 30 days to file written comment on the motion to dismiss, which may eventually serve as a lever to bring the issue to court or to resolution by the Legislature. But the primary reaction it ought to cause in lawmakers is a determination to remove some of the ambiguity that currently exists in statute concerning LURC.

This issue has particular urgency because the doubts about its authority concerning Plum Creek follow its own questions about ruling on a wind-power project, as well as recent bills in the Legislature to change its oversight process and regular, though largely unsuccessful, attempts to weaken the commission’s statutory ability.

The pressure on LURC will increase with the frequency of petitions for it to make larger, big-money decisions. While this motion to dismiss in the Plum Creek case is a small part of a lengthy process, it may illustrate important questions for the commission: Is it authorized to agree to contracts the environmental groups say cannot be changed without the consent of the landowner? Are its concept plans sufficiently outside the scope of contract-zoning rules to preclude the commission from requiring explicit permission — as municipalities have — to engage in these plans?

LURC must submit any major rule changes to the Legislature for a vote — with the exception of its permanent land use standards, which remain in effect unless lawmakers vote otherwise. Much of what the commission does already has legislative approval. Instead of a line-by-line review, the commission’s authority should be strengthened by the Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee, ensuring it has sufficient authority to act decisively.

As the questions before it get more difficult, LURC needs to have legislative tools equal to the task.

***************
FAIR USE NOTICE. This message may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, and related issues. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Return to Plum Creek Watch