Four-year Growth Management Program Evaluation · 2013-12-03 · estimated that 70% of growth in...

Submitted by: Maine State Planning Office in accordance with 30-A MRSA §4331

February 2007

A Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Four-year Growth Management Program Evaluation

In the 1988 Growth Management Act, the

Legislature envisioned a broad strategy for

protecting Maine’s natural resources with an

emphasis on orderly growth and development.

It created a framework for land use planning

to protect Maine’s rural character, make

efficient use of public services, and prevent

sprawl. Land use planning was and continues

to be voluntary in Maine. So, the Legislature

also created a local assistance program at the

state level to help communities develop

comprehensive plans and land use ordinances

and to review these plans and ordinances for

consistency with the Act.

In 1995, the program was transferred to the

State Planning Office to administer. SPO’s

Introduction

1988

Growth Management

Act hailed as a major

reform to land use laws;

state grants & technical

assistance as incentives

1992

Act now largely volun-

tary; reduced state grants

and assistance

1995

Program moved to State

Planning Office with a

new focus on smart

growth

2006-2007

State Planning Office

overhauls program;

streamlines and refocuses

comprehensive planning

process

focus was on preventing sprawl, with some

notable successes such as characterizing and

building state support for service center

communities and working with the Legisla-

ture to create the Community Preservation

Advisory Committee and enact Maine’s smart

growth legislation. Key pieces of that legisla-

tion direct state growth-related capital invest-

ments into locally-designated growth areas and

require state agencies to establish preferences

in grant and investment programs to help

prevent sprawl.

Another program emphasis was emboldening

local comprehensive plans to direct growth

into locally-designated growth areas. However,

questions about the achievability of this

The Brookings Institution in its report

Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Pros-perity and Quality Places (released in

2006) declares that Maine has livable

communities, stunning scenery, and

great recreational opportunities. But,

they say, sprawl and suburbanization are

damaging its scenic beauty, the feel of its

towns, and its quality of place. Indeed,

in 2006 the State Planning Office

estimated that 70% of growth in Maine

occurs in rural areas, places residents say

they want to protect. This growth is not

just in southern Maine: Brookings found

that every county had a net gain of peo-

ple from out-of-state between 2000-2004.


What’s next?

Brookings hails Maine’s

quality of place and the

need to preserve it

growth initiative. The 2003 evaluation

called for additional reforms to prevent

sprawl, including addressing growth on a

regional basis and making public invest-

ments to support carefully planned

growth. As we prepare this report, the

State Planning Office is again calling for

regional approaches to land use planning

and for more efficient investment in state

and local infrastructure.

approach led, in part, to the office’s current

efforts to revise the way it reviews local plans.

Today, as a result of a legislatively-directed

review, the office is overhauling the way it

reviews local comprehensive plans for consis-

tency with state law with an eye toward, over

time, getting out of the review of local com-

prehensive plans and approaching land use

planning on a regional scale.

The State Planning Office is

overhauling the state compre-

hensive plan review process.

History of Program

Machias Lodge Lighthouse

Today, according to Brookings, we are

on the point of “sustainable prosperity.”

Our land use choices and the tools used

to manage growth are an important part

of meeting the challenge ahead.

This report provides the four-year

program evaluation required in the

Growth Management Act (30-A MRSA

§4331). It looks at public input received,

evaluation criteria, and program

resources. It also summarizes the recom-

mendations that arose from the State

Planning Office’s 2006 review (PL 2004,

Resolve 73) of comprehensive planning

and the steps to implement them.

The first report under this law, in 1999,

laid the foundation for the state’s smart

1. To promote the maintenance, development, and revitalization of the State’s ports

and harbors for fishing, transportation, and recreation;

2. To manage the marine environment and its related resources to preserve and improve the

ecological integrity and diversity of marine communities and habitats, to expand our un-

derstanding of the productivity of the Gulf of Maine and coastal waters, and to enhance

the economic value of the State's renewable marine resources;

3. To support shoreline development that gives preference to water-dependent uses over other uses, that promotes public access to the shoreline,

and that considers the cumulative effects of development on coastal resources;

4. To discourage growth and new development in coastal areas where, because of coastal storms, flooding, landslides, or sea-level rise, it is hazard-

ous to human health and safety;

5. To encourage and support cooperative state and municipal management of coastal resources;

6. To protect and manage critical habitats and natural areas of state and national significance, and to maintain the scenic beauty and character of

the coast, even in areas where development occurs;

7. To expand the opportunities for outdoor recreation, and to encourage appropriate coastal tourist activities and development;

8. To restore and maintain the quality of our fresh, marine, and estuarine waters to allow far the broadest possible diversity of public and private

uses; and

9. To restore and maintain coastal air quality to protect the health of citizens and visitors, and to protect enjoyment of the natural beauty and maritime character of the Maine coast.

State Coastal Policies

State Goals

A. To encourage orderly growth and development in appropriate areas of each community

and region while protecting the State's rural character, making efficient use of public ser-vices, and preventing development sprawl;

B. To plan for, finance, and develop an efficient system of public facilities and services to accommodate anticipated growth and economic development;

C. To promote an economic climate which increases job opportunities and overall economic well-being;

D. To encourage and promote affordable, decent housing opportunities for all Maine citizens;

E. To protect the quality and manage the quantity of the State's water resources, including lakes, aquifers, great ponds, estuaries, rivers, and coastal areas;

F. To protect the State's other critical natural resources, including without limitation, wetlands, wildlife and fisheries habitat, sand dunes, shore-lands, scenic vistas, and unique natural areas;

G. To protect the State's marine resources industry, ports, and harbors from incompatible development and to promote access to the shore for commercial fishermen and the public;

H. To safeguard the State's agricultural and forest resources from development which threatens those resources;

I. To preserve the State's historic and archeological resources; and

J. To promote and protect the availability of outdoor recreation opportunities for all Maine citizens, including access to surface waters.


