By Jessie Burchette
jburchette@Salisburypost
County commissioners have decided to punt the debate over a western Rowan land-use plan to the next board.
Four of five commissioners interviewed Wednesday said they will not bring the issue up again before new board members take office Dec. 1. And with the exception of Commissioner Jon Barber, there appears to be little enthusiasm among holdover commissioners to tackle the issue after Dec. 1.
It’s unclear if the Nov. 4 election to fill two seats will change minds or the vote count. None of the four candidates, including incumbent Jim Sides, has offered full support for the plan developed by the Land Use Steering Committee which covers all unincorporated areas west of Interstate 85.
Commissioners pulled discussion of the plan from their agenda Monday night.
Arnold Chamberlain, chairman of the Board of Commissioners, said he is disappointed, “especially as it relates to our Planning Department, our economic development and growth in Rowan County for years to come.”
For nearly two years, Chamberlain pushed for a plan. Faced with competing plans offered by the Steering Committee and the Planning Board, Chamberlain offered his own version, trying to strike a balance between preserving farmland and allowing residential and commercial development.
“This is not about developers, this not about farmers, but it’s about Rowan County,” Chamberlain said. “We either need a plan or forget it.”
He warned that time is running out with urban sprawl creeping in from Cabarrus and Iredell counties.
Chamberlain suggested some commissioners bowed to pressure mounted by vocal supporters of the Steering Committee plan, which heavily favored preserving farmland.
Asked what happened to cause the process to derail, Chamberlain said, “You probably should talk to Jon (Barber) and Tina (Hall). I am not the one that wavered because of outside influence.”
Throughout the process, Chamberlain believed he had the support of a majority of board members to adopt a land-use plan.
Sides said from the beginning he would vote against any plan.
“The only ones that stayed true were Commissioner Sides and Commissioner (Chad) Mitchell,” Chamberlain said.
Chamberlain said the county has now invested more than a quarter of a million dollars on two failed land-use planning efforts. The county spent $150,000 with the Urban Institute before dropping that effort in 2005and paid Benchmark of Kannapolis $40,000 for the western Rowan effort. Chamberlain said the costs also included thousands of dollars in staff time as planners worked with the Steering Committee at a dozen or so meetings and public input sessions.
Chamberlain said he will not bring the issue back to the board, adding, “This is my last public word on the subject while I am in office.”
Hall apparently withdrew her support when confronted with multiple plans. She told Chamberlain Monday she was unwilling to commit to a plan.
“We have the Steering Committee plan, Barber’s plan, the Planning Board’s plan and Arnold’s plan. We were overwhelmed,” Hall said. Pulling the issue from the board’s agenda, she added, “was the right thing.”
Hall said the board needs more time to evaluate the plans and come up with the very best.
Hall said she has been contacted by many who are “very passionate” about the farmland preservation focus of the Steering Committee plan. She added that she is surprised that she hasn’t received calls from other citizens.
Barber is ready and willing to talk about the plan and suggested holding a special meeting to discuss and thrash out differences to reach a compromise.
Barber said he has suggested that he and Hall sit down with Planning Director Ed Muire and Chris Cohen, chairman of the Land Use Steering Committee, and go through the plan item by item.
“Our job would be to listen to their arguments (Muire and Cohen) and to shape the compromise language to something we both can actively support and present to our fellow commissioners,” he said.
Barber also argued that the process was flawed when commissioners allowed the Planning Board to edit the Steering Committee’s draft. He also noted the new Board of Commissioners will likely determine what the next steps are, or if any plan is adopted.
The whole land-use planning process may have turned off one commissioner who will still be around after Dec. 1.
Mitchell, vice chairman of the current board, had committed to support some type of plan. He said he was reasonably convinced that a land-use plan would not harm property rights if done correctly.
“The whole debate got off track and derailed. … The committee tried to put farmland preservation policies in the plan. It should have never been about farmland preservation,” Mitchell said.
“If we want to have a discussion and debate about farmland preservation, then let’s have it. It wasn’t appropriate (in the land-use plan),” Mitchell said. “That was not the place for it.”
Mitchell said most counties do land-use plans first, then adopt zoning later, but Rowan is trying to do it backwards.
While basically against land-use planning, Mitchell said it was important to Chamberlain to get a plan developed and adopted. He agreed to support the effort at the outset.
“The Land Use Steering Committee version went in a direction I was not willing to support,” Mitchell said.
He added he doesn’t see the need for the county to undertake any new land-use studies or surveys in the foreseeable future.
Sides said Wednesday that commissioners ultimately appointed the wrong people to the Steering Committee, “people who had an agenda to promote a heavy emphasis on farmland preservation. That tainted the process.”
“Arnold thought he had three votes (for passage),” Sides said. “Tina changed her mind at the last minute.”
Sides also noted the money the county has spent on land-use planning and the hundreds of hours of staff time.
“We could have hired two more planners for the cost,” he said.