comments

Conservation plans favored

READER INPUT
-A +A
My Planning Commission comment (“Loomis approves agricultural recommendation,” Loomis News, Oct. 28) on interference with farm rights was not about conservation plans, which I heartily encourage. It was a response to public comment requesting including aesthetics, views, fencing, and other items, rather than our focus on environmental issues (soil, water quality, chemicals, etc.). That was the context of my Disneyland remark. My "no" vote was solely because the plan requirement was changed from five or more participating lots to merely two. This seems to me out of scale with any Montserrat comparison. The council already excluded subdivisions of four or fewer lots; to apply the four-or-fewer exemption within a larger subdivision is an appropriate parallel. (Would "two lots" mean simply renting out a pasture or strawberry field?) Conservation plans are great, but they are ordinarily voluntary and private, not subject to town review and legal entanglements. It is my opinion that the commission rejected the kinds of enforcement proposals mentioned, believing existing agencies that regularly handle environmental problems (erosion, chemicals, water, etc.) are better equipped for enforcement and correction than the town. I don't think revoking a subdivision was what the commission or open space committee had in mind. Jean Wilson, Loomis