In addition to the state goals, nine

coastal policies are legislated to guide

development in coastal communities.

(38 MRSA §1801)

The Growth Management Act

includes ten state goals “to provide

overall direction and consistency to

the planning and regulatory actions of

all state and municipal agencies affect-

ing natural resource management,

land use, and development.” (30-A

MRSA §4312)

services and putting pressure on property

taxes. Communities were dissatisfied with

the state review of comprehensive plans.

Our town-by-town approach to managing

growth has not been effective.

In recognition of the challenges facing the

program, Resolve 2004, Chapter 73 directed

SPO to review the Growth Management Act

and related procedures and to report to the

Joint Standing Committee on Natural

Re- sources .

The Resolve asked SPO to:

1. Review and make recommendations that

would improve the planning process;

and

2. Review the Growth Management Act and

make recommendations that would lead

to more effective land use.

In 2006, the Legislature’s Natural Resources

Committee accepted SPO’s recommenda-

tions that envision a new approach to land

use planning in Maine and directed SPO to

move forward on their implementation.

Following on page 5 is an update on the

status of the review recommendations; many

of these recommendations are related to this

four-year program evaluation as well.

There have been a number of successes on

the 2003 evaluation recommendations

including the legislative enactment of

Municipal Revenue Sharing II that provides

resources to service centers; Gateway 1, a

MaineDOT project that links transportation

investment to local comprehensive plans in

21 towns; and a process put in place that

gives priority to in-town school locations.

Other items have proven challenging

because of fiscal and/or political constraints.

Between 2003 and 2005, development

growth continued, demanding municipal

The previous program evaluation was sub-

mitted to the Legislature in February 2003

and contained four “key findings”:

1. No one entity can achieve the state goals expressed in the Act.

2. Sprawl is not linear, but requires a

systems-approach to address.

3. We lack data to measure success.

4. Resources are stretched for state agen-

cies, regional planning organizations,

and state grants and technical assistance.

It also identified nine action items:

1. Support smart growth forums such as the Community Preservation Advisory Committee and others;

2. Evaluate tax reform options to relieve service centers;

3. Coordinate planning and investment to make service centers attractive;

4. Work with MaineDOT to plan transpor-tation infrastructure investment in a way that minimizes sprawl;

5. Optimize school construction funds in a way that supports community preserva-

tion;

6. Focus environmental regulation so that it does not have the unintended result of driving development outward;

7. Provide traditional, compact housing choices;

8. Build capacity to measure outcomes of smart growth efforts; and

9. Set priorities for SPO’s limited resources.

These action items were intended to guide

SPO for the four-year period leading up to

2007.

2003 Program Evaluation

Since 2003…


Downtown Bath

“We have to figure out how to make the

comprehensive planning process work more

effectively, bring people together, and have

it be meaningful when implemented.”

—Selectman, focus group participant, 2005

2006 Review—Status of Recommendations

Enhance local planning

⇒ Focus consistency review on Future Land Use Plan chapters, and provide clear

state policy guidelines for Future Land Use Plans. Accomplish through rule-

making. Status: Underway, and anticipated to be completed spring 2007.

⇒ Provide towns and regional agencies with better tools, data, and assistance.

Accomplish through ramping up planning tools for communities; working with

state agencies to provide data to communities, and fostering regional data

collection. Status: Underway; some of these elements are incorporated in the rule-making

process. Anticipate enhanced effort once rule-making is complete.

⇒ Track growth and monitor progress. Accomplish through pilot study of

implementation of local comprehensive plans, and through using utility data to

track growth patterns. Status: Underway; pilot study has begun and mechanisms for

reviewing utility data are being explored.

Shift State Focus to Issues of Regional and Statewide Significance

⇒ Improve state level planning and coordination of state investments. Accomplish

through working with state agencies to create strategies for coordination of invest-

ments. Status: Various efforts underway, such as coordinating with MaineDOT on

revisions to Sensible Transportation Policy Act, and research into state grant and loan

preferences for towns with consistent comprehensive plans.

⇒ Engage the public in two pilot regional development projects. Accomplish

through selection of appropriate regions and implementing projects. Status: Under-

way; exploring funding sources for pilots; conference on regionalization proposed for fall

2007.

⇒ Address how state reviews large capital projects with regional impacts.

Accomplish by working with DEP on site review laws in context of regional im-

pacts and Growth Management Act. Status: Underway by DEP; interagency working

group, bill submitted to 123rd Legislature.

⇒ Create an affordable housing study group. Accomplish through convening group

to develop proposal. Status: Underway; MSHA has developed proposal to encourage

affordable housing in service center communities. Three other affordable housing groups are

working on additional proposals.

Maine’s historic development patterns are

anticipated to change in the 21st century. The primary emphasis in Resolve 73 was to improve the process of planning and the

way growth and development occur in Maine. The review resulted in specific

recommendations to improve the administration of the program in two main areas:

enhancing local planning, and shifting state focus to issues of regional and statewide

significance.

The Natural Resources Committee accepted the 2006 review rec-ommendations and directed the State Planning Office to move forward on their implementation.


Public Participation

Public summit, Orono, 2005

Commission, regional planning coun-

cils, and the state’s natural resource

agencies.

