Proposed Revisions to Chapter 1 and Chapter 10 Permit Fees

1. Proposed Revisions to Chapter 1 andChapter 10Permit Fees Maine Land Use Regulation Commission December 6, 2006

2. Administrative History October 4th - Presented to LURC Commission. Voted to initiate rulemaking. October 18th to November 17th - Posted for Public Comment. November 17th to November 29th � Revisions made based on comments received. November 29th � Mailed to Commission. December 6th � Staff Recommendation.

3. Key Changes in Proposal Fees specified for additional categories of applications as opposed to $50 (proposed $100) for �all other applications� Adding a sliding scale to the Base Fee of many activities/projects Based on footprint of structures, height of towers, length of road, acreage to be rezoned Creating additional fees Increasing fees for subdivisions, rezoning

4. Additional Categories Changes Home Occupation (previously development) Utility Facilities (previously development) Lines Towers Peat or Mineral Extraction These are presently a $50 fee Road Permit Land Management Roads (requiring a permit) Water Crossings Shoreland Alterations

5. Sliding Scale Foot Print Residential Structures $0.20 square foot Commercial Structures $0.40 square foot Length Utility Lines $0.10 per linear foot Roads varies Height Utility Towers $1.00 per foot

6. Comments ReceivedGeneral Comments Critical of Proposal There were several comments stating that LURC is already adequately funded to conduct its operations and that instead of permit fee increases that LURC should become more efficient as opposed to asking for more money to increase state government. Comments also stated that the fees should be reasonable and reflect applicant and public benefit. These fees were proposed to make the cost more reasonable and fair to both the applicants and non applicants in the jurisdiction. This brings the costs to both process applications and insure compliance are closer to the actual costs incurred. LURC have become as efficient as it can with its present staffing, especially based on a 25% reduction to Permitting & Compliance and the loss of promotional opportunities with those losses.

7. Comments ReceivedComparison to Towns Several comments were made that these fees are higher than fees in organized Towns adjacent to the jurisdiction and that they may in turn in follow our approach and increase their fees. There is a big difference between Towns and LURC. Towns and their CEO�s cover a much smaller area than LURC staff over mostly better road systems. Towns have more control over what becomes of their tax revenues as opposed to LURC and may decide to have everyone in the Town pay the cost of a CEO as opposed to the developers paying

8. Comments ReceivedSubdivision Fees There were comments received that the fees are too high and will stifle development and costs will be passed along to the eventual lot buyer and that the permit application will cost more than it does to prepare the plans. The trickle down cost to the lot buyer will be minimal and insignificant compared to the cost of an approved subdivision lot. ($270 compared to a lot selling for $20,000 or 1.35%). Small landowners can also create a small number of lots in ways to not require subdivision review. While this may be more than the cost to prepare the actual plans, there are many more items required to adequately review a subdivision proposal such as soils, water supply, subsurface wastewater, roadway & drainage design, phosphourous control, archaeological survey, etc. In some ways this may prevent poor developers/developments and In some ways this may prevent poor developers/developments and

9. Comments ReceivedDisturbed Areas It was noted in a few comments that an unintended consequence of the provision for assessing fees of $0.04 per square foot for disturbed areas would create exorbitant fees for gravel pits and other facilities. An example would be a 10 acre gravel pit requiring a fee of approximately $17,000. That issue has been corrected by removing the disturbed area fee and creating a category for gravel pits that involves a $200 base fee and a $100 per acre addition. A 10 acre gravel pit would now be $1200.

10. Comments ReceivedMaximum Fees Several comments were made regarding placing a maximum cap on the fees. Response: The proposed rule has now been changed to reflect maximum fees for the following permit applications: building permit applications $1000, development permit applications $5000, home occupation permit applications $1500, mineral or peat extraction permit applications $5000, utility permit applications $5000, level A road projects $1000, level B road projects $2500, level C road projects $5000, and land management road permit applications $1000.

11. Comments ReceivedLand Management Roads There were a few comments that the fees for Land Management Roads were too high and that in a few instances in the past 15 years some of those roads if using this proposal would have needed to pay fees of $3000 and $900. In most subdistricts Land Management Roads do not require a permit and therefore do not require any fee. A change has been made to the proposal that creates a maximum fee of $1000 for Land Management Roads. As shown by the comments, it is rare for Land Management Roads that require a permit application and fee.

12. Comments ReceivedPublic Hearings We received several comments with concerns regarding having the costs of public hearings paid for by the applicant. Concerns were stated that opponents may try to abuse the process and run up costs and LURC would lose control. The public hearing process would not be controlled by anyone but LURC. There are specific rules on when to hold a public hearing, and that is not proposed to change, only the payment of those hearings. LURC already does what it can to consolidate testimony and make hearings as efficient as possible by the use of pre-hearings, pre submitted testimony, and orders.

13. Comments ReceivedPublic Hearings (continued) As with the general reasoning for this proposal, for those applications requiring a public hearing, typically the smaller proposals will less costly based on the amount of time required for the hearing. Many Towns already require applicants to pay for their required hearing costs. The difference with LURC, which is also an important reason why it is costly for regular LURC review, is that the size of the jurisdiction requires greater costs due to travel and room rental costs as opposed to a Town.

