Last chance for county to get future planning right

The significant growth of subdivision applications processed in 2005 made clear that our land-use policies and ordinances needed to be updated.

But it took a petition signed by some 480 county residents expressing their deep concern over the state of affairs to kick start the process of revising the county's primary land-use policy document — the Comprehensive Plan.

For several months a number of county residents worked as volunteers to redraft the plan. The document provides a broad portrait of the county and makes recommendations of the actions needed to responsibly manage its growth.

Throughout the process, the drafters were guided by the concerns expressed in the petition from letters received during the process and by the ideas expressed during the many hours of discussion held by each committee.

The final document reflecting the broad consensus of its many contributors was then forwarded to the planning and zoning commission. After receiving a favorable public response at a public hearing, and with little change, that document was forwarded to the county commissioners with a recommendation that it be adopted.

The commissioners did not accept that recommendation, and after a series of their workshops, they presented their version to a public hearing on July 30, 2007, where a considerable number of both the members of planning and zoning commission and the public gave it a strongly negative reception.

The commissioners said they would respond to the expressed concerns through appropriate revisions of their draft.

At 6 p.m. Sept. 25 in the county courthouse, the public will again be able to air their views. The proposed document is available online.

A comparison with the version originally supported by planning and zoning will show the substantial differences between the two, and that in many areas, the commissioners' version does not adequately express needed land-use policy. Accordingly, it should once again be rejected.

The original draft was thoughtfully written to clearly say what needed to be said to responsibly meet the challenges of growth.

In the past few years many new residents have arrived. A number of them from places that had what we still have, but lost through complacent inaction.

This may the last time we are given the opportunity to get it right. Please again reject the commissioners' version and request that it be replaced by the draft originally forwarded to them.

Jay Epstein

Copeland