Technical Summary 



CRMC should work with DEM, the Division of Planning and the towns to coordinate 

 public acquisition programs (including land donations, public purchase of development 

 rights and conservation easements, voluntary deed restrictions) and other such land 

 conservation tools so as to develop a coherent resource protection program which carefully 

 considers non-point source control objectives. Where lands are acquired, best 

 management practices should be installed and maintained as demonstration 

 projects, to illustrate methods and benefits of various control strategies. 



Issues Related to Permit Evaluation 



Focus 



Largely because of political pressure generated by applicants' frustration with the 

 permit process, review bodies tend to focus on achieving efficient permit 

 decision-making, reducing emphasis on broader program development, 

 strategic planning, program coordination, review of cumulative effects, and 

 enforcement. Staff limitations exacerbate the burden of permit review. 



Permitting Sequence 



Current permit review and evaluation procedures are complicated, and 

 frequently cannot make best use of scientific expertise in an effective, 

 timely way. Biulding and subdivision permits are obtained from a range of town 

 commissions, approval for on-site sewage disposal systems is granted by DEM's ISDS 

 Section, water quality certifications and freshwater wetiands permits are granted via DEM 

 approvals, all prior to request for a CRMC approval. Applicants find that variances, 

 conditions, or special exceptions issued pursuant to one permit granting agency may be 

 unacceptable to another. Towns may also rely on state review bodies to deny or condition 

 controversial, politically visible projects. 



Flexibility of response is consffained. Except with regard to larger projects eligible for 

 pre-application review, expert advice on state requirements may be 

 insufficiently available to municipal review agencies in the early formative 

 stages of project design when technical input could be most readily 

 utilized. CRMC, which prefers to review virtually complete designs at the end of the 

 permitting process, is frequentiy placed in the position of requiring substantive changes in 

 plans which have emerged from a lengthy review process involving hearings before 

 various bodies. Once municipal approval has been obtained, the ability of 

 state agencies to work with the developer to mitigate potential impacts is 

 severely constrained, though agencies such as CRMC may have die broadest powers to 

 consider environmental impacts. 



As presendy operated, the SAM plan coordinative review process needs improvement. 

 Although well-conceived, the process is cumbersome, is consequentiy too limited in its 

 application, and provides for uneven participation anaong involved review agencies. 

 When several agencies or local government units must issue permits for a 

 single use, a joint evaluation process should be established which provides 

 efficient, consistent review, which considers incremental effects, and 

 which involves all involved agencies in face-to-face conferences with 

 applicants. 



