Land-use rule bill worries - Farmington, Maine -- A proposed change to development rules by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is a significant concern for the chairman of Farmington's Planning Board. Towns and counties may find the DEP deciding where development should go. The proposed changes also would increase a development's buffer areas around sensitive land, add more requirements for subdivisions and give the DEP authority to approve or reject site contractors.

The proposed restrictions that would limit that type of development would allow no disturbance of slopes greater than 20 percent. Other proposed changes, he said, would limit road and driveway grades to 8 percent. "That is totally unrealistic in mountainous terrain," a spokesman Darryl Brown said.  "In nearly four decades as a land planner, never have I been more worried about the impact of a piece of legislation than I am now," Brown said.

Farmington's code enforcement officer, Steve Kaiser, agrees that the state planning process could use improvement -- such as getting towns more help with their comprehensive plans -"But making such substantial changes to such a long-standing law needs to be thoroughly vetted," Kaiser said. "I think Farmington will be in good shape because we have such good local control. This will be more of a problem in the smaller towns that have not enacted good ordinances."

Annexation angers residents - STOCKTON, CA - The San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission approved the city of Manteca's request to annex 107.5 acres of land. Because the annexation would have created an island pocket of unincorporated county land, the city's proposal included about 40 more acres because of state and local rules governing islands of unincorporated land.

One of about 20 residents opposing the annexation said residents should have had more of a say in the annexation which opens them up to be part of a redevelopment area and to have to abide by city, rather than county, codes and rules. "We have never had one issue with the county sticking their noses in where we live," she said.

Representatives of the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District spoke in protest, because the annexation reduces the area of the fire district, costing it about $1,400 in property-tax revenue. "Every penny counts right now," said Bennie Gatto, chairman of the district's Board of Directors. "Over the years, we've lost a great deal to the city of Manteca," he said. "The point is: Where will it stop?"

The Howell Times - Despite objections from neighboring residents, 31-acres of land, once known as the Cutler-Rubenstein egg farm, has been rezoned by the township to allow a land developer to construct of over 200 homes. Albert Hurley, of White Street, is concerned that the rezoning of the site is going to create a hardship on neighboring residents.  "Nobody in our neighborhood has been notified about this," he told the council. With the site being a predominantly rural area, Hurley is concerned the land and surrounding roadways wouldn't be able to handle the increased development.  David Spitzer, of White Street, agreed with his neighbors' concerns.  "As far as I'm concerned, it's an outrage," said Spitzer, who questioned Mayor Robert Walsh being involved in the decision to rezone the site since he runs a mortgage brokerage company, an accusation which Walsh strongly took issue with.

Grand Forks Herald - Rural residents continued their quest to repeal or minimize laws that allow cities to extend zoning ordinances beyond their boundaries as much as four miles. Opponents at two hearings said city officials unfairly slap restrictions on property rights by extending zoning laws into the countryside by as much as four miles, affecting people who have no vote in city elections. But city officials made the case for retaining control over subdivisions and construction near their edges that, if done poorly, can lead to problems when those areas are annexed at a later date.

Springfield Business Journal - The battle over private property rights versus eminent domain rages on in Missouri.  The Missouri Citizens for Property Rights opposes the use of eminent domain - through which the government can take private property for public use - to take  property for private development such as sub-developments, industrial zones and commercial enterprises. The State Constitutional amendments proposed by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights would prohibit use of eminent domain for private purposes; require that any taking of property be for public use and that the landowners receive just compensation. Opponents to the Citizens group noted that "without the use or the threat of eminent domain, we will never redevelop blighted areas." The definition of blighted areas would be determined by the government.
A spokesman went on to say, "Nobody likes to use eminent domain, but sometimes you have to do it to increase tax base and to rebuild areas." This statement reveals the underlying premise that increasing  tax base for the good of the public is of greater concern than individual property rights.
 

The Advocate - St. Landry Parish Council voted Wednesday night to introduce an ordinance eliminating the creation of unpaved roads in rural areas. The proposed ordinance states parish government will no longer allow the development of unpaved roads either inside or outside the jurisdiction of the subdivision ordinance. Developers could potentially create subdivisions that circumvent the hard surface ordinance by planning a development that is larger than lots with 3 acres. Last year’s ordinance mandates the use of hard-surfaced roads in all subdivisions with lots that are 3 acres or less. Council Spokesman said, "“We want to close all the possibilities of having a person develop land that have for instance, 20 lots that might be more than 3 acres in size. As it stands now, a person could create a subdivision that includes gravel roads if the lot-size is larger than is now allowed in the current ordinance.

Calgary Herald -  Environmental and social justice groups have joined agricultural groups and other landowners in opposing a proposed law that will bolster the government's ability to restrict development on land needed for future public projects. Opponents claim the proposed Land Assembly Project Area Act, removes the existing rights of landowners and the public to question the development of major infrastructure by criminalizing actions they may take to block the acquisition with a $100,000 fine and/or two years in jail.

“Essentially what this act does is create rights-free zones where the government has unprecedented power to expropriate land and landowners or citizens have even fewer avenues through which to speak out,” said Mike Hudema, leader of an opposition group. "The bill as currently written allows the government to take over control of your land for an indefinite period of time.” he said. “The bill says the government will register a “Control Order” against your land title and that is the end of the story.  Compensation for land use, restrictions on what land owners can do on their own property, and the fines and imprisonment a landowner can face for violating regulations are just some of the concerns we have regarding Bill 19.”