WHY IS THE PLAN BEING REVISED AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS?

Why is the Comprehensive Plan being revised?  

Good planning requires up-to-date information on trends and land uses.  Land uses in the unorganized areas have changed over time.  When the Commission was first created, the principal land uses were timber harvesting to supply paper mills and seasonal camps.  Today, land uses include grid scale wind power, large-scale recreational developments, commercial water extraction, large four-season camps, and more. In order to plan effectively, the Commission needs a Plan that accurately reflects present conditions and challenges. 

Is the Public Workshop Draft the final draft of LURC’s Comprehensive Plan?

No.  This is the first draft of the Plan.  It was written to engage the public and provide a starting point for discussion.  The Commission has designed a public process that provides ample opportunity for the draft to be shaped by public input before being considered for adoption.  There will be at least two subsequent drafts of the Plan before the Commission considers it for approval.

How can the public, including landowners and people living in the jurisdiction, participate in the Comprehensive Plan revision?

The public can learn more about the Comprehensive Plan revision on the Commission’s website (http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/reference/CLUP_Overview.shtml) or by attending informal Public Workshops scheduled for this spring.  Comments on the Public Workshop Draft can be submitted at Public Workshops or in writing.  Organizations can meet with the staff to discuss the Public Workshop Draft.  After the current draft is revised, the public will have another opportunity to review and comment on the revised draft during the Public Hearing process. 

How does adoption of the final Plan change things?  Will LURC regulations immediately change with its adoption?    

The Plan establishes general policy for the agency.  Its adoption by the Commission does not, by itself, change LURC rules and zoning.  The draft Plan includes some specific recommendations, but its primary goal is to identify important issues that should be addressed in the coming decade.  Adoption of the final Plan will be followed by an implementation phase.  During the implementation phase, staff will explore options for addressing identified issues and then make specific recommendations to the Commission. Recommendations may include regulatory and non-regulatory measures.  Any proposed changes to LURC zoning and regulations must go through a formal rulemaking process which includes significant opportunity for public comment.  New and revised rules must also be approved by the Legislature.

WHAT DOES THE WORKSHOP DRAFT OF THE PLAN SAY?

What is unique about areas within LURC jurisdiction?

The workshop draft of the Plan identifies several characteristics that set these areas apart from the rest of the state.  First, the working forest, which dominates in these areas, forms the backbone of the state’s largest economic sector - the forest products industry.  Second, the region contains high quality natural and recreational resources which benefit all Mainers.  These resources include the highest concentration of undeveloped, free flowing rivers and large lakes in the East.  These resources, coupled with a landowner history of providing public access, have created abundant and diverse recreational opportunities, many of which are not found elsewhere in the Northeast.   Third, the area is distinguished by the absence of public infrastructure and services.  All of these characteristics are important considerations in the development of a plan for the region. (also see page 1-1 and Chapter 3 of the draft Plan)

Is the Vision in the draft Plan substantially different from the Vision in the 1997 Plan?

No. The Vision in the draft Plan is very similar to the existing Vision.  It may look different because it incorporates language about the principal values that was located in a separate section of the 1997 Plan.  (also see pages 1-1 and 1-2 of the draft Plan)

Why does the Plan discuss changes in timberland ownership?  What relevance does land ownership have to LURC’s planning responsibilities?  

As a planning agency, LURC must anticipate and prepare for changes in land use.  This planning helps the agency keep its zoning and rules up to date and relevant.  Landowner objectives and ownership patterns influence land use, so monitoring ownership trends is an important part of planning for land use changes.  Ownership patterns have changed significantly in recent decades, including a rise in timberland ownership by investor groups.  While it remains to be seen whether ownership changes will lead to significant changes in land use, it is important that LURC track them as part of its planning process.

What is the major development trend in the jurisdiction?

The workshop draft of the Plan identifies dispersed residential development as the major development trend.  Maps of building permits for new dwellings reveal that recent residential development is more dispersed than pre-1971 development.  While 44% of the new dwellings permitted over the last 35 years were concentrated in 21 MCDs[1], 56% of new dwellings were distributed throughout 307 of the jurisdiction’s 459 MCDs.  Over 72% of these new dwellings occurred on lots that were not part of a subdivision and consequently were not reviewed regarding the appropriateness of their location. This information has focused the Commission’s attention on two points: (1) current LURC zoning and regulations do not limit the amount or extent of dispersed development; and (2) there is significant potential for continued dispersed development given recent demand and ownership patterns. (also see pages 4-30 through 4-34 of the draft Plan)

Is the increase of 8,800 permitted dwellings over 35 years significant given the large size of the jurisdiction? 

The Commission is principally concerned with the location of development rather than the amount.  Areas in the jurisdiction have experienced steady growth since the 1970s and some of this growth is “dispersed”, i.e. spread across many townships at low densities.  Continued dispersion could affect the working forest, recreational uses, and natural resources.  It could also have fiscal implications as demand for services increases in parts of the state that are least equipped to provide them.  (also see pages 4-16 through 4-21 of the draft Plan)

The draft Plan states that 72% of new houses are on lots that were not reviewed under the LURC’s rezoning or subdivision review process.  What is the significance of this statement? 

LURC has policies stating where development is most appropriate, i.e. close to existing developed areas.  The goal of these policies is to concentrate development, thereby minimizing impacts on resources and promoting efficient delivery of public services.  These policies are only applied to subdivision proposals.  Since 72% of new houses are built on lots created prior to 1971 or lots created through exemptions to the subdivision process, most residential development is not being guided by these policies.  If only 28% of houses are on lots reviewed under this policy, then the Commission’s existing approach to guiding development cannot be considered very effective.  (also see page 4-18 of the draft Plan)

Isn’t review of building permits sufficient to limit the impact of residential development? 

