Should the current board of commissioners in Carroll County hear the appeal of the Belt Farm zoning case, or should the new board, which takes office next Monday, hear it? The current board has a hearing set for today but residents of surrounding properties would like the hearing postponed until after the new board is sworn in.
At issue is whether the developer will be able to build 240 homes on 205 acres. Under the current zoning, only about 100 homes are permitted. But Jack Cooper, speaking for the development company, says that to recoup the $2 million cost of extending county water and sewer lines to a planned elementary school, denser development must be allowed. The county planning commission disagreed and refused to approve the rezoning request.
Neighboring residents oppose changing the current zoning. They believe that Linton Road is not capable of handling the traffic that a subdivision of this size would generate. They also contend that because they received word of the hearing about 10 days after the developer, they haven't had sufficient time to prepare their case.
If it chooses, the current group of commissioners has the legal authority to hear and decide this rezoning case. Mr. Cooper wants this board to hear his appeal. Mr. Cooper complains the rezoning has become a political football and would like outgoing commissioner Elmer C. Lippy to recuse himself because during the campaign Mr. Lippy said he would oppose the rezoning. Mr. Cooper would like to keep "politics" out of the decision-making.
Once zoning cases wend their way to the county commissioners, they are "political" by definition. Growth is Carroll's most contentious public policy issue. As a consequence, any major land-use change in Carroll has political implications -- particularly those that allow for increased residential development, such as the Belt Farm plan.
Preventing a commissioner from voting will not make politics disappear in a zoning case. If Mr. Cooper wants the current board to hear this case, he can't dictate which commissioners should sit in judgment. Mr. Lippy is entitled to vote regardless of what he may have said on the campaign trail. This board of commissioners has the authority to vote on this case. It should not shirk its duty. To do so would be injecting politics into the matter.