Comprehensive plan ready to edit BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
MONTEREY - After seven months of work, Highland's revisions to its comprehensive plan are coming closer to completion.
"The official first rough draft is done," declared planning commission chair Jim Cobb, who also chairs the comprehensive plan review committee.
The committee met last Thursday to discuss final revisions to the formidable chapter on land use.
"It only lacks a few edits," Cobb said.
Despite Cobb's sense the project was coming to a close, some committee members pointed out there were some major issues left unaddressed, including potential wind energy development.
Reviewing a recent draft, committee member Betty Mitchell asked, "Where does it say we want the wind issue held in abeyance? It is a biggy - it needs to be a goal."
In light of the ongoing application of Highland New Wind Development for a 39-megawatt wind utility on Allegheny Mountain, the committee had touched on how to address that kind of industry in the comprehensive plan. Previously members had agreed to tackle the controversial issue by including a section that basically said developers could apply for permits, but that they would not be reviewed for five years.
"We haven't put it in there," said Cobb. "We need to put it in there."
But planner Doug Gutshall felt policies on wind development were better left to elected officials.
"We owe it to everybody to put it in there," Mitchell said. "If supervisors want to strike it, that is fine."
Cobb agreed. "I think it should be in two places. It should be an objective to evaluate the impact of wind turbines if approved, and a strategy: If approved, hold permits in abeyance for five years to see how it is going to fall out."
"Renewable energy is a public policy issue," Mitchell added. "Should the goal be to evaluate wind and other renewable energy sources?"
And member Crysta Stanton wanted to know whether holding a permit for five years was legal.
"No," Cobb said, "but I told the supervisors to figure out how we can do it. Two of them agreed we should do something like that, but they said we have to go to legal counsel to see how to do something like this. I'm proposing something they are going to have to figure out."
He did not specify which supervisors he consulted, but Cobb said as far as he knew, county attorney Melissa Dowd had not yet been asked about the proposal to hold permits for five years, and it was the supervisors' responsibility to seek her advice.
Land use: Finding balance
Committee members took another look at strategies, objectives and goals in the land use section of the plan as presented from four subcommittees from the Mill Gap area, Blue Grass, McDowell and Monterey. They were assigned specific areas to consider: economy and business, agriculture, tourism, and housing.
"We also took reference pieces and put it in here for possible future land planning," Mitchell explained. "A lot of this is based on our old plan."
A couple of key issues remained up for discussion, including how the McDowell Battlefield would be described.
Stanton noted a paragraph on historic and battlefield preservation made it sound like there was an active historic district in place. Highland does have an ordinance permitting historic districts, but no district is currently in effect. The historic district in Monterey was dissolved several years ago at the request of the town council.
Committee member Don Hower reported the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation had proposed creating a preservation plan to supervisors.
"The supervisors said they would like to have that plan in (the comprehensive plan), even if it took a six-month delay (in finishing the land use plan review)," he said.
"Now that we are talking about conservation easements and other things, they (supervisors) want it resolved before it gets in the plan," said committee member Jack Flynn.
"I don't want to drag this out for another two years," said Cobb. "Here, Mr. Rexrode (supervisor), here is a draft. If he says put it on the shelf and we'll look at it in four months, that is fine. I told him I would do my level best to have him a draft within a year. We didn't start on this until September."
Balancing the wishes of those who want development with those who do not has not been an easy task, members agreed. Several sections of land use that deal with development remain at odds.
For example, one objective states, "Avoid developing on steep slopes (greater than 25 percent) due to potential problems with erosion, sedimentation, and water pollution.
And yet, noted member Trent Burkholder, anything over a 25 percent slope is zoned conservation, and some housing is allowed on conservation land.
Zoning official Jim Whitelaw pointed out there is nothing in the building and zoning ordinance that prevents development in conservation-zoned land.
"It says you can build a farm house. It's implied you can't develop it," said Cobb.
Generally, wherever the plan discourages or avoids actions, language was changed to allow, scrutinize or permit them.
Protecting agricultural land
Specific changes to the zoning ordinance are proposed in the draft. One of those is to reduce the setback from 200 feet to 50 feet in residential (R-2) zoned land adjacent to agriculturally (A-2) zoned land.
Planner Harry Sponaugle disagreed with the change. "The closer you let them (developers) come to A-2, the more problems you have," he said. He argued homeowners would not want to live close to an active farm because of the noise and smell associated with farming.
