Is ruling a clue for Plum Creek?

Maine Sunday Telegram
Sunday, June 11, 2006

Friends and foes of a controversial development proposed by
Plum Creek Timber Co. agree that its fate is a critical step in the future of the Moosehead Lake region.

And that has focused a great deal of attention on the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, the small state agency whose seven commissioners will decide whether the massive project moves forward.
.
Last week, the commission buoyed Plum Creek's opponents when it strongly rejected another developer's smaller housing proposal overlooking the southern end of Moosehead. Environmental groups hailed the decision as a watershed event and a clear signal to Plum Creek and other developers.

"I think this is one of the commission's most significant decisions in the last decade," said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources
Council of Maine. "They've spoken clearly about their priorities for the future direction of the Moosehead area."

By a 5-0 vote, the commission turned back a proposal to rezone 246 acres and build 70 homes on the Burnt Jacket peninsula. But it wasn't just the outcome that delighted environmentalists; it was also the language in an accompanying written decision.

The 18-page document noted that "rezoning is not an entitlement" and said that the property owner "purchased this land with a full understanding of its current zoning and its restrictions on development."

Environmentalists were also pleased with the emphasis the commission placed on the Burnt Jacket peninsula's remote character and its conclusion that the property's owner did not demonstrate the need for new housing there.

Plum Creek's plan calls for 975 new homes and two resorts, and its opponents feel that backers will have a hard time meeting the
standards laid out Wednesday by the commission.

"I believe that the commission is sending a strong message out to
Plum Creek and other landowners about what the commission wants to see in applications that come before it," Didisheim said.
"My guess is that Plum Creek's stable of attorneys is scouring
through the Burnt Jacket decision very closely, wondering about the implications for their much more massive proposal for the Moosehead region."

There are, however, key differences between the failed subdivision proposal and Plum Creek's plan. Perhaps most important, the Plum Creek project is connected to a larger agreement by the company to protect more than 400,000 acres of forestland in northern Maine, while the Burnt Jacket proposal did not include a land conservation component.

Jim Lehner of Plum Creek said he feels comfortable that his company's proposal will be evaluated on its own merits. He said he's seen the Burnt Jacket decision but added, "I don't see
it as being a problem for us."

Catherine Carroll, the commission's director, said the standards
applied to Plum Creek's proposal will be somewhat different than the ones used last week.

Still, she called the Burnt Jacket decision "pivotal" and said the commission is going to be "extremely careful" in the face of efforts to develop wide swaths of land that were long used by the timber industry.

It remains to be seen whether the Burnt Jacket decision will be
remembered as a milestone in the history of a commission that has authority over 10.4 million acres of unorganized territory in Maine. But the ruling may be a signal that scrutiny has become more rigorous as larger developments are proposed.

"I think the bar has been raised for Plum Creek and for every other developer who might come along now with a large subdivision or a major development proposal," said Jym St. Pierre of RESTORE: The North Woods.

Staff Writer Kevin Wack can be contacted at 282-8226 or at:
kwack@pressherald.com***************
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.