ELBERT COUNTY
Agenda
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HEARING ROOM
215 COMANCHE STREET, KIOWA, CO 80117
February 26, 2009 @ 7:00 P.M.
EC Zoning Regs Section 16 -PUD New Section “D” Site Design Standards for Residential Developments
Elbert County Master Plan for Housing
Comments
Last October 8th, the Elbert County Planning Commission intentionally postponed discussion on a set of amendments to the county master plan that had been requested by the Board of County Commissioners, to a date when that Board of County Commissioners would be out of office.
As one Planning Commissioner said at the time, “I would think we should continue it at a later date to where we don’t put it in front of the County Commissioners and have them approve it.”
This was not a decision on the merits of the question based in factual analysis and relevant law. It was a procedural tactic used to enforce a prejudice of the Planning Commission against the Board of County Commissioners elected by the people of Elbert County.
It is the BOCC who carry the voters franchise, not the appointed members of the Planning Commission.
I didn’t go looking for a reason to distrust the governance of the Planning Commission, but there it was, plain as the nose on my face. That night in October, they clearly demonstrated, to applause and apparent jubilation, an ability to supplant the rule of law with their own prejudice.
Members of the Planning Commission consider themselves to be the enforcers of the master plan. Fair enough, however, they have shown that they are not to be trusted with regulatory authority. That authority has traditionally been vested solely in the Board of County Commissioners. These proposed planning documents should be expunged of any language that could be construed to change that precedent.
The problem the county faced with the existing master plan is that legislation was passed, and a court applied the rule to Elbert County, that master plans that reference zoning regulations become, by default, regulatory. The last BOCC attempted to remedy this situation – in effect what became a defect – by expunging references from the master plan to county zoning regs. The Planning Commission impeded the BOCC in accomplishing this.
Now comes a new master plan element that specifically references zoning regulations. If the master plan is to become regulatory, it is a decision that the voters of Elbert County should make. Without voter approval we have regulation without representation.
—————————-
On page 5 of the proposed Elbert County Master Plan Housing, item 3 begins with, “Land for open space shall be dedicated to Elbert County…to administer and perpetually defend the open space for its intended use.”
On page 11 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, item 8 begins with, “Open space should be conveyed to Elbert County…,” and item 9 follows with, “Any land dedicated to Elbert County for regional parks or other open space shall include water rights[.]”
The Planning Commission seeks to have regulatory approval authority over developments that also include granting land and water rights to the county. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Neither the Planning Commission nor the BOCC should have regulatory authority over development transactions where the county has a property ownership interest at stake as part of the deal.
—————————-
On pages 8 and 22 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, regulations are contemplated to prohibit barbed wire on the top and bottom strands of 3-wire fencing. One of the goals of the plan is to preserve the rural nature of Elbert County, and part of that rural nature involves cattle fencing. This regulation would adversely affect acreage available for cattle production and seems counter to the preservation of the rural nature of the county.
———————————-
On page 16 of the Elbert County Master Plan Housing document, item 1 specifies conditions under which the BOCC may consider a variance to the plan. This would unnecessarily limit BOCC discretion.
Similarly, on page 2 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, the Planning Commission seeks to codify it’s practice of last October of unilaterally determining when the BOCC may hear a planning issue by limiting the BOCC from holding a public hearing until the Planning Commission issues their recommendation. Once again, this would unnecessarily impede BOCC discretion in their elected governance of Elbert County.