Board, not commission, bears responsibility
Printer-Friendly
Email this Letter
Post a Comment (0)
With regard to the proposed training facility, or any other development application, it is important to recognize that the planning commission makes no decision on any land-use plan, but instead is an advisory body.
The board of supervisors, the real "Decider," may choose to accept the planning commission recommendation or not.
While it is good to make one's position known at planning commission hearings, and sometimes the planning commission process can improve details of an application before it reaches the board of supervisors, those who have concerns should be very clear on where to focus their efforts. The approval of, and ultimate responsibility for the training facility, rests squarely with the supervisors.
If those who have strong feelings and concerns about a potential training facility as currently proposed have not already done so, they would be wise to immediately request an informal meeting (not a public meeting) with the supervisor from the district in which the training facility is being proposed.
These informal meetings happen all the time, usually at the behest of developers and often significantly in advance of any scheduled public hearings.
Concerned citizens, who appear to have now organized, would be wise to select a number of key individuals to attend such a meeting. These key individuals would more directly ask collective questions of their supervisor, obtain answers and information, express community concerns and bring information back to others in the group.
Such a meeting would benefit from having key staff who have worked on the training facility application in attendance to perhaps shed light on questions, such as why this particular location was selected in the first place, and issues they were aware of from the onset.
If an informal meeting has already taken place and yielded no improved dialogue or improvements, then meet with other supervisors.
It is good to remember that an applicant (the county in this case) can elect to withdraw a pending application.
Given what appears to be the growing community concern and mounting questions surrounding the proposed training facility application, perhaps this is something the board of supervisors should consider.
I was advised once by a politician that facts are important, but so is perception. The board would be wise to be very mindful of perception here — they could make a decision on a special-exception use proposed by the county and for the county, and accept the ramifications of perceived conflict of interest.
They could defer decision, and vet the application more fully with more involvement from the community. They could withdraw the application while searching for a more suitable site.
But above all else, citizens should always remember that the board of supervisors, and the board alone ultimately bears sole responsibility for the outcome of land-use decisions.
Supervisors are elected to represent the citizens of the county. I followed the Costco case with great interest. Citizens should not have short-term memories. They should not forget the outcome of these decisions, and should not forget their elected officials' responsiveness to their concerns, especially when election day comes.
Karen Hunt
Amissville
You must be logged in to post a comment.