Superior Court Justice Thomas Humphrey has ruled that LURC's 2009 approval of the Plum Creek development plan was completed illegally, and he has
vacated the approval. The basis for the Court's decision hinged on the fact that, after LURC rejected Plum Creek's initial plan, they actually helped the company derive an "approvable" plan and then approved that plan without providing a public comment process. From the LURC website:
"On June 2, 2009, the Land Use Regulation Commission held one day of further deliberations on Zoning Petition ZP 707. During these deliberations, the Commission determined whether the specific language changes to Plum Creek's Concept Plan proposal, developed by LURC staff and consultants at the Commission's direction and in light of comments received from members of the public, governmental review agencies, and parties to this proceeding, are acceptable." (Emphasis added.)
All of the documents related to the Plum Creek plan can be found on the
LURC website. I'll warn you, though- the concept plan itself is over 150MB in size; it's NOT light reading. The gist of the matter is that Plum Creek proposes to rezone approximately a million acres (which it purchased at $200 per acre) to allow the company to develop 975 house lots (which it will sell for approximately $200,000 per acre), over 5,000 acres of resorts and associated accommodations, gas stations, golf courses, and restaurants. (I'd like to note here that
none of Plum Creek's proposed development will take place on the 8,000 acres it owns within the town of Greenville.)
The article I referenced above notes that not everyone is happy with Justice Humphrey's decision. Even some environmental groups are disappointed because the vacation of Plum Creek's approval also vacates the nearly 400,000 acres of conservation easement agreements that went along with that approval. While I can understand that on a very basic level, I have to disagree with their view. Plum Creek's proposed conservation easements are no more conservative than the working forest that Plum Creek initially purchased; the easements retained Plum Creek's right to:
- Up to six commercial food and lodging facilities;
- Alternative energy generation (wind power);
- Septic field activities;
- Docks and piers;
- Telecommunications;
- Forest management and timber harvesting;
- Mining of sand, rock, and gravel; and
- Other easements as determined by Plum Creek and the easement holder.
(Source:
Natural Resources Council of Maine and Maine Audubon.)
I have no problem with these activities in a working forest; the part I have a problem with is that Plum Creek's plan essentially boils down to: "We want the state to let us build houses and resorts on more than 16,000 acres. In exchange, we'll keep doing what we've been doing on the rest of the land." To me, that doesn't sound like much of a compromise or a mutually-beneficial exchange, especially when I consider the fact that (1) Plum Creek has so far been fined nearly $60,000 for violations of Maine forest protection laws, and (2) Plum Creek will be paid nearly $35 million for the conservation agreement. Think about that:
in exchange for Plum Creek developing 16,000 acres, we're going to pay the company to continue business as usual on the remainder of its land, or else it will circumvent the rezoning process and develop its entire acreage piecemeal. That's not a conservation easement; that's extortion.
(Note, also, that Plum Creek pays no corporate income tax to the State of Maine.)
Sorry for the rant today. I could go on for days about why I disagree with Plum Creek's Moosehead development plan; it's one of the few items that I don't mind wading into the political area about. In the winter, I live in one of the fastest-growing areas of the country. Loudoun County, Virginia, was mostly farmland less than a decade ago. Now it's filled with these:
Mmmm... Nice, don't you think?
