Once again the proposed land-use plan for western Rowan County appears to have breathed its last. County commissioners were set to consider the latest version of the planning document last week when Chairman Arnold Chamberlain pulled it from the agenda, knowing he didn’t have enough votes to win its approval.
At issue is the difficult job of balancing opposing points of view. Area developers and some farmers want the county to take a hands-off approach and let the market dictate how rural property is used. If they’d had their way, Rowan would not even have zoning. Other farmers and preservationists advocate land-use guidelines that would protect farmland ó guidelines that likely would strengthen zoning. As Chamberlain has found, putting together a compromise between those views is challenging.
People who carry the banner for property rights will eventually have to recognize the need for some type of land-use plan in Rowan. Such a plan could help protect the value of their own property by helping the county make important strides forward. Commission candidate Carl Ford, a land-rights advocate, said at a forum Thursday he has learned at least one way a plan could help. He sat in on a meeting with a representative of the Division of Aviation recently to talk about getting funds to expand the Rowan County Airport, he said. Early on in the conversation, the man said he would need a copy of the county’s land-use plan. “Everybody’s jaw dropped,” Ford said, including his own. Even if it’s only a page, Ford said, Rowan has to have a land-use document to plan for transportation needs.
Jim Sides, who opposes land-use planning, says his fellow commissioners appointed the wrong people to the steering committee that developed the original land-use plan; too many of them had farmland preservation on the agenda. But when you’re talking about land use in an agricultural area, the most interested citizens often will be those who want to preserve their rural way of life. One could just as easily question the composition of the planning board ó also appointed by commissioners ó that was willing to scotch the farmers’ interests and leave the door open to any and all kinds of development.
The tug of war between advocates and opponents of land-use planning is not unique to Rowan County. It’s classic, yet most counties find a way to reach agreement. Commissioners have now rejected two land-use plans in five years because they didn’t like the results ó results that were very similar. Both times commissioners blamed the process, flushing some $200,000 of county funds and untold volunteer and staff hours down the drain. The problem is clear. If citizens want a land-use plan that reflects the interests of people in the affected area, they need to come up with a new composition for the Board of County Commissioners. Let’s hope a better board emerges from the Nov. 4 election.