Yet another tale of woe for a RR1 landowner!
After reading this shocking and upsetting article of how Mr. Zen was (mis)treated by council, I feel the need to express my concern, since this is not an isolated incident.
It is morally wrong to let a RR1 landowner plan, spend time and often considerable sums of money, on a bona fide proposal within the restrictions of RR1 zoning. Suddenly there seems to be a panic in council. The word "environmentally sensitive" crops up again. (For Pete's sake, let's face it, the whole valley and the mountains are environmentally sensitive.) Tricky manoeuvring of municipal laws ensues and voila! We have another "rezoning", leaving the owner angry and frustrated.
Council member Kristi Wells again seems to be the only one who objects to council's approach to these matters. I use the word "again" because, contrary to her claim that "this has never happened before," the same situation took place during the public hearing on March 3, 1997. The subject was the sub-dividable parcels of RR1 lands were changed from 40 to 100 acres.
Council was accused of "underhanded and malicious behaviour." Kristi Wells voted against third reading as she had trouble with the fact that this was rushed through without notifying the RR1 landowners and had trouble with the manner in which council dealt with the matter.
Aside from these frequently mishandled situations, isn't it about time council started treating these often long-time landowners and taxpayers fairly? There seems to be too much take and almost never any give.