Alison Aloisio, a reporter from the Bethel Citizen who wrote a great story in advance of our first forum in Bethel on the potential impact of changes to the Site Location of Development Law, has followed that up with this – a very informative piece profiling that presentation.

For those who were unable to attend our forum in Bethel or who simply want a better understanding of this complex issue, Alison’s story is a must read, as it provides an overview of our presentation and gives an in-depth look at what the potential impact of these proposed changes could be, both literally in terms of what the laws and rules will allow, and indirectly, through the loss of economic and cultural investment in our communities.

You can link to her story here, or read it below:

Business group blasts DEP’s proposed new growth regs
By Alison Aloisio, The Bethel Citizen

“In these economic times, how sensible is this?” asked Darryl Brown of Main-Land Development Consultants.

Brown posed the question last week at a Bethel forum of developers, contractors and others who are worried about proposed changes to state land use laws and rules.

The gathering, which drew about 100 people, was organized by Main-Land and the Bethel Area Business Association.

The changes, proposed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, would tighten restrictions within the Site Location of Development Law.

The law governs medium and large-scale development, both commercial and residential.

Brown said stricter rules would “dramatically slow down, if not stop, major development in the state of Maine. I don’t think any time is a good time for these changes to occur. But especially now. It blows my mind that a state agency would even consider these kinds of changes in the economic climate that we’re in.”

The proposed changes are so sweeping, others at the meeting said, that several existing large hillside subdivisions in this area would not have been possible had the rules already been in place.

Some of the rule changes proposed would limit road grades to 8 percent, and prevent disturbing the land on slopes over 20 percent. Clearing within 250 feet of ridgelines would be prohibited.

“Under these rules, you’d have no Peaks, no Merrill Hill, no Locke Mountain, no Timber Creek, no Powder Ridge,” said developer Ron Savage. “Those subdivisions would be non-existent. You couldn’t do it.”

Also raising the ire of attendees were rule change proposals including:

1) A provision giving DEP the authority to consider a developer’s “prior conduct” in reviewing permit applications. Previous violations resulting in enforcement actions could trigger a requirement that the developer show specifically how he will ensure the project will meet state environmental standards, such as by providing a performance bond.

2) A limit of 5,000 square feet for a residential lot building envelope (the dimension includes the home, driveway and space to conduct construction operations). Main-Land presenters said such restrictions would result in a typical house size of 20×35, with a 20×20 garage and a 10×60 driveway.

3) A limit on large-scale, non-residential development to designated growth zones, urban compact zones, census designated areas or those areas served by public sewer systems. And if a residential development larger than 30 acres is proposed outside these zones, that development would be classified as a conservation subdivision, requiring the preservation of at least 55 percent of the land area.

4) Requirements to provide more vegetative buffers.

5) A requirement that proposed developments may not have an “unreasonable impact on a scenic resource.” Presenters said the requirement was poorly defined.

The presenters praised some portions of the proposals, including clarification of existing rules and simplification of permits for minor modifications to projects.

Rick Savage said current DEP requirements are already so complex that developers and contractors have a hard time following them.

He said his lawyer had looked at a subdivision Savage was working on and commented on the difficulty in pinpointing lot locations within the rule requirements.

“My lawyer looked at it and said, ‘I don’t know how you figure it out at all,’” Savage said.

Transparency

Brown said that in addition to the proposed changes themselves, there had been a lack of transparency in the proposal process.

Public informational meetings that took place in Maine’s cities were advertised “hardly at all,” Brown said. “The word isn’t being gotten out.”

He also said there had been little explanation for the proposed changes.

The law-change portion of the proposals is expected to go before the Legislature during the current session, and Brown encouraged those interested to request and attend public hearings, as well as contact their legislators.

DEP response

James Cassida, DEP’s licensing coordinator for the Bureau of Land & Water Quality, was asked to comment Tuesday on some of the concerns highlighted at the forum.

Regarding the purpose for the changes, Cassida said, “There is a clear connection between state and local decision making envisioned in the Site Law, and as municipal decision making in the form of local planning evolves, so too should the Site Location of Development Act. There is a reasonable need to routinely revisit the basis and requirements of land use law at the state and local level in order to ensure that Maine’s quality of place and economy grow and improve together.”

Cassida said the limitation regarding disturbance of 20 percent slopes would prevent development “where it is very difficult to stabilize roads and lots, both short term and long term. The concept was that developers would avoid placing structures such as roads and houses in the areas of greater than 20 percent grade, but could otherwise develop around these areas. We are currently looking at this standard closely to ensure that it does not unduly limit the ability of developments to occur in mountain regions.”

Regarding the 8 percent grade limit on roads, Cassida said that the current rules state that road grades must be kept below 10 percent, except for short distances where grade may exceed 10 percent. “In the new rule we have added the language “unless otherwise approved by the department,” which, we believe, creates greater flexibility than the existing rule for developers.”

Regarding the presenters’ example of the 5,000-square-foot limit on a building envelope, Cassida said, “there is 3,300 square feet of development that can still occur beyond those structures. Therefore, it is misleading to say that with a 5,000-square-foot development window can only result in a house, garage and driveway of that size on a lot. The 5,000-square-foot limit on development windows is intended to encourage developments to limit the overall footprint within residential subdivisions. We are currently looking at this standard as well to ensure that it does not unduly limit the ability of developments to occur in a reasonable manner.”

As for the timing of the proposed changes, Cassida said, “the department is very interested in ensuring that conversations regarding development standards and requirements occur with the state of the local and national economy in mind. These are discussion draft proposals that are worthy of spirited and thoughtful debate. Good development done well is a valuable asset for the property owner as well as the Maine economy.”

DEP web site

In early September 2008, a notice of the proposed changes appeared on the DEP website.

A Web page was titled, “Invitation to participate in the Site Location of Development Law — Discussion Open Forum.”

The invitation said that DEP was exploring statutory and rule changes “in consideration of current state, regional and national environmental initiatives.

“The process may involve statutory changes pertaining to broad issues such as climate change, smart growth incentives, and design criteria as well as significant edits to current rules to clarify department policies which are currently in place.

“… a series of open discussion forums have been scheduled to gather input that will help the department better understand the needs and concerns of developers, contractors, consultants and planners.

“We encourage broad public participation, and look forward to your participation.”

Contact information and a schedule of public forums for early October followed.

More information on the bill is available at www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/sitelaw/2009/index.htm.