|
'The ball's in your court,' planners tell board
Commission hands off comp plan to supervisors; more review awaits
BY JAMES JACENICH • STAFF WRITER
MONTEREY - Highland County Planning Commission chairman Jim Cobb presented the final draft of the Highland County comprehensive plan to the county supervisors Tuesday.
Board chairman Robin Sullenberger said he appreciated the efforts of the planning commission and the review committee. He specifically applauded Cobb's efforts as chairman of the committee. "Your strong leadership probably had a lot to do with keeping that (process) cohesive," Sullenberger told Cobb.
But the process is far from over. Now begins a page by page, word by word review of the plan to make sure it does not conflict with any known laws or regulations and is something supervisors can work with as they tackle an update to county land-use regulations, zoning issues, development and preservation.
"We will individually review this very thoroughly," said Sullenberger. "I'm not sure how prepared we are to ask specific questions tonight."
Based on his conversations with county attorney Melissa Dowd (who was not present) Sullenberger said, "One of the big issues is the comprehensive plan has to be broad based and address a wide variety of positions and opinions ... we all know that. Everybody's viewpoint has to at least be addressed. The comprehensive plan was a road map (in the past). It was a general guideline, but deviations from that were all over the place.
"As more lawsuits come up, particularly to land use and some of the specific recommendations in these comprehensive plans, the comprehensive plan begins to look like a document that has some legal overtones to it, if not specific legal standing.
"There has to be a lot of flexibility, it can't be too ambiguous and it can't be too specific. Some information I looked at (in the draft) seemed to be very, very specific - do this or do that. My question to the committee is, are those things the consensus of the committee?"
Cobb answered, "Every one of them was consensus. The planners did not decide any issues, although we provided guidance based on corporate knowledge."
Sullenberger would later end the evening where he began, "You all were generally very comfortable with this process, you felt everybody had a fair shot, even if you didn't agree on everything?"
Cobb replied, "Everybody was allowed to speak about everything - that's where we got consensus. We actively sought people's input on this. We got dedicated people that met on a monthly basis, that's what I liked."
"We had general input from the county in addition to our own views," said committee member Georgeanne Armstrong.
"You have to incorporate a wide range of viewpoints," Sullenberger continued. "You have to have that. It's an update. In some cases it is a total rewrite, rather than an update. I'm not saying that's bad at all. Everybody had an opportunity to have their say-so.
"We have to have time to go through this; counsel has to go through this. We have to look at the legalities of some of the recommendations, the (recommendations) may be a little hazy. We'll have to look at that."
Battlefield language updated
Planner Doug Gutshall, who was also a member of the battlefield advisory committee, said he inserted some new language into the plan, based on an agreement with preservation groups directly involved with the preservation plan committee.
Committee member Jack Flynn read the first part of the change to the battlefield preservation section on page 71 of the plan, "On Sept. 20, 2007, the board of supervisors, Civil War Preservation Trust, Lee-Jackson Educational Foundation, and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation determined that 98 percent of the McDowell Battlefield was adequately preserved, therefore the development of a new battlefield preservation plan was not necessary."
Gutshall said paragraphs explaining the provisions of the Shenandoah Valley National Historic District and Commission Act should be deleted, along with a discussion of the purpose and content of a preservation plan.
In its place, Gutshall recommended inserting the agreement sent to him from the SVBF, CWPT and LJEF. "The McDowell Battlefield is substantially owned now by preservation groups and it is seen that little additional property east of the Bullpasture River needs to be acquired to properly interpret the battlefield. The preservation groups have stated that in the future they have an interest in acquiring several small parcels east of the Bullpasture River. These properties are already encircled by preservation group property. The preservation groups are not interested in acquiring further land on the west side of the Bullpasture River.
"The preservation groups are requested to consult with the board of supervisors if there are deviations from the foregoing."
Gutshall also suggested adding a new strategy under economy, "Lobby for local approval of lands to be entered into conservation easements." He explained, "We want input if we are going to have all this land tied up in conservation easements."
Gutshall started to suggest a second addition to land use when Sullenberger said, "I appreciate what you are doing, but this seems to be circumventing your own process here - doing the committee thing. I have no problem (with the new proposal) at all if that's what you want to do."
But committee member Betty Mitchell had a problem. "We went through this process, we spent 12 months, we worked on economy, all of a sudden we are at this point, we haven't discussed this," she said.
Sullenberger said, "It is up to your chairman to decide how you want to handle this. If you want to have another meeting and add to this, that's fine."
"I think we should go ahead with what we already have," said Cobb.
Gutshall withdrew his recommendations that were in addition to the battlefield change.
