August 21, 2003
TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND
Joint Meeting with Planning & Zoning
Draft Comprehensive Plan
Councilmember Scott R. Jensen
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
Mr. John Atwood
Mr. Daniel Swann
Mr. Christopher Brownawell
Also in attendance were Town Engineer Mr. Tim Glass, Assistant Town Engineer Mr. Joe Gruber, Town Planner Mr. Tom Hamilton, Assistant Town Planner Mr. Matt Davis, Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Steve Kehoe and Town Clerk. Council candidates Dan Brasington and Maureen Scott-Taylor were also present.
The Mayor and Council met in a joint workshop session with the Planning & Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in the Council’s Chambers. The President of the Council led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
WORKSHOP MEETING
The President of the Council called the meeting to order. Mr. Ford discussed the format for the evening.
COMMENTS FROM THE TOWN PLANNER
Mr. Hamilton, the Town Planner discussed the Plan adopted in 1997. He stated that the Plan, required by state law to be updated every six years, serves as a guide for decisions on growth, development and changes to the town’s zoning ordinance. He stated that the Draft Plan has been worked on for the last two years. Mr. Hamilton stated that the new Plan was due in July but there is no penalty and he is striving to just do a good job. He discussed the Visioning process and the survey done subsequent to the public meetings held. Mr. Hamilton outlined the process to bring the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council to this point.
Mr. Matt Davis, Assistant Town Planner, discussed the high points of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the size and population of the Town of Easton and stated that since January 2000, over 1200 new lots have been created and 529 new permits issued since 1990. Mr. Davis stated that the Planning Commission has devised suggested growth controls. He discussed possibility regulating growth rate. Mr. Davis stated that they have established growth boundaries and considered the exploration of implementation of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the creation of a Capital Improvement Program.
Mr. Davis stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that there is no need for annexation in the next six years with the possible exception of developments that are already established in order to clean up the town boundary.
Mr. Hamilton stated that these findings can be reanalyzed in the next six years. He stated that the Talbot County’s Comprehensive Plan is primarily consistent with the boundary in the draft submitted to the County Council for review. Mr. Hamilton discussed a small piece of property, one of the Brooks Farms, that the County and Town Plan both show as an area for future part of the town but the county’s future land use plan calls that industrial and the town’s future land use calls it residential which is one of the few inconsistencies which may cause conflict in the future.
Mr. Davis discussed future land use area that represent neighborhood commercial nodes where traditional neighborhoods are encouraged to develop again with corner type stores, commercial type activity where residents don’t have to get onto Route 50 or travel a distance for small items.
Mr. Davis displayed a sensitive area map which depicts area that is out of play for development.
The Assistant Town Planner Mr. Davis discussed major retail development and stated that the Planning Commission thinks that retail up to 25,000 square feet should be permitted outright in the properly zoned district. He discussed the 65,000 square feet size cap and stated that the Commission recommends that the cap be lifted with approval by the Town Council for anything over 25,000 square feet.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the plan also says with regards to major retail that it doesn’t have a large future in the Town of Easton but it did not limit it.
Mr. Davis stated that housing is also a big issue; including quality and general availability. He stated that the Plan calls to adopt an Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Mr. Davis stated that the third big item in the Plan is transportation which goes hand in hand with growth. He stated that the east/west traffic across town is very important which was discussed at the hearing in March. Mr. Davis stated that there is support for a bypass around Easton for traffic on Route 50 to Ocean City.
Mr. Hamilton discussed plans in the County’s Comprehensive Plan for a toll road from the Bay Bridge to Ocean City which would be the bypass of Easton. He discussed developers building streets as they are mapped.
Mr. Hamilton discussed the east side collector road. He stated that it is actually a road similar to Washington Street or Aurora Street but on the eastside of Route 50 to allow all the neighborhoods to get back and forth in a tier system. He discussed the east/west connector road. He stated that this road is an attempt to go through the Dudrow farm through proposed development.
Mr. Davis stated that as a result of the Public Hearing in March, the public record was left open and every comment was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a workshop and every suggestion was considered.
Mr. Hamilton discussed the availability of the Draft Comprehensive Plan which has been made available on the web, the library and the Town office for several weeks for review.
The President of the Council Mr. Ford asked if there were Council questions. There were none at this time.
The President of the Council opened the Public Hearing for public comments.
