Committee Priorities

[hjcu...@aol.com]

Although the work plan should be high on our list of work topics,
perhaps our immediate concern should be sub-division review.

I attended the Sub-division Review Listening Session yesterday
afternoon which was designated "The Ag Session". Fourteen people were
in attendance which the discussion leader said was by far the largest
attendance of the nine sessions he had held thus far as well as being
"the most interesting" without bothering to enlarge on the latter
comment. Appropriately, the topics discussed all focused on that
portion of the sub-division regulations which dictates that each
subdivision reviewed must be examined as to its impact on agriculture.
The facilitator, Bill Collins, noted that this was the first time in
the previous sessions that this topic was addressed.

Of the attendees, four of us owned and operated working farms or
ranches: Heather Wills, John Rimel, John Ployhar, and myself.

Jason Rice, representing MOR/MBIA, essentially followed the
recommendation proclaimed in their "Place to Grow" report maintaining
that the correct interpretation of the ag impact imperative should be
directed toward the impact "on surrounding ag operations" rather than
on the way it has historically been applied as a consideration of the
impact on the potential loss of the agricultural productivity of the
land being subjected to sub-division. Under MOR guidelines, the impact
on other natural resources such as wildlife habitat and water quality
would still address the potential effects of development on these
entities. Their proposed wording would disenfranchise the land itself
as an important resource in its own right. In so doing, MOR would
effectively remove agriculture from the sub-divison review process.
They feel zoning is the only proper method to be used in the
protection of agricultural lands.

Paul Hubbard, CFAC, would keep ag lands as a consideration in
reviewing sub-division proposals but would favor the adoption and
inclusion of mitigation standards which would be consistently applied
to any project containing productive agricultural land. This approach
would add the predictability which is now lacking in present sub-
division reviews.

John Ployhar, Potomac, is strongly opposed to any policy which would
not allow him to do anything he wishes with his land.

It was suggested by another participant that if sub-division
mitigation policies are adopted, they should include several options.

Why should our sub-committee make this our immediate top priority? 1)
The topic is currently under scrutiny by BCC and it is the
responsibility of OLC to make recommendations to BCC regarding issues
of importance to rural county members. 2) One of our primary goals is
the preservation of Open Space with an emphasis on working landscapes.
Thus the issues which may adversely affect agricultural lands become
our responsibility to investigate.

[Carolyn]

Jim, thanks for summarizing your thoughts related to the listening
session. I agree that subdivision review would be a good starting
place for our subcommittee. If others agree, we can outline potential
resources to review and potential tasks to recommend to the main
committee. Carolyn

[Alicia Vanderheiden]

Wholly agreed to start with subdivision review, especially since RI
fiscal year doesn't start until June. Very nice job sharing info from
the listening session Jim. Could you please share what the thoughts/
feelings of the other 10 participants...you mentioned they were not
owners/operators but I'm curious. Thanks!