In Re Spring Valley Development
300 A.2d 736, 5 ERC 1127, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20589 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state environmental protection law regulating large "commercial or industrial developments" applies to for-profit residential subdivisions of land, and this application is a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect the public welfare by prospectively preventing environmental harm.
Facts:
- Lakesites, Inc. owned a 92-acre tract of land on Raymond Pond.
- Lakesites subdivided the property into 90 lots, ranging from 20,000 to 53,000 square feet, for a residential community called 'Spring Valley Development'.
- Lakesites cleared and graded portions of the land and built an access road.
- The company intended to sell the individual lots for profit through real estate brokers and did not plan to construct any buildings itself.
- Lakesites submitted its subdivision plan to the local Raymond Planning Board, which approved it based on the town's lot-size ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Improvement Commission learned of Lakesites' development, which exceeded 20 acres, and scheduled a hearing.
- At the hearing, Lakesites, through its attorney, challenged the Commission's jurisdiction, arguing the Site Location Law did not apply to a mere subdivision, and waived its right to contest the case on its merits.
- The Commission found that Lakesites' project was a 'commercial development' subject to the law and that Lakesites had failed to meet its burden of proving the development would not harm the environment.
- The Commission issued an order directing Lakesites to cease all operations until it applied for and received the Commission's approval.
- Lakesites, the appellant, appealed the Commission's final order directly to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Maine's Site Location of Development Law apply to a developer who only subdivides a large tract of land for for-profit residential sale, and if so, does this application of state police power violate constitutional protections of due process and equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Weatherbee
Yes. A for-profit residential subdivision is a 'commercial development' subject to regulation under the Site Location of Development Law, and this regulation is a constitutional exercise of the state's police power. The term 'commercial' was intended by the legislature to describe the motivation for the development—the hope for profit—not the type of activity ultimately performed on the property. Legislative history, including the legislature's rejection of amendments that would have excluded residential subdivisions, supports this interpretation. The Act is a preventive measure intended to allow the Commission to scrutinize development plans before irreversible environmental harm occurs. Placing the burden on the subdivider is a rational means to avoid an 'ecological calamity' that would be difficult to address once lots are sold to individual owners. This regulation is a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect public health and welfare, does not constitute an uncompensated taking of property, is not unconstitutionally vague, and does not violate equal protection by setting a 20-acre threshold for review.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a state's environmental review authority can be triggered at the earliest stage of a project—the mere subdivision of land for sale. It affirms a broad interpretation of state police power to regulate land use for ecological protection, placing the burden of proving environmental safety on the developer before any lots are sold or construction begins. This precedent significantly strengthens the power of environmental agencies to control large-scale residential development by defining 'commercial development' based on the developer's profit motive rather than the physical construction activities. It clarifies that legislatures can rationally require developers, not future individual lot owners, to bear the responsibility for the cumulative environmental impact of their projects.
