This past Tuesday night the Comprehensive Plan Committee met to discuss the feedback from the April 28, 2008 Open House. The planner, Berry Farrington, had compiled the results from the written feedback forms, and you can access them here.
During the discussion of what changes would be made to the Comp Plan chapters discussed at the Open House, I was happy to hear Committee member Mike Greco point to the citizen responses to the CAC's November, 2006 survey. It indicates that he thinks the comprehensive plan should reflect citizen input.
It's worth noting that neither the CAC's November, 2006 survey nor the feedback from the recent Open House can be taken as representative of the opinions of the township as a whole. Bill Weber recognized this when he wrote,
The results of the survey cannot be validly generalized to the entire Eureka adult population because the sample was self-selected. That is, those who received a copy of the survey decided whether or not to complete and return it.
Even though the survey and feedback results aren't random surveys, they obviously shed some light on township opinions, even if they need careful consideration before using the results to come to broad conclusions about public opinion in the township in general.
What Mike pointed to at Tuesday night's meeting was the 85% positive response in the 2006 survey to the proposition,"Eureka Township should use planning and zoning to preserve high quality natural areas." That's a pretty general statement. It doesn't even hint at how the proposal might be accomplished.
If, instead, the survey had proposed, "We need to value our high quality natural resources," It's hard to imagine why anyone wouldn't vote "yes" to that, and maybe the CAC would have gotten closer to 100% positive response with that wording. Ditto for "Do you love the environment?"
As long as you don't say how you intend to accomplish your goal, you stand a better chance of getting citizen support.
It's been one and one half years since the CAC's November, 2006 survey. In the meantime, we've had a couple of proposed drafts, a forum and an open house, and the proposals have gotten more specific than the general proposition that initially garnered 85% support. As the proposals have gotten more specific, public support has lessened.
The feedback forms asked for opinions on very broadly stated goals, as well as on slightly more specific policies. Here are the most popular goals, according to the recent feedback forms:
| In Favor | ||
| Goals
Receiving the most "In Favor" Votes: |
Number | %-age |
| Allow limited non-farm development provided that the negative impact on farming is minimized. | 23 | 66% |
| Protect the Township’s rural and agricultural character. | 22 | 63% |
| Allow land uses that will maintain Eureka Township’s rural character | 21 | 60% |
And these are the least popular goals, according to the recent feedback forms. This indicates only weak support for using planning and zoning to preserve high quality natural areas:
| In Favor | ||
| Goals With the
Least "In Favor" Votes |
Number | %-age |
| Protect the habitat and biodiversity of the area | 13 | 37% |
| Encourage protection of priority natural areas and natural resource corridors through local land use decisions. | 15 | 43% |
These are the policies that received the greatest numbers of votes. Interestingly, they are policies that recognize landowner's rights:
| In Favor | |||
| Policies Receiving the most "In Favor" Votes | Number | %-age | |
| Continue to support the Right To Farm when using generally accepted agricultural practices. The Township recognizes that with farming come smell, noise, dust, and slow moving vehicles. | 28 | 80% | |
| The [TDR] program will be understandable by citizens. | 24 | 69% | |
| Administration of the [TDR] program will not create an undue burden on Township government. | 23 | 66% | |
| Require that after aggregate mining, land is restored to a usable, attractive condition. | 23 | 66% | |
| Continue to allow agricultural/horticultural businesses and home occupations in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. | 23 | 66% | |
| Conduct thorough study before guiding land for commercial-industrial use | 23 | 66% | |
| Work with County and State officials to help develop a program that will assess farmland at a lower tax rate. | 22 | 63% | |
| Recognize land stewardship practices by private property owners that protect natural areas. | 20 | 57% | |
| The [TDR] program will respect landowners’ rights to use their land in a way that does not significantly harm others’ property nor the community’s health, safety, welfare and morals. | 20 | 57% | |
And these policies received the least numbers of votes. They focus more on township restrictions on landowners' rights:
| In Favor | |||
| Policies Receiving the Least "In Favor" Votes | Number | %-age | |
| Maintain Eureka Township’s agricultural zoning of one unit per quarter-quarter section. | 10 | 29% | |
| Maintain Eureka Township’s agricultural zoning of one dwelling unit per quarter-quarter section. | 11 | 31% | |
| The [TDR] program will encourage protection of priority natural areas and natural resource corridors. | 12 | 34% | |
| Consider opportunities for the extraction of aggregate prior to approving requests for nonagricultural land uses. | 12 | 34% | |
| Require that land use permit requests identify the natural resource corridors and priority natural areas on preliminary plans and submittals. Plans must identify the methods that will be used to protect or manage these resources. | 12 | 34% | |
| Avoid fragmentation of farmland in order to support a “critical mass” of farms, making farming activity more viable in the Township. | 13 | 37% | |
| Provide for adequate separation of new non-farm houses from existing confined animal feedlots or manure storage facilities. | 14 | 40% | |
| Create a transfer of housing rights program that achieves the specific goals of such a program, stated in the Land Use Plan. The goals are: | 14 | 40% | |
| Shift land uses that could have adverse impacts on groundwater quality away from groundwater sensitive areas and encourage them in other better protected parts of the Township. | 14 | 40% | |
| The [TDR] program will protect opportunities for efficient and cost-effective land development for a time when public sewer and water services may become available. Such opportunities include the creation of a suitable commercial/industrial area in the Township. | 14 | 40% | |
| Utilize Township Ordinances to protect natural resources. Explore performance standards to control the impacts of development (such as landscaping for screening, stormwater infiltration features, or maximum areas of impervious surface), and incentives to encourage conservation. | 14 | 40% | |