⇒ Held five public meetings around the

state (Houlton, Waterville, Augusta,

and Saco), plus three video confer-

encing sites in Machais, Presque Isle,

and North Berwick

⇒ Developed a web site to post draft materials for review and comment

⇒ Considered hundreds of public com-ments.

Along the way, the Community Preserva-

tion Advisory Committee provided guid-

ance and direction.

The Legislature’s Natural Resources Com-

mittee has provided oversight throughout.

2007 Evaluation

The Growth Management Act requires an evaluation every four years to

determine how well state, regional, and local efforts are achieving the

purposes and goals of the Act (30-A MRSA §4331). It requires public

input opportunities and, unlike the recent comprehensive planning

review, the program evaluation calls specifically for objective, quantifi-

able criteria to evaluate the program. It also requires that the evaluation

analyze the state’s financial commitment to growth management. Three

criteria are used in this evaluation:

1. Development tracking;

2. Local planning activity; and

3. State financial commitment for the growth management program.

The Legislature also directs SPO to compare land use development

trends and patterns in a sample of towns that have participated in the

program with a matched sample that have not. In 2005, SPO success-

fully competed nationally for a 2-year federally-funded coastal fellow

who will, for the first time, be able to provide this comparison.

As discussed in the following sections, these criteria provide an evalua-

tion of the growth management program.

“Thanks to the State for providing the

video conferencing format. It makes us

feel part of the decision-making.”

—Participant from Machias

public meeting, 2006

30-A MRSA §4331, the law under which

this report is prepared, requires SPO to

seek public input in its evaluation of the

growth management program. Over the

course of the last two and a half years,

SPO has:

⇒ Hosted a 2-day public summit at the University of Maine for 100 people

⇒ Conducted five focus groups repre-

senting different sectors (developers,

environmental advocates, municipal

officials of differing size towns)

⇒ Conducted 20 in-depth interviews of

professional planners

⇒ Met with interested groups includ-

ing: Maine Municipal Association,

Intergovernmental Advisory


Bethel

2007 Evaluation Criterion: Development Tracking

SPO has moved forward on efforts to

track development, and work is ongoing

to create a more systematic way to meas-

ure growth:

⇒ Development of “Livable Commu-

nity Indicators” to track on-the-

ground outcomes of growth man-

agement (2002);

⇒ Mapping growth areas using

geographic information systems

(GIS) technology (completed in

Cumberland County and under-

way in several other areas);

⇒ Organization of a Development

Tracking Steering Committee,

which piloted the use of utility

connections as a measure of growth

(see sidebar at right); and

⇒ Incorporating a development track-

ing component into comprehensive

planning to evaluate the effective-

ness of community planning efforts

(proposed January, 2007).


Tracking development through utility connections

Many GIS-based mapping measures

exist to potentially track develop-

ment, but are often expensive and

time-consuming to develop. Locations

of utility connections provide data

that are readily available, relatively

simple to present, and, combined

with aerial photography as shown in

the images to the right, can be used

to evaluate growth patterns in a com-

munity.

The Development Tracking Commit-

tee worked with Maine utilities to

obtain such data on a pilot basis,

and SPO is considering next steps to

use this data in a more comprehen-

sive fashion. (Source: Rich Sutton, Applied Geographics)

2007 Evaluation Criterion: Comparison of Sample Communities

In 2006, SPO received funding for a

National Oceanographic and Atmos-

pheric Administration (NOAA) Fellow

for a two-year position to conduct more

rigorous research on the impact of land

use planning in coastal Maine communi-

ties. The project will study the

implementation of local comprehensive

plans in a sample of Maine communities

via case studies, interviews, and surveys

to determine what impacts land use

planning has had “on the ground.”

The project began in the fall of 2006

and is due for completion in 2008. To

date, research has begun and contacts

with coastal communities have been

initiated. Fourteen communities have

been selected for the study:

Rockland

• Belfast

• Rockport

• Winter Harbor

• Bucksport

• Roque Bluffs

• Steuben

• Damariscotta

• Waldoboro

• Wells

• Saco

• Woolwich

• Brunswick

• Harpswell

• Yarmouth

Commercial electrical customers, 1990

Commercial electrical customers, 2004

Four-year Growth Management Program Evaluation Page 8

State Planning Office Page 8

2007 Evaluation Criterion: Local Planning Activity

Allagash

Matinicus Isle Plt

Vinalhaven

Harpswell

York

Isle Au Haut

Ellswor th

Cutler

Lincoln

Ashland

Caribou

Standish

Weld

Bethel

Frenchboro

Sain t

Geo

rge

Jay

Turner

Auburn

NewryJonesport

Wells

China

Rumford

Bristol

Kittery

Bridgton

Lakevil le

Fryeburg

Byron

Waldoboro

Peru

Fort Fairfield

Addison

Presque Isle

Shirley

Gray

Danforth

T3 ND09801

Beals

Augusta

Reed Plt

AndoverOrland

Lovell

Lee

Winn

Belgrade

Fairfield

AnsonPhillips

Jefferson

Blue Hill

Lebanon

Whiting

Madison

Wesley

Alton

Waite

Topsfield

Bradley

Poland

Avon

Caratunk

Unity

Warren

Gorham

Fort Kent

Paris

Rangeley Milford

Geo

rget

own

Sidney

Sebago

Leeds

Amity

Monson

Burlington

Waterboro

Sanford

Do ver -Fo xcroft

Acton

Clinton

Norway

Wilton

UptonSkowhegan

Saco

Solon

Chester

Bucksport

Milbrid ge

Eustis

Waterford

Troy

Surry

Moscow

Pittsfield

Athens

Milo

Denmark

Parsonsfield

T3 R9 NWP

Linneus

Oxford

Windham

Riley Twp

Farmington

Albion

Sumner

Lowell

Lyman

T2 R9 NWP

Lagrange

Hiram

Hartford

Madawaska

Buxton

Otisfield

Carrabassett Valley

Old Town

Pa rkman

Dixfield

Crystal

Orient

Roxbury

Sebec

Dedham

Medford

Exeter

Embden

Aurora

Merril l

Codyville Plt

Wade

Casco

Mariaville

Patten

Palermo

Canaan

Corinth

Caswell

Medway

Hersey

Steuben

Whitefield

Oqiton Twp

Cy r Plt

Big Ten Twp

Bowdoin

Easton

Weston

Grafton Twp

Abbot

Hartland

Kingfield

Calais

Northfield

Albany Twp

T32 MD

Dexter

Brunswick

Clifton

Palmy ra

Montville

Hudson

Winter Harbor

Willimantic

Raymond

Greenville

T10 SD

Union

Holl is

Monroe

Bancroft

Vassalboro

Alexander

Naples

Corinna

Jackman

Osborn

Bradford

T39 MD

Carroll Plt

Sakom Twp

Limington

Otis

Durham

T40 MD

Cornville

Brownfield

Bowerbank

Greenbush

Carmel

Perry

Woodstock

T6 ND BPP

Woodvil le

Brownville

Kossuth Twp

Littleton

Amherst

T35 MD

T41 MD

T22 MD

Burnham

Litchfield

Big Twenty Twp

Berwick

T16 MD

Winslow

Princeton

Garland

Dre w Plt

Sherman

Temple

Porter

Stetson

Cherryfield

Franklin

Harmony

Atkinson

Houlton

Deblois

Westfield

Hodgdon

Kibby Twp

Rome

Masardis

T34 MD

Baileyv il le

Perham

Saint John Plt

Norridgewock

T28 MD

Hermon

Baldwin

Enfield

MagallowayPlt

Guilford

Greene

Shapleigh

Tremont

Minot

New Sharon

Saint Albans

Knox

Star ks

Bangor

Newport

Rangeley Plt

Bar Harbor

Winthrop

Dixmont

SmyrnaMoro Plt

Harrison

Windsor

Oak field

Elliottsville Twp

Buckfield

Greenwood

Big Six Twp

Livermore

Howland

Holden

Pittston

Wellington

Township C

T13 R16WELS

Hampden

West Forks Plt

Cooper

Edinburg

Madrid Twp

Haynesville

Monmouth

Lewiston

Freeport

Bingham

No 21 Twp

No 14 Twp

Lincolnv ille

Fayette

Levant

Searsmont

Alfred

Newfield

Dyer Twp

Eagle Lake

Etna

Canton

Woolwich

Strong

Castle Hill

Appleton

Mount Vernon

Charlotte

Jon esboro

T16 R14 WELS

Bento n

Waltham

Washington

Liberty

Industry

Carthage

Winterport

Stow

Grand Is le

The Forks Plt

Long A Twp

Topsham

Chestervil le

Stoneham

T18 R10 WELS Van Buren

Sweden

Mercer

MiseryTwp

LobsterTwp

Hope

T27 ED BPP

East Machia s

Readfield

Portland

Sullivan

Ripley

Oakland

Wayne

Limerick

Vienna

Alna

North Ber wick

Biddeford

Brooks

Falmouth

Newburgh

Lily BayTwp

Glenburn

Long Island

Saint Agatha

Eliot

Searsport

Lisbon

New

cast

le

New Viney ar d

Hamlin

Mexico

Beaver Cove21037

E Twp

Arundel

Orrington

Arg yle Twp

Fowler Twp

Hebron

Ludlow

Township E

Frankfort

Edding ton

Cornish

South B er w

i ck

Detroit

Orono

Gilead

Waldo

Cumberland

Rockport

Blaine

Dresden

Som

ervi

lle

Morril l

Chelsea

Cary P lt