Mr. James Prince, Matthewstown Run, stated that he is a flight paramedic and discussed traffic injuries to children. He stated that with minimal effort he had over 70 signatures on a petition against an east side collector road going through Matthewstown Run. He mentioned Black Dog Alley and stated that maintenance, upkeep and enforcement would not be incurred by the Town of Easton. He questioned if a light would be put in place on Fisher Range Road and Route 328. He stated that better synchronization of lights on Route 50 by the State Highway Administration would help to alleviate traffic problems. Mr. Prince discussed current speeding on that street. He asked about a mail vote on the eastside collector road. He stated that he is all for a bypass instead of wasting town funds. He questioned if speed bumps would be constructed next to Town Park as he feels people don’t care about posted speed limit signs.
Mr. Jensen stated that he is not for the road and appreciates Mr. Prince’s advocacy for a bypass. He discussed notifying the SHA about the synchronization of lights on Route 50. Mr. Jensen stated that he would be interested in discussing a light on Fisher Run Road. Mr. Jensen stated that the road has been planned for years.
Mr. Wendowski asked if Mr. Prince’s petition had been presented to the Town. Mr. Prince stated that he had it at the previous Comprehensive Plan meeting and he will be eager to go around the neighborhood again if he cannot find it.
Mr. Ford stated that he has been a proponent of the eastside collector system and he feels compelled to emphasize what the Town Planner stated regarding the road being akin to Washington Street, not Route 322. He stated that he feels it extremely important to plan this road when we can, as soon as possible due to future development. He stated that Fisher Run Road as constructed is not working.
Mr. Prince reiterated his concerns.
Mr. Ford stated that the Town Engineer is looking at alternate ways to mitigate traffic concerns on Fisher Range Road.
Ms. Mary Anne Draut, 28423 Pine Hurst Circle, stated that she is a member of the affordable housing coalition. She thanked the Council and Planning staff for their help in the housing area. Ms. Droll expressed that they are very pleased with the document but wishes to express one additional objective which is to increase the supply of affordable, low income housing for the town. She stated that the goal would be to explore the feasibility of establishing a housing trust fund which is a financing mechanism which allows the purchaser to use state and federal dollars, private contributions converted into public money for housing projects. She asked the Council to commend that additional objective.
Mr. Richard Bulman, Waterview Drive, commended all those who contributed to the draft. Mr. Bulman offered the following observations: the plan should limit growth consideration to the Priority One and Two areas. The Town should adopt a policy to impose impact fees to cover the entire cost of infrastructure additions caused by new development; if necessary, state legislation should be sought. Mr. Bulman stated that the plan should state that there exists a major east/west traffic problem and that a solution must be developed by a certain date. There should be a strong focus on the concept of in-fill and redevelopment. Easton should not be planned to serve as a major regional retail center and a sense of urgency regarding the protection of sensitive areas should be included. He stated it is unrealistic to think that the reverse of dependence on the automobile is going to happen. Mr. Bulman stated that the plan needs to consider the appropriate size of the planning area. He stated that we should suggest that the town be divided into districts and that each district have its own master plan which incorporates the principles of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Bulman stated that zoning laws alone will not cause the principles of the Comprehensive Plan to become a reality. It will take comprehensive government policy-tax incentives, infrastructure investments, subsidies, etc.
Mr. Jensen questioned Mr. Bulman’s comments regarding retail growth. Mr. Bulman stated that the Town of Easton is appropriately sized for retail growth now and he doesn’t think it should become the next Salisbury and retail growth can come in but not with a shopping center with four department store anchors.
The Town Planner stated that they will submit a revised zoning map subsequent to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan for the Council’s review and approval along with a zoning ordinance.
Mr. Ford discussed the idea of small area plans.
Doctor Callum R.W. Bain, 609 Dutchman’s Lane, submitted a letter with comments. He commended the Council on their work on housing, roads and their attempt to increase employment opportunities especially following the closure of Black & Decker. Dr. Bain asked if the long range planning is adequate. Dr. Bain stated that the present Draft Plan advises “implementation of an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance” which he agrees with but states it is left out of the Plan. He stated that Easton needs APFO and an excise tax on new construction to cover the costs of roads, sewer, schools and emergency services. He discussed the difference between APFO and excise tax. He suggested the Town of Easton review and adopt Chapter 6 of the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan which guarantees that the cost of development will be borne by the developers.
