County Comprehensive Plan Committee Divides to Conquer

Facing the gargantuan task of rewriting the county comprehensive plan—a task that was redoubled by adding in work around the county’s future Metrorail Silver Line stops—the stakeholders steering committee has split their work into three subcommittees.

“I think what, for me, was the straw that broke the camel’s back was the additional work that the Board of Supervisors thrust upon the group,” said stakeholders steering committee and Planning Commission Chairman Jeff Salmon, referring to the addition of the Silver Line plans. Some supervisors have said the small area in that area could end up accounting for more housing and growth than the rest of the county put together.

The 26-member stakeholders steering committee split up some of its members into three subcommittees: One to tackle questions of economic development, one for housing, and one to review the existing policies in the current General Plan—one of the documents the full steering committee is tasked with revising—to see which policies should carry over to the new plan.

Salmon said all meetings of the subcommittees will be open to the public and on the county’s public calendar.

Planning and Zoning Director Ricky Barker said the committees will be tasked with working closely with the county staff to create white papers—information and proposals—in each of their topics to bring back to the full committee.

Salmon acknowledges complaints from among the committee’s members that it is difficult to get things done in such a large group.

“I wanted to take the expertise in the room,” Salmon said, “and frankly this is really the A-team of the county when it comes to the knowledge and expertise that we have in this county.”

One thought on “County Comprehensive Plan Committee Divides to Conquer

  • 2017-08-16 at 7:51 am

    It remains of deep concern to citizens stuck in traffic–who have forcefully expressed their opposition to increased housing development except around Metro, and in favor of conserving natural, agricultural, and historic areas and our water resources–that the many of the stakeholders in this group have economic goals directly in opposition to citizens’ wishes. A housing subcommittee whose members are real estate and development interests, a General Plan subcommittee whose members benefit from weak and vague policies that remove protections that citizens desire, and the planning director’s promotion of an “unconstrained” approach does not bode well for the priorities citizens clearly enunciated. They should remain vigilant and engaged.

Leave a Reply