The new proposal retains the status quo, that most of the county is zoned
ag/forest. But making administrative partitions site-specific (tied to soil
type) instead of tied only to total acreage is a radical departure from the
status quo.
You are right in that there is no "rural" zone in the new proposal. I, at
least, strongly believe in channelling growth, but believe that should be
adjacent to existing towns, which is consistent with the comp plan.
At our public hearing and subsequent meeting, there was unanimous
dissatisfaction with the rural zone, from diverse constituencies
(conservationists, wildlife pros, farmers). That largely drove my own
change of heart. Frankly, I never liked the rural zone anyway. But I went
along with what I believed to be a reasonable compromise. And I may have to
again.
Another thing to consider is that the only substantive difference between
the two zones was the automatic split in the rural zone for parcels larger
than 10 acres. Otherwise, they were not much different.
One overriding theme that is too-often overlooked: higher-density rural
residential areas are permitted under any proposal! In order to do so, the
land must be rezoned rural-residential. I believe that well-thought out
proposals on appropriate land have no problem getting rezoned. And isn't
that the purpose of that zone anyway?
Dennis Geist, Vice-chair, LCPC