Mr. Thomas Hughes, 9284 Chenar Farm Road, stated that he was a member of the County Steering Committee and there is a distinction between the town version of the growth area map and the county version of the growth area map. Mr. Hughes stated there has been a lot of talk about a regional center. He made reference to the Talbot County Plan and stated that there is a striking difference between the processes followed by the town and by the county. Mr. Hughes stated that he is disappointed with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan process. He remarked on the Natural Resources and Sensitive Areas chapter and stated that the group met only once. He stated that the proposed Sensitive Areas chapter in Easton’s plan does not reflect concern regarding recognition of water problems. Mr. Hughes suggested the Town use the County’s chapter as a guide to make necessary changes to improve natural resources and sensitive areas.
Mr. Jensen asked what his top three changes would be.
Mr. Hughes discussed runoff during rainstorms at Easton Club. He suggested better enforcement and stricter guidelines. He discussed the park proposed at Elm Street Development to put in changes to their storm water plan. Mr. Hughes asked the Council to review the list of polices in Chapter 8 of the County’s Comprehensive Plan to get plenty of ideas.
Ms. Poisey Boicourt, Trappe, asked the Council to focus their attention to Port Street at Easton Point. She stated that she thinks there is an incredible resource on Port Street. She asked the Council to consider a task committee to provide an addendum to the Plan with all the people that have an interest in that portion of Port Street.
Ms. Jane Bollman, 221 S. Hanson Street, stated that the plan is a good piece of work and reflects considerable effort. Ms. Bollman addressed the Transportation Chapter. She stated that she reviewed the new draft of this Chapter and expected changes in result of the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the spring. She stated that there were many who spoke against the east side collector road. Her concern is that the real solution to the Route 50 traffic problem is a full bypass, perhaps even a toll roll on the east side of Route 50 which would make a collector road unnecessary. She stated that many families were opposed to the collector road but the proposed road remains in the Plan as well as a costly overpass. Ms. Bollman stated that there were also young families who spoke up for an east/west connector road which she also considers a high priority. Ms. Bollman questioned the input and participation from the subcommittees. She suggested workshops for controversial issues.
Ms. Colleen Saminsky, Matthewstown Run and Talbot County teacher, discussed a survey from mothers in their neighborhood. She stated that they had never heard about a collector road going through their neighborhood, they were opposed to it and very alarmed about it. Ms. Saminsky stated that she was disappointed that they did not make a difference voicing their concerns and that safety for their children was her biggest concern which she feels is not being taken into consideration.
Mr. Joseph Rickio, 30110 Dover Road, questioned when a portion of the east side collector road would be built.
The Town Planner pointed out that the road is disjointed with no plan at the moment to build at all. He stated that he does not know when it will all be built but the Planning Commission and the staff feel it should be built so it can work.
Mr. Jensen stated that he is not in favor of the road.
Mr. Hamilton stated that building the road requires annexation and development of property and Crofton cannot be made an island. He stated that the road could be built in conjunction with the county if the residents choose not to be annexed into the Town.
Mr. Tom Alspach, has an office in Easton, and stated that he shares concern regarding whether the public has been well enough engaged in development, findings, conclusions and concepts of this plan with particular concern to the conclusions the Draft Plan reaches on the subjects of how big do we want Easton to be and how fast do we want to get it there. Mr. Alspach stated that in the existing Town of Easton, there is enough approved and under review, residential lots and land to accommodate all the growth projected for Easton for the next 25 years. He discussed infill development and suggested requiring developers to develop what is already in the town limits. Mr. Alspach discussed Frederick’s rate of growth and associated problems. Mr. Alspach discussed the new waste water treatment facility to be constructed in Easton. He suggested getting a handle on requiring the development community to pay for the growth they stimulate. Mr. Alspach suggested more dialogue with the public to see what they really want as a community.
Mr. Jensen stated that philosophically, he is warm to the idea to saying what the population should be and we should pick a rate at which to reach that but that gets difficult to do and this plan tries to do it geographically.
Mr. Ford stated that it is important to know regardless of the differences in the designation within the area of that greenbelt, it is critical that the Town’s and County’s Comprehensive Plan draft with the few differences pointed out by the Town Planner, the green belt is almost exactly the same. He stated that the fact that the particular greenbelt and where it is, mirrored in the County’s Comprehensive Plan draft, is contrary to that statement.
Mr. Alspach discussed the process and stated that there is no legal mechanism to make it occur.
