• Mark on 2016/10/21 at 8:01 am said:

    If you look at the proposed zoning map, there is NO consistency applied throughout. Why is most of Talavera T2 and then we have a different designation for just a few streets on Alamo Mine and Cueva Mine? If you read the map and designations, technically could you erect mobile homes in Organ Mesa Ranch as well? This 400 page document raises more questions than answers and I feel like it is being railroaded through our present commission. I hope our concerns are addressed and if they are I think we need to go a step further and delay a vote on this until the January commission convenes. We will have 3 new members in January. That alone is a majority. The public needs more input before this is put to a vote. I for one think it would be a wise use of our dues ;;money to file an injunction to delay a vote on this. I am sure it could be done for a few hundred bucks and would be money well spent not just for our community but for the entire county. Many groups including ranchers are NOT happy with this document.

  • Erika Smith on 2016/10/18 at 7:56 pm said:

    In the county document titled, “Summary of the Proposed Unified Development Code (UDC)” is the following paragraph:
    “Currently there are two (2) comprehensive plans used to guide future development in the County and nine (9) existing ordinances that regulate zoning, subdivision, and development standards. This
    causes confusion and navigation problems within the ETZ and overall county, costing county residents time and money.”

    In the actual UDC proposal, there is no mention of the current costs or projected costs under the proposal. Hence, to imply that current plans/zoning ordinances are “costing county residence time and money” is clearly intended to mislead the reader into believing the proposed plan would “save” residents time and money. Since the county mentions costs under the current plan/ordinances, but fails to quantify those “costs”, then it bring into question whether any actual facts were obtained and considered by those that prepared the proposed plan. Not good.