DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

An understandable conflict between the rights of develop-ers and those of citizens who oppose a development can soon be resolved by the Legislature – but not by the bill they currently have before them. That bill, LD 1481, takes the current unfairness toward developers and shifts the law to unfairly restrict citizens. Lawmakers must find a balance between the two and they have an amendment that would do it.

Currently, a developer must have substantially commenced a project – a bulldozer leveling ground, for instance – or a citizen’s petition can change an ordinance to stop the project. Projects that are well along on paper, those waiting for a spring start, others that are working out details or meeting environmental standards before beginning work are vulnerable to the uncertainty of this process, though few have been affected by it.

The remedy in the Legislature would prevent municipalities from changing land-use permits by repealing an ordinance 75 days after the permit had been issued. This measure goes too far because it requires protesting citizens to collect signatures for an ordinance-changing petition and towns to schedule a vote on the petition within that time, which is unlikely. Further, even if citizens got a petition in quickly, the bill could allow municipalities that support a particular development to delay a vote beyond the 75-day limit, leaving the public out of luck.

A compromise would give developers certainty and a reasonably swift process while the public had a fair chance to petition and know, if they are successful, a vote would follow. Rep. Sean Faircloth of Bangor has proposed such a system, in which petitioners would have 20 days after a permit is issued to file a challenge to the ordinance that allowed it. The petition’s signatures must be filed within 75 days of the permit being issued; a vote must be taken within 90 days if that time includes a regularly scheduled vote or 60 days if it does not.

For all the heat that has been generated over this issue – there has been plenty of it – this is a calm and balanced compromise that ensures both interests are able to meet their goals.

A further question within LD 1481 is over mandates – does requiring a municipality to hold an election it otherwise would not constitute a mandate and therefore require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature unless funded? Yes, it is a mandate but not an expensive one, perhaps in the tens of thousands of dollars annually. Lawmakers should fund it and settle the question.

Sen. Philip Bartlett of Gorham recently suggested going further, perhaps in the next session, by creating a model ordinance of the permitting process, start to finish, and letting municipalities adopt it if they chose. By creating a standard, lawmakers would provide both sides with a means to argue their positions, pushing local governments to consider the quality of their current rules. It sounds promising.

For now, it is in everyone’s interest – developers especially – to provide the public with a fair, regulated and time-limited way to register protest over a development. The compromise by Rep. Faircloth could give both sides a win.