Maxfield

Ma n

c he s

t er

Tren

ton

T8 SD

Wes

t bro

ok

Whit neyville

Deer Isle

Isle

sbor

o

Swans Island

NorthHaven

Is lan

ds o

f

Moos e

head

Lake

Lubec

Boothbay

Lake View Plt

Belfast

Gouldsboro

Dallas Plt

TB R11 WELS

Forest Twp29805

Stacyville

Scarborough

Holeb Twp

Limestone

Crawford

Penobscot

Talmadge

Phip

psbu

rg

Attean Twp

Chapman

T3 R1 NBPP

Seboeis Plt

Charleston

Hammond

Wallagrass

Kingsbury Plt

Monticello

Marion Twp

Mars Hill

Columbia

Oxbow Plt

Island Falls

Sangerville

Highland Plt

Eastbrook

Springfield

Mayfield Twp

New Por tland

Great Pond

Criehaven Twp

Machiasport

Lincoln Plt

T11 R17WELS Garfield Plt

Brighton Plt

Mapleton

Dyer Brook

Lang Twp

T4 R9 NWP

New Gloucester

T3 R4 WELS

Moose River

Connor Twp

Blanchard Twp

Woodland

Beddington

T2 R8 WELS

Skinner Twp

Bridgewater

CranberryIs les

Washburn

T3 R7 WELS

Davis Twp

T4 R11 WELS

Comstock Twp

T19 R11WELS

Brassua Twp

T4 R7 WELS

T2 R4 WELS

T37 MD BPP

T4 R14 WELS

T1 R5 WELS

Indian Twp Res

T14 R5 WELS

T4 R3 WELS

Coplin PltSummit Twp

T11 R7 WELS

T16 R5 WELS

Webster Plt

T1 R6 WELS

Squapan Twp

Kennebunk

T4 R12 WELS

T15 R5 WELS

T31 MD BPP

Stockholm

Tim Pond Twp

Dudley Twp

T24 MD BPP

T19 ED BPP

T19 R12 WELS

T10 R3 WELS

T7 R9 WELS

Glenwood Plt

T8 R9 WELS

Plymouth Twp

T11 R4 WELS

T3 R8 WELS

T5 R7 WELS

Forsyth Twp

T5 R9 WELS T5 R8 WELS

T4 R13 WELS

T18 ED BPP

RedingtonTwp

T4 R9 WELS

LynchtownTwp

T30 MD BPP

T4 R8 WELS

T7 R5 WELS

T9 R5 WELS

Long PondTwp

TC R2 WELS

T13 R5 WELS

T9 R4 WELS

ShawtownTwp

T36 MD BPP

Plymouth

Centerville Twp

T14 R7 WELS

T43 MD BPP

Wintervil le Plt

Lexington Twp

T9 R3 WELS

T7 R9 NWP

Rainbow Twp

Dead River Twp

TD R2 WELS

T8 R6 WELS

T3 R3 WELS

T7 R11 WELS

Brookton Twp

T8 R10 WELS

T7 R8 WELS

T42 MD BPP

T7 R10 WELS

T8 R5 WELST8 R8 WELS

T7 R14 WELS

Orneville Twp

T7 R6 WELS

Cross Lake Twp

Mount Chase

T7 R7 WELST7 R19 WELS

T8 R7 WELS

Concord Twp

T6 R11 WELS

T9 R7 WELS

Nashville Plt

T6 R10 WELS

T8 R11 WELS

T4 R10 WELS

T10 R7 WELS

T9 R16 WELS

Dennistown Plt

T8 R3 NBPP

T9 R9 WELS

T7 R15 WELS

T25 MD BPP

T6 R15 WELS

T6 R1 NBPP

Molunkus Twp

T9 R8 WELS

Edmunds Twp

T7 R13 WELS

T9 R10 WELS

New Canada

T7 R16 WELS

TA R11WELS

Brooksville

T7 R18 WELS

T5 R11 WELS

T12 R7 WELS

T8 R14 WELS

T9 R17 WELS

Jim Pond Twp

Richmond

T3 R13 WELS

T6 R14 WELS

T7 R12 WELS

Harring ton


T11 R9 WELS

T8 R3 WELS

T16 R9 WELS

T4 R17 WELS

T1 R11 WELS


T10 R9 WELS

T7 R17 WELS

T9 R15 WELS

T10 R10WELS

T1 R9 WELS

T8 R15 WELS

T11 R10WELS

T6 R7 WELS

T9 R11 WELS

Monhegan Island Plt

T3 R10 WELS

T6 R17 WELS

T11 R8 WELS

Westmanland

T5 R14 WELS

T16 R8 WELS

T9 R13 WELS

Seboomook Twp

Stonington

T18 MD BPP

T5 R12 WELS

Saint Croix Twp

HerseytownTwp

T6 R8 WELS

T10 R6 WELS

Pierce PondTwp

StetsontownTwp

T13 R8 WELS

T10 R8 WELS

Mount Desert

T12 R9 WELS

T9 R14 WELS

T8 R17 WELS

T6 R13 WELS

Dole BrookTwp

T14 R8 WELS

T2 R12 WELS

T3 R12 WELS

T13 R7 WELS

TA R10WELS

Mattawamkeag

T12 R8 WELS

RichardsontownTwp

T14 R6 WELS

T7 SD

T6 R6 WELS

T14 R9 WELS

T1 R12 WELS

East Moxie Twp

Saint JohnTwp

Sabattus

Oxbow Twp

T12 R10WELS

T13 R9 WELS

GreenfieldTwp

New Sweden

Devereaux Twp

Township D

T2 R13WELS

T1 R10 WELS

Grand FallsTwp

T16 R4WELS

T10 R11WELS

T9 R12 WELS

T17 R4WELS

Portage Lake

T12 R17WELS

Hammond Twp

T5 R15 WELS

T14 R10WELS

T13 R10WELS

Trout BrookTwp

Eagle LakeTwp

T11 R11WELS

Flagstaff Twp

T15 R9 WELS

Grindstone TwpThorndikeTwp

T15 R6WELS

Jackson

T5 R17 WELS

T13 R11WELS

T12 R11WELS

T11 R13WELS

T14 R11WELS

T5 R18 WELS

LowelltownTwp

T4 R15 WELS

T11 R12WELS

T15 R8 WELS

T1 R13WELS

T18 R11WELS

T16 R6WELS

T3 R5BKP WKR

WebbertownTwp

T15 R10WELS

T11 R16WELS

Sedgwick

AdamstownTwp

T10 R16WELS

T11 R15WELS

T10 R13WELS

Freeman Twp

T14 R13WELS

T12 R12WELS

T13 R15WELS

T11 R14WELS

T12 R13WELS

T13 R14WELS

T15 R11WELS

T13 R13WELS

T10 R12WELS

T17 R3WELS

Frenchville

T10 R15WELS

T12 R15WELS

T17 R13WELS

T18 R12WELS

T15 R13WELS

T2 R10 WELS

