AUGUSTA – The public could get a chance to weigh in on Plum Creek’s controversial development plans for the Moosehead Lake region as early as this spring under an ambitious schedule approved Wednesday by state regulators.

On a divided vote, members of the Land Use Regulation Commission signed off on a tentative plan to hold the first day-long public comment session on Plum Creek’s development proposal on Saturday, May 19, in Greenville.

That hearing would kick off several weeks of “technical” sessions involving interested parties certified as intervenors. A second public comment session would then be held June 2 in either Bangor or the Augusta area, potentially followed by a third week of technical hearings.

LURC staff stressed repeatedly on Wednesday that the proposed schedule is tentative and could change significantly. The biggest factor, staff said, is Plum Creek Timber Co.’s compliance with deadlines LURC has set as it delves into the largest development proposal in Maine history.

“I do feel this is a reasonable timeframe to be proposing,” LURC director Catherine Carroll told the board. “After all, we have had the application since April of 2005, and we have been reviewing the proposal non-stop.”

Not everyone was happy with the timetable, however.

Two of the six commissioners in attendance sided with several environmental groups and voted against the schedule out of concern that the springtime hearings could exclude many of the Moosehead area’s seasonal residents. They urged the commission to hold public meetings in July or August.

“I agree this is a huge project, the biggest we have ever seen, and here we are pushing it through on what I think is a very accelerated schedule,” said commission member Gwendolyn Hilton.

Plum Creek is seeking LURC approval of a development plan that includes 975 house lots, two resorts and an affordable housing complex near Moosehead, Maine’s largest lake and the perceived gateway into the vast North Woods.

Public interest in Plum Creek’s plans for Moosehead have been extraordinarily high ever since the Seattle-based company submitted its first application to LURC in April 2005. An estimated 1,000 people attended four “scoping sessions” held by LURC that year.

Plum Creek officials claim their newly revised development plan, submitted in April 2006, addresses many of the concerns expressed at the scoping sessions. The company removed lots on remote ponds, relocated a proposed resort closer to Greenville and has offered to protect permanently more than 400,000 acres of forestland through easements and land sales to conservation groups.

But the company’s critics continue to describe the plan as “sprawling” development that will forever change the nature and character of the Moosehead region. The proposal has sparked intense debate over the future of Maine’s North Woods and its economically struggling communities.

Several LURC board members questioned whether two public comment sessions would be adequate given the crowds at the 2005 scoping sessions. Members also suggested LURC schedule comment sessions in southern Maine.

Carroll said the commission can always add public hearings, if necessary. Carroll also expressed optimism that the staff, intervening parties and the general public will have enough time to study the company’s plans, as long as Plum Creek meets its deadlines.

“It’s in no one’s interest to have a public hearing when we have incomplete information,” she said. “It would be a waste of time.”

A representative for Plum Creek, Ginger Davis, said she is confident that the company will submit the additional information that has been requested before the March 6 deadline.

But representatives of several groups likely to seek intervenor status – including Maine Audubon and the Natural Resources Council of Maine – urged the commissioners to move back the hearing dates until July at the earliest.

Attorney and former state lawmaker Harrison Richardson, speaking on behalf of both groups, said many seasonal residents do not arrive in the Moosehead area until June or July.

In addition, Richardson and other representatives of the organizations questioned whether 6 weeks was enough time for them to prepare responses to reports that Plum Creek submits in March.

“This enormously complex proposal involves tens of thousands of acres … in an area of enormous significance to the people of the state,” said Richardson, a former legislator. “I see no reason why there needs to be a hearing in May.”

But the board chairman, Bart Harvey, said no date will please everyone and that the commission must move forward with its review of Plum Creek’s plan, which is only one of several major issues pending before the board.

Harvey also pointed out that the public comment period will remain open for several weeks after the hearings.

“It’s an open process … and if it’s an important enough project for an individual, they will be here or they will submit written testimony,” Harvey said.

The commission voted 4-2 to approve the proposed schedule with Hilton and Rebecca Kurtz voting against the measure. Neither the commission nor staff predicted when a final decision might be handed down in the Plum Creek case.