Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenter outlines Chapter 21 crossing rules: full permits, new PBR for unorganized territory and variance hurdles
Summary
A presenter from the Land Use Planning Commission summarized Chapter 21 changes: full permits are required for crossings of 250-foot shoreland buffers and nonforested wetlands larger than 4,300 sq ft; a new permit-by-rule applies in unorganized territory with a 60-day submission minimum; variances require high statutory proof and Attorney General review.
The presenter told attendees that “a full permit is required for the construction or replacement of a permanent crossing when crossing a water body with a 250 ft shoreland area,” and advised landowners to consult zoning maps before beginning work.
The presenter said the rules also now require a full permit for crossings of nonforested freshwater wetlands larger than 4,300 square feet (about 0.1 acre) when a permanent road is being built across the wetland, calling that “new language.”
On permit-by-rule (PBR) standards, the presenter said applications must “be submitted at least 60 days prior to the start of construction” so the agency can send them for external and interagency review (the presenter cited IFNW as an example). The presenter added that, while 60 days is the minimum, a typical permitting turnaround that staff considers optimistic is 30 days and more commonly about 45 days.
The presenter emphasized that the PBR requirement is new for the unorganized territory; routine maintenance, repairs and some replacements of existing crossings may be done without a PBR if specific standards are followed. Those standards, the presenter said, include erosion-control measures to prevent sedimentation, not blocking fish passage and matching the natural stream grade; culverts must be embedded when required, and the agency must be notified (notification can be as simple as a phone call).
A PBR is required for brand-new permanent installations—defined by the presenter as structures that will be in place for more than seven months—such as a first-time culvert or bridge installation.
The presenter urged applicants to use the agency’s form rather than an alternate department’s form, noting one form and one fee can cover multiple crossings in the same town. “You can put multiple crossings under one fee, one form,” the presenter said, and the agency’s fee example cited in the presentation was $125 for bundled crossings.
Seasonality matters: the presenter said applications stamped between July 15 and Oct. 2 carry no waiting period and construction can begin immediately; applications outside those dates are subject to a 14-day waiting period and may require an IFNW biologist timing form signed by a biologist for installations outside the no-waiting window.
On variances, the presenter described the process as a high hurdle and emphasized the petitioner’s burden of proof. The presenter said a variance cannot be granted simply because an owner prefers a different approach or caused the condition; instead, petitioners must show unusual site conditions or hardship not created by the owner and that the public interest is otherwise served. Findings on variances are subject to external review and must run by the Attorney General’s office, the presenter said, so grants or denials are not unilateral staff decisions.
The presenter noted the agency has both granted and denied variances in past cases and offered to share a slideshow and a variance-explanation document prepared by Mort that outlines petition requirements and the review process.
No formal motions or votes were recorded in this presentation; the presenter offered follow-up materials and stated the agency will post guidance and the slideshow for applicants.