T13 R12WELS

T3 R11 WELS

T17 R12WELS

T12 R14WELS

ParkertownTwp

Grand LakeStream

Plt

T16 R13WELS

EbeemeeTwp

T12 R16WELS

T15 R14WELST15 R15 WELS

T10 R14WELS

SquaretownTwp

T14 R12WELS

T14 R14WELS

T16 R12WELS

Pembroke

Robbinston

Bowdoinham

Pownal

Chain of PondsTwp

T14 R15WELS

T2 R8 NWP

FrenchtownTwp

T15 R12WELS

Sandy RiverPlt

Brooklin

T5 R20WELS

Chase StreamTwp

Alder StreamTwp

Big MooseTwp

HobbstownTwp

Seven PondsTwp

T3 R4BKP WKR

ChesuncookTwp

Mus

cle

Rid

ge

Shoa

ls T

wp

Saint Francis

Lambert Lake Twp

Alder BrookTwp

King & BartlettTwp

T5 R6BKP WKR

Thorndike

T18 R13WELS

Northport

Spencer BayTwp

UpperCupsuptic

Twp

Smithfield

Pittston AcademyGrant

ForkstownTwp

T26 ED BPP

SaplingTwp

T8 R4 NBPP

Baring Plt

T1 R8 WELS

Wiscasset

Russell PondTwp

NesourdnahunkTwp

TomheganTwp

NortheastCarryTwp

Hancock

Cape Elizabeth

Macwahoc Plt

Tresc ott Twp

ParmacheneeTwp

Freedom

Southport

T4Indian Purchase

Twp

BowmantownTwp

West Paris

MountKatahdin

Twp

Township 6North of Weld

BowtownTwp

TB R10 WELS

SoperMountain

Twp

Sandy BayTwp

UpperEnchanted

Twp

Bald Mountain Twp

T2 R3

LowerEnchanted

Twp

Kennebunkport

Swanville

Nobleboro

Carrying PlaceTown Twp

Dayton

Elm StreamTwp

Wales

Salem Twp

Barnard T wp

T19 MD BPP

Mason Twp

Soldiertown TwpT2 R3 NBKP

WestGardiner

JohnsonMountain

Twp

Appleton Twp

Vanceboro

T5 R19WELS

T2 R9 WELS

Camden

Katahdin Iron Works Twp

Kingman Twp

Cush

ing

T9 R18WELS

Mount AbramTwp

Bald MountainTwp

T4 R3

MooseheadJunction

Twp

LowerCupsuptic

Twp

Bradstreet Twp

Lamoine

Prospect

Prentiss TwpT7 R3 NBPP

Soldiertown TwpT2 R7 WELS

Columbi a Fa ll s

T14 R16WELS

Frie

ndsh

ip

Bowdoin College

Grant EastTwp

Bowdoin College

Grant WestTwp

Brewer

Cambridge

MoxieGore

Bremen

Pass

adum

k eag

Wyman Twp

WestMiddlesex

Canal Grant

C Surplus

Millinocket

Big WTwp

Gardiner

Willi am

sburg Twp

TA R7WELS

Edge

com

b

T3Indian

PurchaseTwp

Marsh fie ld

T5 R7BKP WKR

TA R2 WELS

Parlin PondTwp

T17 R14WELS

East MiddlesexCanal Grant Twp

PleasantRidge Plt

New Limerick

BeattieTwp

NorthYarmouth

Belmont

Bene

dict

a T w

p

SouthBristol

Machias

Liverm

or e F alls

Big elo w Twp

Pu kak on Twp

Andover North Surplus

Kendus keag

Castine

Water

ville

Milton Twp

Prentiss TwpT4 R4 NBKP

StocktonSprings

T8 R19WELS

Dennys vil le

Silv

er R

idge

Twp

Rockland

BatcheldersGrant Twp

Meddybemps

Bath

Days AcademyGrant Twp

T11 R3NBPP

Yarm

outh

T 9 S D

IndianStream

Twp

GorhamGore

Ogunquit

Arrowsic

T4 R5NBKP

WestBath

CoburnGore

Damariscotta

Sorrento

Upper MolunkusTwp

Hopkins AcademyGrant Twp

WestportIsland

Owls Head

UnityTwp

Sa ndwich

Academ y

Grant Twp

Merril l Str ipTwp

Carry ingPlaceTwp

Farmingdale

Thomaston

Eastport

Mattami scontis

Twp

South Por tland

Southwest Harbo r

MassachusettsGore

Taunton &

Raynha m

Academ y Grant

RoqueBluffs

Mechanic Falls

Hanover

TXR14WELS

SouthThomaston

PerkinsTwp

North YarmouthAcademyGrant Twp

Forest City Twp

VeronaIsland

Hallowell

East Mil linocket

BlakeGore

Old OrchardBeach

Mis er y Gor e Twp

Little WTwp

Rockwood Stri p

T1 R1 NBK PRockwood Stri p

T2 R1 NBK P

BoothbayHarbor

Veazie

WashingtonTwp

Randolph

Indian Island

VeazieGore

KineoTwp

Frye Island

Cox Patent

Harfords PointTwp

Pleasant Point

Cove PointTwp

Andover WestSurplus Twp

Perkins TwpSwan Island

HibbertsGore

SandbarTract Twp

LegendMunicipality with No Plan

Unorganized Territory in LURC jurisdiction

Adopted Comprehensive Plan

Municipalities Receiving a Grant

Municipalities Receiving No Grants

Maine Towns with Grants and Adopted Plans

Notes:Map produced by the Maine State Planning Office, February 2006GIS Coordinator: Janet ParkerSource data from MEGIS, Accuracy ± 40 feet: Town boundaries, County boundariesStatus of Comprehensive Plan from Land Use Program using the best available data.Projection: Universal Tranverse Mercator, North American Datum 1983 , Zone 19, Meters

However:

⇒ Comprehensive plans haven’t directed

growth into intended areas.