Mr. Ford discussed successful coordinated effort needed by the Town and County.
Ms. Rebecca Ellison, Oxford, stated that she was on some committees. She stated that there was not enough community involvement with the Plan. She stated that there is a great deal of reliance on a whole new way of planning which is the geographical confinement. She discussed the east/side collector road and stated that if it cannot be done right, it shouldn’t be done at all. Ms. Ellison stated that there is too much emphasis on the greenbelt and the idea of geographically restricting things. Ms. Ellison asked where the population figure of 35,000 came from. She expressed concern over traffic problems. She suggested growing out what is available now before growing out more. She discussed current development.
Mr. Milton Irwin, 27390 Powatan Avenue, stated that he is confused on the issue of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. He stated that it has been mentioned in 14 counties in Maryland and is considered the law of the land. Mr. Irwin stated that we know growth is going to come here and the task is to be prepared for it. He stated that big, national builders expect to pay their way. He discussed impact fee levels. Mr. Irwin stated that if this Plan is to become a master plan, it has got to have the teeth to allow the Planning Department to have the tools needed to make sure they get paid upfront so it won’t end up on taxpayers.
Mr. Wendowski asked Mr. Irwin as a retired developer, if he would like to take options on a lot of that land. Mr. Irwin stated that he would. Mr. Wendowski stated that he sees it as someone with money to start tying up, similar to what is being done in Virginia right now.
Mr. Irwin stated that it is a real mistake to lock yourself into a use that is years downstream.
Mr. Jensen asked for clarification on the greenbelt area.
Mr. Irwin discussed his views.
Mr. Roger Bollman, 221 S. Hanson Street, drew excerpts from a letter he will forward. Mr. Bollman recognized the work that went into the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the reference to controlling the rate of growth (page 41), a reference to adequate public facilities (page 42), the suggestion that the Council be taken out of the loop of approving major retail has been dropped and a third bullet has been added to work with various local groups. He stated that these are all positive changes. He also discussed changes in the map. Mr. Bollman urged the Council to consider a land development report; a quarterly updated report on the status of development in Easton to see what is in the pipeline. He discussed sediment control measures at construction sites. Mr. Bollman discussed an exception to the sequence of development; a loophole which he thinks should be removed from the Plan. Mr. Bollman stated that the Plan as drafted does not include any mechanism to measure objectives, every 12 months which would keep the plan from going on the shelf and instead make it a useful working document. Mr. Bollman discussed a stakeholders process.
Mr. Jensen discussed infill proposal and aquifers.
Mr. Bollman discussed aquifers in the surrounding areas.
Mr. Ford discussed the Comprehensive Plan in 1997 and the annual report the Planning Commission is required to do. He stated that the meetings with the public might be a process to look at again.
The Town Planner stated that the Annual Report is nearly complete and will be forwarded to the Council.
Ms. Amy Elizabeth Kelly Dawkins, 11 N. Thorogood Lane, stated that she has paid taxes on residential property for a total of 65 years. She asked for a show of hands from those residents who reside in the Town of Easton. She found the turnout to be better than expected and stated that she is proud of the people that have come and taken their time and efforts to improve the area. Ms. Dawkins complained that the committees for the workshop for the Comprehensive Plan were dropped. Ms. Dawkins discussed water issues and aquifer problems and the new waste water treatment plant proposed and the increase in rates coming. She asked that all the agendas of the upcoming meetings be on the website. Ms. Dawkins stated that Easton was one time a retail center. She commended the affordable housing and stated that it should not be at the expense of others. Ms. Dawkins discussed the east/west traffic. She stated that there is too much speeding on town streets. Ms. Dawkins stated that she wants a safer, cleaner community. Ms. Dawkins asked the Council to be more concerned with the streams that feed into the big waterways. She discussed drainage problems after developments.
Mr. John B. Jessup, 24360 Widgeon Place, #9, St. Michaels, stated that he is not an Easton resident. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan, page 120, limit on hookups until 2006 is stated for the wastewater treatment plant. He referred to the portion where each developer would be limited to 20% of his units per year. Mr. Jessup stated that the Star Democrat recently printed a 10% capacity of the remaining capacity. He suggested the Draft be changed if this is correct.
Mr. Ford stated that it was 20% for a number of years but was recently changed to 10%.
Mr. Jessup stated that Cambridge has recently adopted a residential impact fee of $4,500 for new construction; $1,500 for water, $2,800 for sewer and $200 for other infrastructure charges.
