Opinion ID: 1978922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the general management subdistrict

Text: [¶ 35] LURC created the general management subdistrict to permit forestry and agricultural management activities to occur with minimal interferences from unrelated development in areas where the Commission finds that the resource protection afforded by protection subdistricts is not required. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-51 § 10.22(A)(1) (2006). The regulations list thirty uses that a party may engage in with a permit from LURC. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-52 to -53 § 10.22(A)(3)(c) (2006). The regulations have never explicitly identified the substantial extraction and shipping of water for commercial purposes as an anticipated use. [¶ 36] Relevant to the present appeal are the following categories of permitted uses: (6) Filling and grading, which is not in conformance with the standards of Section 10.27, F and draining, dredging, and alteration of the water table or water level for other than mineral extraction; .... (29) Other structures, uses, or services that are essential to the uses listed in Section 10.22, A, 3, a through c; and (30) Other structures, uses, or services which the Commission determines are consistent with the purposes of this subdistrict and of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and are not detrimental to the resources or uses they protect. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-52 to -53 § 10.22(A)(3)(c) (2006). The question is whether any of these categories may be interpreted so broadly as to encompass the Nestle proposal.
[¶ 37] LURC's regulations, the Land Use Districts and Standards, contain a provision governing the general management subdistrict that allows, upon obtaining a permit, the draining, dredging, and alteration of the water table or water level for other than mineral extraction, 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-52 § 10.22(A)(3)(c)(6) (2006), and any use that is essential to that enterprise, 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-53 § 10.22(A)(3)(c)(29) (2006). These categories of permitted uses cannot be read to permit the sort of intense water harvesting that Nestle proposes. Extracting 184 million gallons of spring water per year cannot be regarded as a mere draining or alteration of the water table or water level. See 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-52 § 10.22(A)(3)(c)(6) (2006). Drainage or alteration of the water table or water level are uses associated with preparing land for construction and for development on the land; they are not uses that relate to the commercial bottling of water from an aquifer. Accordingly, I would conclude, as did the Superior Court, that Nestle's proposed use does not fall under either category 6 or the ancillary provision contained in category 29.
[¶ 38] The LURC regulations permit [o]ther ... uses ... which the Commission determines are consistent with the purposes of this subdistrict and of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and are not detrimental to the resources or uses they protect. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-53 § 10.22(A)(3)(c)(30) (2006). I would conclude that the Nestle plan fails to meet the requirements of consistency with the purposes of the subdistrict and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
[¶ 39] The explicitly identified purpose of the M-GN subdistrict is to permit forestry and agricultural management activities to occur with minimal interferences from unrelated development in areas where the Commission finds that the resource protection afforded by protection subdistricts is not required. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-51 § 10.22(A)(1) (2006). The extraction of millions of gallons of water from an aquifer for commercial water sales cannot reasonably be characterized as forestry or agricultural management. Further, it is not the sort of use identified in the regulations as producing only a minimal interference with forestry and agricultural management. The uses identified in the M-GN regulations include various recreational uses such as fishing, hiking, hunting, and camping; forest management; wildlife and fishery management; agricultural management; filling and grading; driveways associated with residences; parking areas; construction of storage structures for road maintenance, agricultural, and forestry equipment; sporting camps; campgrounds; family burying grounds; certain mineral exploration and extraction activities; maple sugar processing operations; sawmills and chipping mills; solid waste disposal facilities; and utility facilities, including service drops. 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-51 to -53 § 10.22(A)(3)(a)-(c) (2006). [¶ 40] Examining these uses, it is evident that the substantial water extraction proposed by Nestle was not contemplated as a use permitted in the M-GN subdistrict. The approved uses are either directly related to recreation, agriculture, or forestry, or they are approved to support those uses. Drawing millions of gallons of water per year from an aquifer in the Rangeley Lakes Region for commercial sale serves none of these central general management subdistrict goals. Rather than deeming the use consistent by drawing a vague analogy to agricultural and forestry uses, I would conclude that the proposed use is not consistent with the purposes of the general management subdistrict and that rezoning would be necessary to allow the proposed use.
[¶ 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.