⇒ Maine’s population is growing, a trend

that appears to be accelerating — one

that brings challenges and benefits.

⇒ The State Planning Office is working

to improve its tools and technical

assistance including using more web-

based technology.

Page 8

Since 1988:

⇒ 379 towns received state planning grants

(see map below).

⇒ 287 towns have consistent comprehen-

sive plans.

⇒ Thousands of volunteer hours have

been dedicated to the development of

local comprehensive plans across Maine.

⇒ State comprehensive plan development

and update manuals were developed.

Today:

⇒ Maine people highly value less developed,

rural landscapes.

⇒ Communities support comprehensive

planning and strongly desire improved

tools and assistance.

⇒ Many technical assistance publications are

available such as: model ordinances, impact

fees and community vision guides, and

others. The state’s comprehensive planning

manual was revised and improved.


Lakeside Orchard, Manchester

Traditional Neighborhood, Portland

2007 Evaluation Criterion: State Financial Commitment to Growth Management

0

5

10

15

20

25

1988 1991 1995 2006

Number of Staf f

State Comprehensive Planning Staff Since Program Inception

Other state investments—in schools, roads, wastewater treatment, com-

munity development, land conservation, and other local infrastruc-

ture—have ties to growth and development. Each year, the State invests

nearly $400,000,000 in these growth-related areas.

$ 0

$ 200,000

$ 400,000

$ 600,000

$ 800,000

$ 1,000,000

$ 1,200,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Annual Gr ant Fundi ng

State Grant Funding Levels Since 1998


efforts. In 2006, the financial assistance

programs included:

⇒ $325,000 to regional councils

⇒ $150,000 grants to municipalities

⇒ $30,000 in regional challenge grants

Grant funding is approximately half of its

peak in 2001, but that is due to a one-time

$1.7 million appropriation for smart growth

(see graph below). Grant funds were cut to

cover state budget revenue shortfalls in 2004.

There are a number of measures of the state’s

commitment to growth management, and

financial investment is a main indicator.

Currently, there are six land use planners on

the SPO staff that support the growth

management program. The number of staff

currently funded for comprehensive planning

at the state level has remained relatively stable

for the past 10 years (see graph below).

In addition to staff, SPO provides direct

financial assistance to communities and

regional councils to assist with local planning

“I feel the State should

provide more training or

assistance in developing [the

comprehensive plan]…”

—A focus group participant, 2005

A key finding of the 2006 review

was the need to approach land use

planning on a regional scale, with

four prime opportunities for

regional planning:

⇒ Economic Development

⇒ Transportation

⇒ Natural Resources

⇒ Affordable Housing

Regional planning and govern-ance efforts are underway in

Maine, such as the Gateway 1

transportation planning for the

Route 1 corridor in mid-coast

Maine and various projects

funded by the Fund for the

Efficient Delivery of State and

Regional Services.

The Brookings Report has

enhanced the attention being paid

to regional planning in Maine.

Because of fiscal constraints and

Focus: Community Preservation Advisory Committee the Maine Historic Preservation

Commission, or their designees.

In its five years, CPAC has pro-

vided valuable oversight and lead-

ership on many issues, including:

⇒ Growth Management Act evaluation

⇒ Downtown redevelopment

⇒ Building codes

⇒ Rate of growth caps

The Community Preservation

Advisory Committee (CPAC) was

established in 2002 and charged

with advising the Governor, the

Legislature, and state agencies on

matters relating to community

preservation. Committee mem-

bers include six legislators, five

representatives of key interests,

the Director of the State Planning

Office, and the Commissioner of


The Growth Man-

agement Program

includes a variety of

partners and tasks.

The following

“focus” sections

highlight some of

the current projects

and groups involved

in the program.

Focus: Efficient Use of Grant Resources Under the Growth Management Program, SPO provides five types of grants to communities:

1. grants for developing compre-hensive plans;

2. grants to implement compre-hensive plans;

3. grants to update plans

4. grants to coastal communities

for regional land use initiatives;

5. neighborhood grants to help

communities develop tradi-

tional, walkable neighborhoods.

Since 1999, SPO has awarded

over $6.5 million in grant funds

to over 125 municipalities and

regions. A one-time appropriation

allowed SPO to dedicate

additional grant resources during

2000-2002. Since then, grant

funds have declined by over 50%,

from a high of $1.1 million in

2002 to just over $500,000 today.

As funds decline, SPO has con-

stantly looked for ways to most

efficiently meet community needs.

In considering future funding, 72

communities have never received

first-time comprehensive planning

grants as envisioned in 1988. SPO

would like to continue to offer

grant funds to assist these commu-

nities in developing comprehen-

sive plans.

However, during the 2006 review,

it became clear that it does not

make sense for each community,

one at a time, to collect compre-

hensive planning data regarding

economic conditions, housing

trends, transportation needs, and

other issues that are more effectively considered regionally.

Consequently, in FY08, SPO

proposes to shift some of its grant

funds to regional planning

agencies, who would collect and

analyze regional data for use in

local planning. This shift also

would help lay the foundation for

regional approaches to land use

planning.