"We need to encourage growth in growth areas," said member Valerie Weber Lowry. If a growth area abuts an agricultural area, the setback needs to be reduced to allow for the growth, she suggested.
But Sponaugle, Cobb and Gutshall, all of whom are farmers, said a farmer's right to farm takes precedence over development.
Burkholder said he believed the existing ordinance protects farmers and should be left as-is.
Planners agreed they should retain control over development by deciding development issues on a case by case basis.
"Then what is the purpose of having designated growth areas?" asked Mitchell.
"I want to put in something about the right to farm has the trump card," said Cobb. He proposed changing the objective to read, "Reduce setbacks in adjacent R-2/A-2 areas giving precedence to the right to farm."
"Maybe we need to differentiate between all of A-2 and A-2 that is in active production," Stanton suggested.
"A lot of A-2 has forest," Weber Lowry pointed out.
Most agreed reducing the setback on residential land near forested agricultural land would be less threatening to farmers than reducing the setback next to actively worked pastureland.
Planner Tony Stinnett said most new residents choose Highland County due to its rural, agricultural character. "That is why they come to the country," he said.
Cobb suggested reducing setbacks from 200 to 50 feet in R-2 adjacent to A-2 that is not in active production, but Sponaugle insisted it stay at 200 feet and brought the matter to a vote. By a show of hands, the reduction to a 50-foot setback was defeated.
Cobb offered an example of how variances could solve conflicts related to setbacks. "If someone wanted to build a house on a narrow lot beside Harry, we would get Harry (to the planning commission meeting) to tell his side of the story. If Harry says it doesn't bother him at all, we would probably give the person a variance," he said. "We did that in McDowell for Mike Moats."
Moats had received a setback variance from the board of zoning appeals allowing him to build a structure closer to his neighbor's agricultural land than is normally allowed.
"If the adjoining landowner didn't want it, we (planners) wouldn't approve it," Cobb added. "It is our job to take all the factors and consider it. We take a look at the land. If it is a bunch of rocks and stuff like that, we wouldn't have a problem with (recommending a variance). Some of this falls on the board of supervisors and planning commission to use common sense. If we saw no problem with it, we would approve it."
Mixed uses
Another recommended change to the zoning ordinance was the addition of a mixed-use zone.
"Monterey already has mixed use and it is working," said Hower.
"Mixed use would not confine growth, it would expand it," Mitchell added, supporting the proposal. "Could we encourage mixed use in growth areas?"
"I'm in favor of mixed use but I don't think we need a new zoning classification," said Flynn.
While members agreed mixed use could be beneficial, they said instituting a new zoning classifications would have problems of its own. Areas would have to be designated as mixed-use zones - an administrative problem planners don't want to handle. Variations to existing guidelines in the ordinance could be more readily handled in person by the planning commission, they decided.
"Let's take it on a case by case basis," Cobb suggested. "Encourage mixed use, don't create a new zone."
What's next?
The committee will look at the final edited version of the draft plan in June. "You know why I want to look at it again? I don't want to send anything out with my signature on it that I haven't seen," said Cobb. "As far as I am concerned, everybody agrees on what is in there as it is. I'm not looking for significant changes," he added.
"I think the themes are clear," Burkholder said. "I think it is a matter of putting it in a polished format."
Stanton and Weber Lowry have until the end of May to complete final editing on the plan.
"We'll get back together mid-June to have one last look at it," said Cobb, "then go to a joint work session in July, hopefully public hearing in August, with approval in September."
When handed the project last year, Cobb said he aimed for completing revisions by January this year.
Cobb said last week that he had promised to have the plan complete one year after the planning commission took over review - the planners took charge last September and the review should finish in September.
It has proven to be a more difficult task than anticipated, planners agreed.
"Put everything we've updated and edited on the Web site; we need to get it on the Web site so the public can be looking at it," Cobb added. "Make sure everyone (on the committee) gets a copy of the edited edition."
Completed portions of the plan are at: www.highlandcova.org. So far, goals and text for community services, demographics, economy, education, government and finance, housing, transportation, and utilities are available. Missing are land use text and goals, housing text, and transportation text.
"The joint work session is between the board of supervisors and this whole committee," Cobb said. "I can't recall every decision everybody made, that's why you need to be there … If the supervisors say they can't do anything until October, there is nothing I can do about it."
Cobb pointed out several areas that should be clarified. He said, in general, dates assigned for completing strategies listed should be no earlier than 2008 because the plan is taking most of 2007 to complete.
The next meeting is 7 p.m. Monday, June 18 at the Highland County Public Library.
|