Sullenberger added, "There is nothing wrong with continuing the thought process. We have no idea at all what discussion you folks had on some of these issues and what your rationale is for having these things in here."
He continued, "There is a lot of emphasis on land-use taxation (in the plan); my question is, what kind of discussions have you have had on that - did all of you like the concept? But we have no alternative revenue sources."
Armstrong said land-use taxation had been deleted from the land-use strategies and "explore alternative taxation" inserted in its place. If anything, she added, the timeline says 2009 for completion, but the process of exploring alternatives should be continuous.
"Land-use taxation was left in the narrative," county administrator Roberta Lambert pointed out. In that narrative section, the language was specific about what land use taxation is and how to implement it, she said. "The heading on that page says 'Strategies for the Future.'"
Armstrong insisted that section was just providing a definition of what land-use taxation is.
"This whole section appears to be lifted directly from the Valley Conservation Council's rural protection program," said Sullenberger. "Did you accept that?"
Cobb explained, "There was a presentation given to the previous (comprehensive plan committee) group. I did not sit in on it, nor was I aware of it."
Sullenberger said, "The strategies and the recommendations for things to pursue is one issue; the methodologies and the explanations and all that are more of a supporting document."
Flynn clarified, "As the plan evolved, the narrative sections were designed to set up the essential part, which were the goals, objectives and strategies. In the land-use section, a lot of that is supportive of the conversation about land use...these are strategies that can be pursued .... We looked at all of these and we came up with these."
"I'm just looking for a rationale for being this detailed," said Sullenberger. He thought for a moment, and added, "(Something should be said) instead of strategies for the future ... the implication is that these are the strategies. These are tools for evaluating land-use strategies, or something along those lines."
Lambert added the narrative section on land-use strategies was also copyrighted material. "There was very little that was left out (from the Valley Conservation Council rural protection program)," she said. "Rural land protection is verbatim, rural land goals are verbatim," she said.
Sullenberger added, "The point I'm trying to make is that these are things that (VCC) developed specifically for this purpose. We make reference to that, as one of the tools we have for making these kinds of reviews. Does all that language get referred to ... is it part of your tool box, how are we doing that?"
"Obviously we liked the wording," said Cobb, as the room erupted in laughter to his response. "We can add, 'and with the assistance of the VCC.' Wouldn't that be correct?"
Lambert said, "With it being copyrighted, you're going to have to talk to (VCC about getting permission to use the material)."
"VCC is a separate non-profit organization that is promoting their own agenda," said Sullenberger. Sullenberger wants to make sure VCC approves of its program language being included in the comprehensive plan and that the inclusion of the material is the consensus of the plan committee before the board of supervisors considers it as part of the plan.
Cobb assured him, "The group agreed to the wording." Cobb will follow up with the VCC and see what the committee needs to do with the section.
More on easements
Supervisor Jerry Rexrode had more questions. "Have you all at length sat down and discussed conservation easements? Do you understand it?"
Rexrode said conservation easements could be implemented without supervisor input or approval.
"I wasn't aware," said Cobb. "We were not given an issue like that, that says you all should take a look at (conservation easements)."
Rexrode continued, "Conservation easements are for perpetuity - that means basically forever. It's hard for a board of supervisors, now and in the future, to say conservation easements are good here and they are not good there. Where do we have growth areas? The comprehensive plan has to say that. Have you all discussed conservation easements at length? Did you know eight property owners can stop all growth in Monterey?
"This board needs to sit down and read this thing paragraph by paragraph to see what is legal or not legal."
"If there are issues that you need us to take a look at, just tell us; we haven't disbanded the group," said Cobb.
Rexrode added, "I know I'm going to have a lot of questions after reading this. I'm not going to get into the issues now. It is going to take some time to look at (and ask questions like) why is this in there. We need to do all of this before a public hearing."
"If you take a look at that, that whole section (on conservation easements) is right out of a text, you have to take that and see if this fits Highland," said Rexrode.
Armstrong noted, "We looked at this, it does fit Highland County."
Rexrode argued, "Who sees lighting except if you are in outer space?" He was referring to a statement from the VCC narrative that suggested outdoor lighting should be controlled to preserve the relative nighttime darkness of the rural county.
"I do," said Armstrong. She added, "If it's in regard for future planning, it's not restricting light, but in the type of lighting you have, it can be a deterrent (from light pollution)."
Committee member Caroline Smith added, "Why wouldn't you do it because it is a good thing to do?"
"It might be,"' said Rexrode. "We need to take a look at it."
