In Overwhelming Numbers, Public Response to Plum Creek Plan Calls on Maine to "Save Lily Bay”
Analysis shows average of 60 letters per day opposing current recommendations

Joint release of Maine Audubon and the Natural Resources Council of Maine

July 16, 2008 — Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission received a huge volume of comments during the past month as citizens responded to what may be one of their last opportunities to affect Plum Creek’s development proposal for the Moosehead Lake region. During a month-long comment period which ended July 11, LURC received 1,762 comments expressing opposition to Plum Creek’s proposal. Of these, 1,517 stated specific opposition to development at Lily Bay.

Only 6 people contacted LURC during this period to voice support for Plum Creek’s plan as currently envisioned. By 85.8 percent, all comments received by LURC during this comment period oppose Lily Bay development, an additional 13.9 percent oppose the entire Plum Creek proposal, and only 0.3 percent support the plan. Overall, 99.6 percent raised objections.

LURC initiated the comment period on June 5, requesting public reactions to a set of Commission-generated amendments to Plum Creek’s development proposal. These amendments to Plum Creek’s plan were first presented by LURC staff and consultants for review by the Commission during deliberations on May 27 and 28, and were subsequently adopted by LURC on June 4, to be posted for public comment.

Proposed development at Lily Bay has emerged as a top concern for people across Maine and across the nation. Plum Creek continues to press for rezoning of 1,800 acres of forestland at Lily Bay where it could build a resort, marina, golf course, stores, seasonal homes, and roads. Yet the public strongly opposes Plum Creek’s plans at Lily Bay.

The 1,517 comments received by LURC that specifically urge protection of Lily Bay were sent by people living in 303 towns across the state, located in all 16 Maine counties, and from 28 states, Canada, and Greece. Eighty percent of all comments were from Maine residents, and 20 percent were from people from outside Maine who value the Moosehead Lake region. (See attached lists.)

The six public comments in support of Plum Creek’s proposal came from only four Maine towns (one comment did not identify an address): Augusta, Canaan, Wilton, and Winterport. Not a single letter in support of the LURC-generated amendments was sent from a Maine resident living within 60 miles of Greenville. In contrast, comments opposing development at Lily Bay came from individuals living in the following areas near Moosehead Lake: Jackman, Rockwood, Greenville, Greenville Junction, Beaver Cove, Dexter, Garland, Dover-Foxcroft, Sangerville, Sapling Township, Abbott, Tomhegan Township, and Lily Bay Township, among others.

The LURC-generated amendments to Plum Creek’s plan call for a reduction in the number of acres to be developed at Lily Bay, but no reduction of the number of houses there (404) or type of development that would be allowed (e.g., a resort, marina, golf course, stores, single family dwellings, and roads).

“Maine people could not be more clear and emphatic in their message to LURC: do not approve development at Lily Bay,” said NRCM Executive Director Brownie Carson. “People living in more than 60 percent of Maine towns – from Kittery to Ft. Kent, and all points in-between – have made their views known to LURC. Now the question is whether the Commission will listen.”

During the 26 week days of this public comment period, LURC received, on average, 60 letters per day opposed to development at Lily Bay – compared with only two letters during the entire month that explicitly support development at Lily Bay; one of those letters was sent from Tampa, Florida.

“We’ve read these comments and over and over people have passionately expressed lasting, personal connections to Lily Bay,” said Kevin Carley, Maine Audubon executive director. “Just as passionate are their concerns with what Plum Creek plans to do with the area. Many are literally begging LURC to save it from this inappropriate development.”

##