Mr. Jessup stated that the website is missing some pages and should be updated to include the July 9 changes. He stated that the library has the revised text as does Laser Letters at $49 per copy which is too costly to purchase which is a breakdown in the public community arrangement.
President of the Council Ford asked for Council comments.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she considers Mr. Ford’s format to be quite generous allowing for the give and take but she wanted to hear the public’s comments first. She stated that she takes issue with the speakers that say that the community has not been allowed to engage in the process as most have been engaged with groups and individuals on various topics including the Comprehensive Plan. She discussed the newspaper and website announcements. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she understands that there has been some breakdown with the Visioning Committees but she feels the Comprehensive Plan has addressed citizens concerns regarding slowing the growth. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she feels if she has a suggestion, it should be included in the Plan and she has questioned things that she asked to be considered although the Plan is not finalized yet.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that we are considering developer impact fees and she asked the community to recognize the changes that are being implemented as we grow. She stated that the County has to impose excise tax after getting the authority from the General Assembly but the Town does have the ability to have the developer pay their impact on new growth. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that it is apparent that we do need to do more with the sensitive areas and she will look at the detailed information submitted by Mr. Hughes.
Ms. Jackson-Amis agreed with Ms. Dawkins that August is not a good month for these meetings and she suggested considering having one meeting in August to enable the Council to refresh and to get the full compliment of the community.
Ms. Jackson-Amis commended Mayor Willey for the meetings regarding housing. She discussed the need to deal with the low end of affordable housing issue and stated that we are very concerned about housing for all of the citizens and they concerns need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan in order to refer to it and keep pace with the needs of the community
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she has not formed a view on whether the collector road is the best answer to the traffic problem but she feels the Town Engineer and the Town Planner have looked at this for a number of years and presented the best case scenario at this point. She feels they are taking into consideration views of citizens such as Mr. Prince but every citizen will not always be happy.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she agrees that the developers should not be allowed to clear off anymore land than they are going to build on at a particular time due to erosion and long term problems caused and asked that this be implemented.
Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed annexing Easton Point and stated that it is good to look toward the future but the private owners preclude plans for this immediately. She asked that comments be directed to the county for consideration.
Ms. Jackson-Amis concluded that the Council is very concerned with the rate of growth and we know we don’t have sewer capacity at this time. She questioned how this should be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan; is the mention of it enough to give latitude to say no or if there is too much specificity, does it tie us into something that cannot be ignored. Ms. Jackson-Amis asked how to question growth issues in order to give flexibility to handle situations that come to the Council. She stated that a conclusion has not been reached but it is a concern and has been discussed. Ms. Jackson-Amis wants the public to know that their concerns are being addressed.
Mr. Jensen discussed the eastside collector road and stated that everyone can’t get all we want all the time when talking about the town as a whole. He stated that he wants to make a case that it is just not a matter of these people not wanting to have a road there; that’s clearly part of it to him. He discussed Mr. Ford’s comments that he would be willing to re-engineering that and he would be extremely willing to consider that but he does not think this road is a good idea as this road is predicated on two ideas: the way to get people across town. Mr. Jensen stated that he does not think it is a particularly good idea as it takes people away from the current commercial area and pumps them in a different direction which will cause commercial development pressure in a different place. He suggested an alternative route that he feels will be better.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she likes the idea of a bypass. She questioned what kind of progress could be made with this.
Mr. Jensen stated that maybe we don’t need such a big road due to all the subdivisions planned in the area.
Mr. Prince discussed ecological reasons to avoid the road. Mr. Prince asked what it would take and how many signatures from residents in Matthewstown to avoid construction of the road.
Mr. Alspach stated that there is a basic assumption about this collector that might not be correct. He stated that we might want to wait for a transportation study with the County and the Town cooperating which he thinks may be critical. He questioned if the two-lane road would accommodate the entire infill of that area and if it doesn’t, wouldn’t the Town just be creating another Goldsborough Street that is now an eastside collector that is backed up all the way from Matthewstown Run to back Dover Road. He stated that a traffic engineer should be able to answer this question in a theoretical way to give the Town guidance.
Mr. Jensen discussed the growth area and the infill proposal. He proposed a way to control growth.
Mr. Hamilton discussed options available without shutting the door to a deserving project. He discussed Easton Point and the possibility of a project.
