BIG MOOSE TOWNSHIP, Maine — The Maine attorney general’s office is still considering an enforcement action against the owner of Big Squaw Mountain Resort near Greenville.
Attorney general’s office spokeswoman Brenda Kielty said Monday the investigation into timber harvesting on restricted land near the resort is continuing, but she had no further information.
The Maine Land Use Planning Commission, formerly called the Land Use Regulation Commission, transferred its case against James Confalone, CEO of Mountain Inc., which operates Big Squaw Mountain Resort, to the attorney general’s office last month.
Meanwhile, activity on Big Moose Mountain, on which the resort is located, has picked up in recent weeks, but it has nothing to do with Confalone’s company.
The State of Maine Office of Information Technology has started work on a communications tower and equipment shelter on state-owned property atop the mountain.
Helicopters have been used to bring equipment to the top of the mountain, which is inaccessible to all-terrain vehicles or other vehicles, said Craig Hitchings, radio project office manager.
Hitchings said three separate tower sites are being consolidated into one. The tower that will be constructed will be a state public safety radio tower.
“It’s an important site because it’s in a good location,” said Hitchings. “The primary purpose is to give radio coverage for state public safety. It’s built with adequate capacity so it can be used by the town of Greenville, as well.”
Hitchings said work will continue for another month or so. Concrete for the tower’s base has to have time to cure, and then helicopters will help put the radio tower in place.
Big Squaw owner Confalone is accused of harvesting 155 acres of land on the mountain near the now-unused resort. Confalone bought about 7,000 acres in 1994 from the Bureau of Parks and Lands. About 1,200 acres have timber harvesting restrictions set by the bureau.
LUPC says that the harvest was done without permit approval and that the land has deed restrictions prohibiting timber harvesting.
“We don’t think there was a violation. It just needs an after-the-fact permit. [LURC has] their point of view and we have ours. We have an attorney who feels different,” Rodney Folsom, a real estate agent in Greenville who is a spokesman for Mountain Inc., said in August.
Confalone’s wife, Karen, is the director and president of OFLC Inc., which owns land abutting the harvested lot. In January 2010, Miami-based OFLC filed a forestry operations notification for timber harvesting and land management road construction on its property. The harvesting was to occur only in Lot 2.1. However, 54.9 acres of land was harvested in Lot 2.2 on Plan 01, which falls under the deed restrictions on James Confalone’s property, according to LUPC.
LUPC sent Confalone a notice of violation on Aug. 31, 2011, for harvesting timber on the restricted parcel of land.
On Nov. 7, Confalone responded with in a letter but didn’t offer any planning documents or justification that shows compliance with the deed restrictions, LUPC said in a memorandum regarding the incident.
This past April, further investigation uncovered additional harvesting by — or on behalf of — Mountain Inc. without a permit from LUPC and in violation of deed restrictions, according to LUPC. In all, about 155 acres were harvested. The Maine Forest Service estimated that the stumpage value of the harvested wood is $51,183, with an estimated mill gate value of $136,277.
LUPC entered into settlement negotiations with Folsom, an agent for Mountain Inc., and Silas Ames, a timber harvester and agent who signed the forestry operations notification for OFLC Inc. Those negotiations broke down, which prompted LUPC to transfer the case to the attorney general’s office.
The crook who gated off the public access to Mountainview Pond for his personal use continues to be a crook.
As well as the crook that gated off the roads in Mt.Chase and Elliotsville Plt.
Just because you don’t like her or her ideas, that doesn’t make her a crook. There are plenty of elected officials for you to pick from if you want to throw that around.
For cutting his own land? Terrible article. Why do the towers have do with this guy?
For cutting on land where he had sold the harvest rights. He had no right to harvest there.
His property. His choice.
I’d like to own some property next to your house so that I could put up a dozen wind towers, build a shooting range, build a factory that pollutes the air, establish a free dump for disposal all things and a few more obnoxious things JUST because I own the land and can do whatever I wish.
Sorry Derek, that’s, (THANKFULLY!), not how it works.
Sure is. UNLESS he, or the previous owner sold a conservation easement which they did. This is not a mandate or a land grab, it is the SALE (as in for money to the landowner) of one of the bundle of rights involved in fee ownership. That bundle includes the land, the trees, development rights, mineral rights etc. Many people out west own land but DO NOT own the mineral rights to the land. It is the same concept here, this guy owns the land but he/or the previous owner sold and was compensated for the rights to all or some of therights to timber. I’m for the his property, his choice but if you chose to sell an easement you have to remember it’s not just free money. If you buy a property with an easement you should be aware of it and the stipulations..especially since it can have a drastic impact on value depending on the intended use.
you r wrong. find out more before you write.
I hiked to the top of Moose this past spring. There are 3 towers at the top now, where there used to be a fire watch tower.
The AG sure is taking his time with this timber harvesting violation.
This group of clowns has helded the Greenville area hostage for years through their Greed. In the end they will answer for their doings. In the end no man is not without paying for their deeds for greed and power. It is a sad story for all who enjoyed the Mountain.
“It just needs an after-the-fact permit.” … really? Isn’t that a little like defending yourself from an OUI charge by insisting that the next morning you had after-the-fact sobriety?