Opinion ID: 2293877
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Future Amendment of Concept Plan Subject to Mutual Agreement by LURC and the Landowner

Text: [¶ 52] Forest Ecology Network argues that the concept plan provision that provides for the plan's amendment during its thirty-year term only by mutual agreement between LURC and Plum Creek, or its successor, is a thirty-year exemption from future rezoning and a form of contract zoning that is inconsistent with LURC's statutory authority. [¶ 53] When reviewing an agency's interpretation of a statute, we apply the analysis developed by the United States Supreme Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). As we discussed in Cobb v. Board of Counseling Professionals Licensure: If the statute is unambiguous, we do not defer to the agency's construction, but we interpret the statute according to its plain language. If the statute is ambiguous, we defer to the agency's interpretation, and we affirm the agency's interpretation unless it is unreasonable. 2006 ME 48, ¶ 13, 896 A.2d 271 (citations omitted) (noting that this standard is the same as the Chevron analysis). [¶ 54] Forest Ecology Network primarily contends that the concept plan conflicts with 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(9), which provides for review of district boundaries and land use standards every five years. This argument relies on an interpretation of LURC's statutory authority that is at odds with the unambiguous language of 12 M.R.S. § 685-A and 12 M.R.S. § 685-C (2011). Section 685-A(8-A)(A) provides that the amendment of a land use district boundary requires substantial evidence that the proposed land use district is consistent with ... the comprehensive land use plan, among other requirements. Section 685-C(1) directs LURC to create a comprehensive land use plan. [¶ 55] LURC's Comprehensive Land Use Plan not only provides for lake concept plans, but also specifically references the long-range and binding nature of those plans. Comprehensive Land Use Plan app. C, at C-7. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan notes that the goals of concept planning include the encouragement of long-range planning, the long-term protection of resources, and the increased predictability of the development review process. Id. at C-8. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan further provides that a time span for each plan will be established and that [t]en years will be the minimum period, but concept plans of less than twenty years duration will be discouraged if such plans propose significant deviations from existing standards. Id. It is thus clear from the plain language of section 685-A(8-A), which incorporates the Comprehensive Land Use Plan by reference, that LURC has the authority to create long-term, binding concept plans, as was done here. [¶ 56] Forest Ecology Network also contends that the concept plan is in conflict with section 685-A(9) because the concept plan does not permit LURC to unilaterally amend the land use district boundaries if, after the required review, LURC determines that an amendment is necessary. However, turning again to the plain meaning of the statutory language, nothing in section 685-A(9) indicates that LURC must be permitted to unilaterally amend a standard or district after a periodic review. The concept plan permits LURC to amend the plan with Plum Creek's consent, and the plan itself recognizes that it do[es] not purport to constrain future legislative activity. Reading section 685-A(9) as imposing a per se bar on concept plans with a duration of more than five years is in conflict with both the language and purpose of section 685-A(8-A)(A), as well as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.