Court Opinion

ID: 9704125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:23:14.071325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:57.466524
License: Public Domain

SAUFLEY, C.J.,
with whom LEVY, J., joins, dissenting.
[II26] I must respectfully dissent.
[¶ 27] Rezoning, with its inherent public airing and thorough review of the newly proposed uses, should be undertaken before Nestle is allowed to engage in the extraction and transportation of the Rangeley Lakes Region’s valuable water resources.
[¶ 28] Nestle proposes to withdraw millions of gallons of water from an aquifer in the region. Each day, up to one hundred trucks would transport 8,250 gallons each of water from the area. Nothing in the Land Use Regulation Commission’s existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan or in its Prospective Zoning Plan for the Range-ley Lakes Region explicitly contemplates, addresses, or permits such an extraction of the valuable water resource from the Rangeley Lakes Region. It is evident that this use was not anticipated by the Commission. Acknowledging the possibility that certain uses might not have been predicted, the Land Use Regulation Commission’s Prospective Zoning Plan for the Rangeley Lakes Region provides that LURC “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.” Me. Land Use Regulation Commission, Prospective Zoning Plan for the Rangeley Lakes Region 31 (2001).
[¶ 29] Thus, although I agree that we give great deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, see Wheaton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 2008 ME 48, ¶5, 943 A.2d 568, 570, I would conclude that, absent a properly executed, publicly vetted, change in zoning that alters the nature of the zone in which the proposed use is located, this type of enterprise is not permitted.
[¶ 30] More particularly, I cannot agree with the Court’s opinion that the application was properly approved under category 30 of the uses allowed with a permit in the general management subdis-trict (M-GN) because I would conclude that extracting and trucking millions of gallons of water per year is not “consistent with the purposes of this subdistrict and of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-53 § 10.22(A)(3)(c)(30) (2006). I would further conclude that this ongoing, substantial extraction and transportation of water does not fall within any of the uses permitted in a general management subdistrict pursuant to LURC’s Land Use Districts and Standards. Accordingly, I would vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and remand for the court to vacate LURC’s approval of Nestle’s application.
I. THE RANGELEY LAKES REGION
[¶ 31] The version of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in effect at the time of the appeal identified the Rangeley Lakes Region as an area of rapid growth requiring special planning. Me. Dep’t of Conservation, Land Use Regulation Commission, Comprehensive Land Use Plan 110 (1997 rev.). The growth in the region was attributed to residential and recreational development. Id. Because of the unique characteristics of the Rangeley Lakes Region, LURC amended the Comprehensive Plan, effective January 1, 2001, by adopt*231ing the Prospective Zoning Plan for the Rangeley Lakes Region. The Rangeley Plan focused on preserving the region’s natural resources for four-season recreation, forestry, and year-round development in a diversity of rural and developed settings. Me. Land Use Regulation Commission, Prospective Zoning Plan for the Rangeley Lakes Region i, 4 (2001). LURC acknowledged that, outside the Town of Rangeley, “[c]ommercial enterprises [we]re not extensive,” and identified as examples of commercial activities a ski area, a restaurant, a golf course, sporting camps, and cabin facilities. Id. at 8.
[¶ 32] The Rangeley Plan adopted certain new zones but did not make changes to the management zone in which the Nestle site is located. Id. at 19. Most critical to our analysis today, the plan explicitly acknowledged the possibility that uses might emerge that were not anticipated and provided that LURC could rezone areas in such circumstances. Id. at 14, 31. The general management subdistrict from which Nestle proposes to extract and transport millions of gallons of water has not been explicitly zoned for these activities, nor did Nestle seek rezoning.
[¶ 33] In examining the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Rangeley Plan, it is evident that neither of them explicitly approved or anticipated water extraction and transportation as a permitted use in the Rangeley Lakes Region despite the updating of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1997, the enactment of the Range-ley Plan in 2000, and the existence of substantial commercial water extraction activities in other areas in the state for many years.
[¶ 34] With this background in mind, I turn to the more specific question of whether, in the absence of rezoning, it is reasonable to interpret LURC’s Land Use Districts and Standards governing the general management subdistrict to allow the proposed resource extraction. See 4 C.M.R. 04 061 010-1 to -174 ch. 10 (2006-2007).
II. THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT SUBDISTRICT
[¶ 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 *232interpreted so broadly as to encompass the Nestle proposal.
A. Categories 6 and 29
[¶ 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.
B. Category 30
[¶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.
1. Consistency with the Purposes of the Subdistrict
[1Í 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 subdis-trict. 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 *233Rangeley 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 sub-district and that rezoning would be necessary to allow the proposed use.
2. Consistency with the Purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
[¶ 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 “[preserve, 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 sub-district 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 Range-ley 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 *234management 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.
III. CONCLUSION
[¶ 44] In my opinion, neither the Land Use Districts and Standards, the Comprehensive Plan, nor the Rangeley Plan currently permit Nestle to extract and transport millions of gallons of the Rangeley Lakes Region’s water resources each year. I would vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and remand the matter to the court for it to vacate the permit.