Building permit review ensures that the zoning and site conditions on a lot are suitable for an individual dwelling.  It does not address the cumulative impact of dispersed individual dwellings on the surrounding area or their fiscal impact on government.   Some valued features of the jurisdiction, such as pristine water quality, recreation in a remote setting, and extensive wildlife habitat, are particularly vulnerable to degradation by dispersed development.  As outlined in previous questions, only about 28% of new dwellings since 1971 have received the more comprehensive review that considers these factors.  (also see pages 4-16 through 4-21 of the draft Plan)

Why is dispersed development a concern?

The cumulative impact of dispersed development is a particular concern because of the potential to degrade the unique characteristics of the jurisdiction, such as high quality natural and recreational resources.  It can also increase fiscal and other demands on government, particularly in an area with very limited infrastructure and services.  The early identification of this development pattern provides an opportunity to limit the impacts of future development through thoughtful, creative planning. (also see pages 4-30 through 4-34 of the draft Plan)

How does the draft Plan propose to address dispersed development? 

The draft Plan identifies the need to take action to address dispersed development, but defers developing specific strategies to the implementation phase.  Sprawl is a complex problem that challenges many communities in Maine (and across the U.S.) and will not be easily addressed.  The draft includes examples of options to consider (e.g. restrictions on the type, density, or scale of development in some locations; incentives for development near service centers; and prospective zoning), but there are other options that could be considered as well. (also see pages 4-33 through 4-36 of the draft Plan)

Does the draft Plan propose specific changes to the existing process of creating minor land divisions, such as gifts to relatives and the 2-in-5 lot exemption? 

No.  Maine law (12 MRSA §682-B) governs the circumstances under which land can be divided and sold and these provisions can only be changed by the Legislature.  The draft Plan does caution that unregulated land divisions play a role in facilitating dispersed development and suggests that their effects be considered when exploring solutions to this issue.  These divisions are not, however, the only factor that would be explored when seeking solutions.  Dispersed development is a challenging issue and the plan envisions exploring a broad range of options for addressing the issue.  (also see pages 4-32 and 4-33 of the draft Plan)

Does the draft Plan propose to ban motorized recreation in the jurisdiction? 

No.  The draft Plan does not propose a ban on motorized recreation in the jurisdiction.  It does discuss the changing nature of trails today and the potential for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation. Some have interpreted this discussion to mean that the draft Plan would lead to a ban on motorized recreation throughout the jurisdiction.  This is not the intent and language in subsequent drafts will clarify this point.  (also see pages 1-1 through 1-2, and 4-37 through 4-39 of the draft Plan)

What is “primitive recreation” and why is it highlighted in the draft Plan?

Primitive recreation is currently defined as recreational activities associated with non-motorized travel.   Primitive recreation has been emphasized in past and present Comprehensive Plans because of its limited availability in the eastern U.S. and its sensitivity to impacts by other uses.  The Commission currently applies protective zoning to some areas that support significant primitive recreation activities, principally the Appalachian Trail, several rivers, and remote ponds. 

Does the draft Plan elevate the importance of “primitive recreation” above other types of recreation? 

It is not the intent of the draft Plan to elevate the importance of primitive recreation above other types of recreation.  The Commission’s comprehensive plans have always recognized that the jurisdiction’s primitive recreation opportunities are unique in the state and the Northeast and thus worthy of special recognition.  Past and present plans also recognize the value of other recreational activities, motorized and non-motorized, and encourage a range of recreational opportunities in the jurisdiction.   It is the Commission’s intent to continue this approach.  (also see pages 1-1 and 1-2 of the draft Plan)

Does the draft Plan propose to change public access in the jurisdiction?

No.  Access to privately owned land is governed by landowner preference and Maine law.  The Commission has the authority to zone and regulate land use, but it does not have the authority to grant or restrict public access to private property.  Maine law grants the public certain rights of access, such as access to Great Ponds.  Beyond that, it is the landowners’ decision whether to allow public access over their lands. 

Does the draft Plan propose to impose significant new restrictions on forest management?

No.  In fact, the draft recognizes forest management as a key factor in maintaining the essential character of the unorganized territories.  Maine law (12 MRSA §685-A(5)) prohibits LURC from limiting or restricting forest management activities in Management zones, which cover approximately 80% of the jurisdiction.  Current LURC rules include standards for forest management in and around sensitive natural and recreational resources, such as riparian areas.  The draft Plan does not propose specific changes to these standards, but does recommend reviewing riparian standards to ensure water quality is adequately protected.  (also see page 5.6-4 of the draft Plan)

What does the draft Plan say about the economy of the jurisdiction?

The draft Plan recognizes the jurisdiction’s forest resource as the backbone of the state’s $7 billion forest industry and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the working forest.  It recognizes the economic importance of tourism and growing interest in nature-based tourism.  The Plan encourages economic development that requires a work force, customers, infrastructure, or services to locate near population centers so as to increase the economic viability of the project, protect important natural resources in the jurisdiction, and minimize the cost of delivering public services.  (also see page 1-1, and Chapters 5.6, and 5.9 of the draft Plan)

The draft Plan discusses “remoteness,” “remote values,” and “remote recreation.”  Why is there an emphasis on remoteness?

Since its inception, the Commission has recognized that one of the most distinctive characteristics of areas within the jurisdiction is “remoteness,” i.e. distance from permanently settled places in Maine.  This characteristic is increasingly rare in the eastern U.S.  It is unique by virtue of its rarity.  The Commission recognizes the value of this increasingly rare characteristic, both in the natural world, and in the unique setting it provides for many recreational activities.