Opinion ID: 1978922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with the Purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Text: [¶ 41] In addition to its inconsistency with the subdistrict, the proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in effect at the time of the proceedings. The Comprehensive Plan identified the general management subdistrict as [c]over[ing] the residual of LURC jurisdiction, where forest and agricultural activities are allowed and encouraged without significant restriction. Me. Dep't of Conservation, Land Use Regulation Commission, Comprehensive Land Use Plan 6 (1997 rev.). The Comprehensive Plan also particularly identified the Rangeley Lakes Region as an area where haphazard growth could degrade the attractiveness of the region as a recreational center and damage the tourist-based economy. Id. at 119. Regarding water resources, the Comprehensive Plan announced a general goal to [p]reserve, protect and enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground waters. Id. at 138. The policies adopted in pursuit of that goal focused on preventing harm to natural habitats and recreational or aesthetic values, preventing construction in flood prone areas, and protecting bodies of water and ground water from pollution or other threats. Id. at 138-39. Nothing in the Comprehensive Plan demonstrated that LURC had anticipated the harvesting of millions of gallons of water for commercial sale as a potential use, least of all in the specially treated Rangeley Lakes Region. [¶ 42] Most compellingly, an examination of the Rangeley Plan, adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, demonstrates that this unanticipated proposed use in the general management subdistrict should not be permitted. The Rangeley Plan emphasized the importance of prospective planning. Me. Land Use Regulation Commission, Prospective Zoning Plan for the Rangeley Lakes Region 14 (2001). Accordingly, LURC adopted prospective planning principles that demanded adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and the Rangeley Plan itself: This prospective plan is guided by the following principles: 1. CONSISTENCY WITH CLUP. Be consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the Commission's Comprehensive Land Use Plan; .... 6. STICK TO THE PLAN. Make it more difficult to rezone areas outside of designated development zones unless extenuating circumstances, such as unforeseen public needs, emerge. Otherwise, this plan, and the effort that went into it will not be an effective investment. Id. The Rangeley Plan also relies on the zoning process, rather than the vague shoe-horning of activities into ill-fitting categories. Pursuant to the plan, [t]he Commission will rezone areas if a landowner can demonstrate that the Commission did not foresee the amount, type, or character of development needed in the area. Id. at 31 (emphasis added). [¶ 43] As these portions of the Rangeley Plan demonstrate, LURC's prospective plan for the Region did not contemplate the amount, type, or character of Nestle's proposed use of land in the general management district for substantial water harvesting. Id. Wisely acknowledging the possibility of unexpected circumstances, however, LURC expressly stated that rezoning  not granting permits by loose analogy to other approved uses  was the solution for an applicant when the Plan failed to contemplate the proposed use. I read the Rangeley Plan to require an application for a zone change  not a mere application for a permit  for Nestle to be able to use the land for its proposed intensive commercial use.