First, as I understood it, the previous proposal divided land into two
zones -- ag/forestry and rural, and then each of those into more and less
productive, based on soil type. Does the new proposal call all land
ag/forestry, and then classify it as more and less productive? In other
words, no more rural zone in which development is channeled?
Second, can anyone give us a sense of the overall rationale and philosophy
behind the new proposal? How and why did the Planning Commissioners
develop this? It is clearly (I think ...) simpler, but how does it respond
to concerns expressed at the hearings?
Thanks for any help you can provide!
--Priscilla S