14. Categories of Fees The following slides show the categories described at the October 4th meeting Additions are in italics while deletions have a strikethrough

15. Advisory Rulings No changes from October 4th proposal Currently $25 Proposed $100 Advisory Ruling (AR) requests require staff to review and draft responses to sometimes complicated requests regarding rule interpretation. All AR�s are reviewed and signed by management.

16. Building Permit Applications Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $75 Proposed $50 Base Fee plus $0.20 sq. ft. footprint plus $0.02 sq ft. disturbed area Maximum Fee $1000 A new house with a footprint of 1500 sq. ft. will have a fee of $350 An addition/expansion of 125 sq. ft. will cost $75 A footprint of 4750 sq. ft. and greater will cost $1000

17. Development Permit Applications Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $325 Proposed $250 Base Fee plus $0.40 sq. ft. footprint plus $0.04 sq ft. disturbed area Maximum Fee $5000 A new commercial activity with a footprint of 1500 sq. ft. will have a fee of $850 An addition/expansion of 187.5 sq. ft. will cost $325 A foot print of 11,875 sq. ft. and greater will have a fee of $5000

18. Home Occupation Permit Applications Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $325 Proposed $200 Base Fee plus $0.40 sq. ft. footprint plus $0.04 sq ft. disturbed area Maximum Fee $1500 A residence adding or converting to a home occupation activity with a footprint of 1000 sq. ft. will have a fee of $600 An addition/expansion or conversion of 312.5 sq. ft. will cost $325 An addition or conversion of 3250 sq. ft. or greater will cost $1500. Present rules set a practical maximum limit of $800 based on maximum allowed footprint of 1500 sq. ft.

19. Mineral or Peat Extraction Operations New Category based on comments Currently $325 Proposed $200 Base Fee plus $100 per acre disturbed area Maximum Fee $5000 These are now and would have been under a Development Permit Changes were based on unintended consequences pointed out in comments A 10 acre gravel pit or peat extraction will have a fee of $1200 A 48 acre and larger gravel pit or peat extraction will cost $5000

20. Utility Facilities Permit Applications(Lines or Towers/Structures) Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $325 Proposed $500 Base Fee plus $0.10 per linear foot of line plus $1.00 per foot of height plus $0.40 per sq. ft. structures Maximum Fee $5000 A utility line one mile long (5280 ft) will have a fee of $1028 A utility facility consisting of a tower 200� tall will have a fee of $700 A 45,000 foot long (8.52 miles) Utility Line will cost $5000

21. Road Permit Applications(Level A, B, and/or C) Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $50 Proposed $200 Base Fee plus $0.10 per linear foot (Level A) Maximum Fee $1000 $0.15 per linear foot (Level B) Maximum Fee $2500 $0.30 per linear foot (Level C) Maximum Fee $5000 A Road Project one mile long (5280 ft) will have a fee of: Level A, $728 An 8000 foot or greater road will cost $1000 Level B, $992 A 15,333 foot or greater road will cost $2500 Level C, $1784 A 16,000 foot road will cost $5000

22. Road Permit Applications(Land Management Roads) Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $50 Proposed $200 Base Fee plus $0.15 per linear foot Maximum Fee $1000 Land management roads require permits only in certain subdistricts A Land Management Road, the portions requiring a permit, consisting of a 1000� distance will have a fee of $350 A Land Management Road with 5333 feet or greater requiring a permit will cost $1000

23. Water Crossing Permit Applications No changes from October 4th proposal Currently $50 Proposed $250 Base Fee plus $2.00 per linear foot span length Water Crossings require permits only in certain subdistricts and for certain sized streams A water crossing consisting of a 10� span will have a fee of $270 A water crossing consisting of a 100� span will have a fee of $450

24. Shoreland Alterations Permit Applications No changes from October 4th proposal Currently $50 Proposed $100 Base Fee plus $0.40 per sq. ft. structure or disturbance Applies to structures or disturbances along shoreline or wetlands

25. Subdivision Permit Applications Change made after October 4th Meeting and prior to posting to Public Comment Currently $300 per lot Proposed $1500 Base Fee plus $1000 Base Fee plus $500 per lot created Certificates of Compliance per lot changes from $10 to $50

26. Rezoning Petitions No changes from October 4th proposal Change to a Protection District Currently $50 per lot Proposed $250 Includes Resource Plans but not Concept Plans Change to a Management District Currently $250 per lot Proposed $500

27. Rezoning PetitionsChange to a Development District (except D-PD) No changes from October 4th proposal Currently $500 per lot Proposed $1000 Base Fee plus $25 per acre of new or changed development district

28. Rezoning PetitionsChange to a D-PD Some changes from October 4th Proposal Currently $500 per lot Proposed $5000 Base Fee $0.40 sq. ft. footprint plus $0.04 sq ft. disturbed area Fee for Preliminary Plan $5000 Fee for Final Plan $0.40 per sq.ft.(footprint) structures

29. Rezoning PetitionsConcept Plans No changes from October 4th proposal Currently $500 per lot Proposed $5000 Base Fee plus $25 per acre of new or changed development district

30. Additional Fees No changes from October 4th proposal Permits by Special Exception $100 Commission Decisions $150 Public Hearings actual costs incurred

31. Other Changes General Provisions After-the-fact Fees apply to new, reconstructed structures disturbed areas Amendments are calculated using the same method as original permit Adding language referring to statutory language of extraordinary projects.

32. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that the Commission accept staff recommendation to provisionally adopt this rulemaking proposal pending Legislative approval.