Focus: Regional Planning the regional nature of many issues

facing Maine, SPO anticipates

that the interest in regional

planning will only grow.

Drawing on the expertise of the

State’s regional planning agencies,

SPO intends to foster regional

planning efforts, providing techni-

cal assistance, piloting regional

approaches, and identifying useful

tools and techniques.

⇒ Transfer of development rights

⇒ Regional planning and gov-ernance

⇒ Affordable housing

CPAC is authorized through June

2008. The State Planning Office

recommends that its authority be

renewed. A bill to accomplish this

has been submitted to the 123rd

Legislature.

contacted the grant managers for

over 50 state grant programs with

links to land use. Results of this

research indicated that:

⇒ In terms of number of

programs, less than half of

the programs give some

consideration to comprehen-

sive plans.

⇒ In terms of dollars available,

over 80% of potential fund-

ing is awarded with some

level of consideration for

comprehensive plans.

The Growth Management Act

envisions orderly growth, in part,

through coordinated state invest-

ment that prevents duplicative

infrastructure and minimizes

sprawl. Specifically, it directs state

agencies to give preference in

review of grant applications to

communities with consistent

comprehensive plans (30-A

MRSA §4349-A).

To examine how well state

agencies consider good planning

when awarding state grants, SPO

Overall, the state has made

progress toward meeting the goals

of the Growth Management Act

through state investments, but

there appear to be additional

opportunities, especially in pro-

grams with a direct tie to land use.

One of the recommendations of

the 2006 review is to improve

planning and coordination of state

investments. SPO will use its

research on grant preferences as a

starting point for that effort.

Focus: State Investment and Growth Management

Focus: Rule-making

land use plan: where and how

it wants to grow

⇒ Permit SPO to decline to

review a plan that is

incomplete or does not meet

minimum requirements

rather than having to find it

inconsistent

⇒ Provide clear, minimum

requirements for elements of

the comprehensive plan

⇒ Give towns a checklist to self-

assess whether they have met

all the requirements

⇒ Encourage regional dialogues

about issues that cross mu-

nicipal boundaries

SPO undertook a six-month stake-

holder process to guide its

revisions and intends to undergo

rule-making under the Administra-

tive Procedures Act in spring

2007. Additional public comment

opportunities will be available

through the official rule adoption

process.

A key recommendation of the

2006 review was to improve state

review of local comprehensive

plans. To assist in achieving this

goal, and to help local communi-

ties with the planning process,

SPO has been drafting substan-

tial revisions to the rules regard-

ing local planning in Maine. Key

changes include:

⇒ Streamline data and inven-

tory requirements

⇒ Focus the state’s review on

the community’s future


For more informa-

tion about SPO’s

proposed rule, or to

obtain a draft ver-

sion of the rule, see

the web site:

http://www.spo-

comp-plan-

rules.com/spo/

or contact:

Stacy Benjamin at

stacy.benjamin@mai

ne.gov

Castine

The Brookings report finds that

all regions in Maine are experienc-

ing growth. This trend is further

evidence of what many in Maine

communities have been saying for

some time: growth is happening,

in some places at never-before

seen levels. Responding to this

growth will continue to be a major

issue for many Maine communi-

ties. New tools, technologies, and

better regional cooperation will be

needed to meet the challenge.

Recognizing emerging challenges

and finding new solutions to

existing ones are key elements in

many of the tasks that SPO has

undertaken in the past four years.

As discussed in this evaluation, in

the years ahead, SPO will

continue to implement the

recommendations from the 2006

review, as directed by the Legisla-

ture, and work with CPAC to

identify emerging issues and

needs.

Planning Office staff in the

preparation of this report: John

Weber, Stacy Benjamin, Jody

Harris, and Sue Inches.

Photo credits: TJ DeWan and

Associates; Vanessa Levesque,

Maine Office of Tourism

Printed under appropriation:

#010 07B 2907

The State Planning Office submits

this report to the Joint Standing

Committee on Natural Resources

in accordance with 30-A MRSA

§4331.

We would like to thank the hun-

dreds of individuals and organiza-

tions in public, private, and non-

profit groups who helped the

office over the last two years in

reviewing the comprehensive

planning process and making the

changes described in this report.

Thanks to the following State

State Planning Office 38 State House Station

Augusta ME 04333 (207) 287-6077

www.maine.gov/spo January 2007

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Looking ahead….

protecting Maine’s character

and quality of life.

⇒ SPO’s response to these trends

included a renewed focus on

technical assistance for com-

munities tackling the chal-

lenges inherent in planning.

⇒ Regional planning efforts

resulted in several success

stories. With the savings in

fiscal resources and lessons

learned that resulted from

these efforts, additional efforts

to preserve Maine’s quality of

life are underway.

⇒ SPO worked with other state

agencies to fine-tune the

manner in which state fund-

ing supported the goals of the

Growth Management Act.

The results of this evaluation and

the 2006 review indicate a clear

need to continue the work of

Maine’s growth management

program. In looking ahead to the

next four years, the 2011 evalua-

tion of the Growth Management

Act may well include summary

points such as the following:

⇒ Continued growth in Maine

led to an increased interest in


Maine coast

“We are one state

and we share prob-

lems beyond

local boundaries.”

—Interview with local

planner, 2005

Four-year Growth Management Program Evaluation · 2013-12-03 · estimated that 70% of growth in...

Documents

Transcript of Four-year Growth Management Program Evaluation · 2013-12-03 · estimated that 70% of growth in...