AUGUSTA – Legislation that would overhaul Maine’s site-development regulations faced strong opposition from contractors and developers during a public hearing before the Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.

The bill, drafted by the Department of Environmental Protection, encourages concentrated growth, which opponents say would limit rural communities’ ability to develop.

Major stakeholders such as Darryl Brown, owner of Main-Land Development Consultants in Livermore Falls, felt left out of the department’s information gathering and decision-making process leading up to the drafting of the bill.

Brown said he volunteered time and resources to organize seven public forums in western Maine for bankers, developers, Realtors and town planners, none of whom had known about DEP’s suggested rule changes, to gain their perspective on the recommendations.

“My opposition is based on a lack of transparency, the major negative impact on rural Maine and the timing of the proposal,” said Brown, referring to the national recession.

John O’Dea of the Associated General Contractors of Maine said the bill would serve as a disincentive to developers at a time when Mainers need to work.

“Our existing site-development laws have been developed over a long time and they work,” he said. “Passage of a new site law would make each project going forward subject to a great deal of uncertainty and interpretation.”

O’Dea’s testimony highlighted the concern echoed by private landowners at the hearing.

“This bill would also dramatically increase the value of some properties and dramatically decrease the value of others,” he said. “This ‘regulatory roulette’ will harm owners of existing parcels that were previously developable, but which are not under this model.”

Other landowners may see their parcels skyrocket in value, causing a dramatic and unexpected increase in their property taxes, O’Dea said.

Andy Fisk of the DEP’s Bureau of Land and Water Quality defended the department’s recommendations while summarizing the changes.

“We want to make the permitting process more efficient,” he said. “We don’t want absolute control; we don’t want a one-size-fits-all process.”

The bill would draw development cues from comprehensive plans established by many municipalities, which according to Fisk, equate to local control.

Opponents said municipalities didn’t realize they were in effect zoning themselves when they put together their comprehensive plans. Worse still, they said, communities that lack comprehensive plans would be left out of future development discussions.

“(This bill) forces small communities to either open up the expensive and time-consuming comprehensive planning process during hard economic times, or miss opportunities,” said Gordon Gamble of Roxbury.

Groups supporting the measure included the Maine Association of Planners and the Maine Audubon Society, both of whom said urban sprawl should be avoided.

Jeff Austin of the Maine Municipal Association, which testified against the bill, said sprawl isn’t a problem in Maine.

“Growth isn’t the challenge; it’s the loss of citizens and the loss of jobs that’s the crisis,” he said. “The question facing municipalities now is how do we attract more, not how do we manage growth.”

Also testifying against the bill were Reps. Gary Knight, R-Livermore Falls, and Tom Saviello, U-Wilton, though Saviello was a co-sponsor of the legislation.

For more information on the DEP’s proposed site-law changes, visit http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/sitelawpage.htm.

Copy the Story Link