SUPERVISORS APPROVE 1ST READING OF COMP. PLAN
Friday, May 27th, 2011 -- 12:28 PM
The Clark County Board of Supervisors met in Owen last night and passed a comprehensive plan on a vote of 19 in favor to 9 opposed.The vote followed a public hearing. Around one dozen plan opponents spoke.
Their arguments were familiar: It was an unnecessary land rights? grab by the county; voters in a 2006 advisory referendum overwhelming said they didn?t want the plan; and that the Devil was literally in the details.
"Clark County didn't just think this up, it came from somewhere," testified Steve Grottke of Chili. "Now, in 1992...the U.N. had this summit called the Earth Summit. Out of that was produced a document called Agenda 21."
Bill Elmhorst of the Town of York recited scripture, implying the plan-makers had been ?crafty,? not unlike ?the serpent? of the Bible. He took umbrage with the Planning and Zoning Committee?s claim that the plan was required by statute to enforce existing zoning ordinances and wasn't a Smart Growth plan.
"The deceptive claim has been made that the Clark County Comprehensive Plan is not a Smart Growth plan. That claim is a lie," Elmhorst stated.
While mention of "Smart Growth" was removed from the plan, Elmhorst said the "goals and policies" of the original document remained.
Several speakers challenged the board to send the idea to a binding referendum.
Supporters had equally well-worn responses: They said the plan was not a regulation; it?s required by state law in order for the county to enforce existing county zoning, shoreland and subdivision ordinances, but doesn?t impact towns or other municipalities.
Bryce Luchterhand of the Town of Colby asked rhetorically if there was a businessman or farmer that didn?t plan for the future and said it was ?ludicrous? to think the county shouldn?t do the same.
He gave an anecdote of how planning?and ultimately zoning?can protect property rights, not strip them away.
He said the Town of Colby Zoning Board was able to prevent a strip club from being built across the rural home of a retired couple.
"We prevented that from happening. Now, I ask you, who's rights did we violate? Did we violate the rights of that couple that worked their all of their lives...or did we violate the rights of the guy that came there, bought the two acres, and wanted to make a quick profit by operating a girly show?" Luchterhand said.
Greenwood supervisor Brad Matthison attempted to postpone the vote and send the issue to a binding referendum, but both motions failed.
Chili Supervisor Steve Okonek moved to suspend the rules to waive the 2nd and 3rd readings of the ordinance, but the motion, requiring a 2/3-majority, failed on a vote of 15-13.
The ordinance will likely be back before the board at their meeting next month for its 2nd and 3rd readings.
Feel free to contact us with questions and/or comments.