Archive
LaVale zoning plan clarifications concern residents
CUMBERLAND - Phil Hager understands there are residents who remain upset over some late changes to the LaVale Region Plan.
But he said tonight's Allegany County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. at the County Office Complex on Kelly Road, isn't the time or place to air those concerns.
A handful of modifications were introduced at the Planning Commission's Oct. 17 meeting after what Hager, the commission's executive director, called "an exhaustive" public input process. The Planning Commission then approved the plan and forwarded it to the county commissioners for their consideration.
The county commissioners have scheduled a public hearing for 1 p.m. Dec. 6 at the County Office Complex. There and then, Hager said, is the time for residents to air their concerns.
"We've had a firestorm of comments from principally a handful of people regarding the changes that were made on the 17th," Hager said. "It's important that everyone, all stakeholders, gain a better understanding of exactly what the changes made on that date were and their ramifications. The changes that were made are not nearly as significant as some would have us believe. The negative discussions that have resulted in a few quarters ... are not warranted."
Hager labeled those changes "clarifications," not amendments to the plan. But a number of residents and local organizations opposed the changes - or, at least, the fact that those changes weren't able to be commented on by the general public.
Letters were written to the Planning Commission by the League of Women Voters of Allegany County, Citizens for Smart Growth in Allegany County and the Allegany County Forestry Board. At the commission's Nov. 5 meeting, representatives of the newly formed Garden City Homeowners Association, a residential development off Craddock Road, also spoke out against the plan, as did other private residents who were concerned about property rights.
Donald Malaney, forestry board chairman, said Tuesday the board has pulled its support of the plan, which it originally endorsed largely because of the lack of public input regarding those changes made Oct. 17.
"We endorsed the plan as it was originally written," Malaney said. "Then, when it was approved (on Oct. 17), they changed it. We felt therefore it should go (to another) public hearing to discuss the changes."
Having had a chance to review the plan after Oct. 17, Malaney said the forestry board was concerned about changes in the different types of residential zoning and a decrease in conservation areas.
Malaney said he would likely attend the Dec. 6 public hearing. By then, however, he feels it might be too late and that the county commissioners will just rubber-stamp the Planning Commission's recommendation.
"Yeah, that is our feeling," Malaney said, "(that) they'll simply approve (the plan) because the Planning Commission approved it. And that's where we have the problem."
Judy Lipski, president of the local League of Women Voters chapter, penned another letter, dated Nov. 8, to local and state elected officials and office holders. Lipski said the league's intent was to increase awareness of the issue and its potential impact.
"At this point, I'm not sure what my bringing it up (tonight) would do," Lipski said.
She said some people clearly "felt they'd been left out of the process. I would think the Planning and Zoning Commission and the commissioners would be able to do something along those lines. I don't know if they will."
Lipski signed a second letter, this time directed to state and local elected officials and office holders, with an intent to spread awareness of the issue. That letter, sent Nov. 8, has not yet generated any response, she said.
Hager said the county commissioners could, after the Dec. 6 public hearing, approve the plan in its current form or suggest modifications to the plan. They also could choose to refer the issue back to the Planning Commission.
If the Planning Commission were to consider any changes before then, Hager said, it would be in the form of an amendment - which would require another public hearing process.
Contact Kevin Spradlin at kspradlin@times-news.com.