Mr. Steve Kehoe stated that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to set guidelines for the way zoning will go over the next six years. He stated that zoning is the means by which the Plan is implemented and the annexation is discretionary within the Town Council’s decision so you will have guidelines, developers will know the guidelines if they look at the plan and the Council can decide how to vote.
Mr. Jensen stated that people are worried about growth and if we tell them those areas that are outside are not in and are not going to be considered for annexation because we have plenty to digest and every six years have a discussion about what we are willing to bring in.
Ms. Jackson-Amis disagreed. She stated that it is their responsibility to say no. She stated that she does not think it is our job even for some of the areas that are available to be built out. She stated that we definitely don’t want to go to the greenbelt; that is the boundary but elected officials have to make the decision what the town needs.
Mr. Ford stated that he agrees with Ms. Jackson-Amis. He stated that the success of this plan or any comprehensive plan lies with the decision making powers and the resolve of the elected officials. He stated that he thinks it is clear that this council is strongly in favor of restricting and managing growth.
Mr. Prince questioned what the Town’s goals are.
Mr. Jensen stated that we don’t know exactly what the goal is yet. He stated that he thinks adding another line would be to slow it down and give people in the future the opportunity to see what is going to happen when you put 550 new houses in Twins Oaks.
Mr. Wendowski stated that this started out as a visioning procedure and this is what we have heard. He stated that the Council has heard that the people want to control growth and we have procedures in place to do that. Mr. Wendowski stated that he feels that the Comprehensive Plan needs some tweaking and basically is a good plan that if we put in milestones that we can measure where we are with each of these steps we have in place and take it back to once we have the Plan solidified set our zoning ordinances to max the Plan and then control the change so that we know if a developer comes in or anyone comes in, they know what the ordinances are, they know what they have to meet and yes, we should have an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to pick up some of these costs. He thinks the people that are coming in and are creating this problem for additional water and sewer costs, should pay their fair share. Mr. Wendowski stated that there doesn’t seem to be much more work except to say, let’s put in measuring tools so that we know where we are on a yearly basis versus the Plan.
Mr. Milton Irwin discussed the land use for the butter colored portion of the map. He stated that land use and zoning is the ultimate political action that can be taken by a jurisdiction. Mr. Irwin stated that if you take it out for this Comprehensive Plan, that it forces anyone to come back and justify a use and is not an automatic thing where an applicant is complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the application must be approved.
Mr. Jensen questioned Mr. Irwin on the line he has spoken about.
Mr. Irwin stated that he feels it is just as valid as the change in color.
Mr. Dan Schwaninger, 29629 Schwaninger Road, stated that he is not an Easton resident but is affected by both the County and the Town Plan mainly because of the greenbelt area. Mr. Schwaninger stated that he has worked on the steering committee with Mr. Ford. He stated that basically, his issue is that we can’t always accurately predict the future but we should try to do as good job as possible in planning. He stated that his issue with the greenbelt is that mainly it is a feel good concept that has been mentioned before but he would prefer another name. His stated that his main point is that because he is in that overlap area, and there has been comments about the county and town’s cooperative effort and there needs to be detail work between the county and town in order to make long term plans.
Ms. Ginger Howell, S. Aurora Street, commented on Mr. Jensen’s suggestion regarding growth boundary to encompass the existing town area in the grey and the priority one red areas. She stated that she support that because if the firm language is in the Comprehensive Plan not in the current draft, it is a way to go beyond this current council which will give policy and scope for future consideration.
Ms. Libby Dawkins reminded everyone to be careful what you wish for, you might get it. She discussed the Critical Areas law. She discussed the community subdividing their waterfront land due to the foresight of laws and stated that it pushed prices up and crowds out low income. She commended citizens who contributed to planning. She reminded the council to be careful to not make the public feel useless.
Ms. Jackson-Amis referred to the map. She stated that it is an instrument and the Council has to exercise their votes to do the things that will improve the quality of life without growing, annexing too fast. She stated that we cannot box ourselves in. She stated that the map is just a suggestion on where we are going and she doesn’t feel we need pretend lines.
Mr. Ford stated that this discussion is not over this evening. He proposed a Council workshop to discuss comments. Mr. Ford left the record open for public comments. He scheduled the workshop for September 11 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council’s chambers. Mr. Ford commended the Council for their patience.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the President of the Council adjourned the workshop meeting at 10:45 p.m.
______________________________________
Town Clerk