He continued with his attack on conservation easements. "That's the way it is with conservation easements if they were for 20 years." He meant that lighting could be looked at and rules made to address the issue, but conservation easements, once in place, can't be changed when new information or changes in the local economy, demographics, or vision of the community.
"You have to look at growth in the community," he said. "Eight landowners can stop growth in the town of Monterey. Do you have the right to do this? Certainly. But, do you want to do that forever? Someone left the checks and balances out (of the conservation easement laws)."
Let's not forget wind turbines
Cobb brought up the issue of wind turbines. "In land use, we stated we did not want to accept wind turbines for five years; can you do that? It will take five years for everything to wash out on (Highland New Wind Development's proposed industrial wind turbine facility).
Cobb said the state and federal government might step in to enact legislation regarding wind turbines and alternative power that may or may not be what the citizens of Highland County want.
"That is something we have no control over," said Rexrode.
"We've got to figure out how to do that (have a five-year review period on new industrial wind facility application)," said Cobb. "It's not going to be a moratorium, that's not legal, but how do we do that? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer."
Rexrode added, "I don't think wind turbines are right for the entire county ... But like conservation easements, I would like say on where to put them and where not to put them."
Armstrong reminded supervisors the comprehensive plan is not a law or ordinance, but a guide for making decisions.
Rexrode responded, "We are being sued over this guide, that's what I'm saying. Is it a law or is it a guide? If someone sues you because you followed a guide, and they win, is it a law? A board of supervisors, this one or one in the future, needs to have a comprehensive plan that addresses these issues and any changes (in the laws, technology or community vision) in the future. Five years from now something may develop that doesn't even exist in this plan. You can't just say we don't want this here or we don't want this there. Technology changes day to day."
"We can have public hearings," said Armstrong. That would be a way to address new issues not considered in the plan, she said.
"You're right, you need to update things, but things come along that are not covered," said Rexrode. "Whether it is pro or con, your elected officials have to be able to make decisions that benefit the community."
What's the next step?
Lambert said the board is under no timeline to complete its review of the plan. Cobb said the planning commission would not hold a public hearing on its own, which would have started a 90-day clock for supervisors to review the plan. Without giving details as to when the review would be complete, Rexrode said, "Let this board look at this with legal counsel (to figure out) this is what needs to be changed, this is what we looked at, this is what you looked at."
"As you make your comments per section, hand it back to me and I will give it to the subcommittee that prepared the section," said Cobb. "We need some guidance, legally
and philosophically, what you are looking at (and what you want us to do with it.)"
The comprehensive plan committee is on call in case additional meetings are needed. The supervisors may schedule work sessions to go over the plan together. "The ball is now in your court," said Cobb.
"The plan has withstood a lot of scrutiny already," said Sullenberger. "Some things that seem logical in some places are not logical (in Highland County) at all, we have had that problem with economy of scale issues for years, we have to be mindful of our differences,
"I've had supervisors from two other counties say to me, 'You don't support the homestead exemption, (do you?)' which the governor proposed. The proposal would be something that would help us potentially, however, people from other counties say, 'You do understand that if this is implemented we have to fall back and put higher taxes on other people? (People) will jump up and down and say, 'Why are you supporting this?' We (Highland County board of supervisors) support it because it is the only vehicle we can use to give people a tax break in this county."
Cobb said, "The fence law change (a strategy under land use) would cut costs to farmers and wouldn't cost you anything. Now, if your neighbor does not run livestock, he doesn't have to pay for the fence." Cobb would like to see the law changed to force adjoining property owners to share in the expense of a farmer's fence.
The plan is about
consensus
"This was about as good a cross section of the county as could be; we tried, you can't just cut and paste," said committee member Caroline Smith on the completion of the plan review.
"I don't mean to imply that you did that," said Sullenberger.
"We had to go back with the general consensus," said Armstrong. "They (committee members) needed not to reflect on the book as their personal (view), they needed to take into regard the entire community."
Gutshall said, "They (supervisors) have to answer to the voters, we don't," meaning that the final say on the wording of the comprehensive plan rests with the supervisors, not the review committee.
Armstrong said, "This is the voters' (comprehensive plan)."
With no further questions from the board, Sullenberger concluded, "I think you (Cobb and committee) did a good job with the objectives part of it in being real specific with what kind of things, you are not saying we demand that the county do this, you are making suggestions, giving us guidelines."
Supervisor Lee Blagg added, "The timeline for land-use strategies, that's a good thing." He also said that the assignment of responsibility to specific offices was good, too. "At least these are the guys that should be looking at it."
Cobb told the supervisors, "We intend to review this probably on an annual basis, at least one section per year."
| 
