This is a really good thread.

Grandpa,

Where is balance? I thought a balanced approach was a good idea, but then learned that balance has subjective, rather than objective dimensions. I personally don't care for a "one size fits all" land use regulation, but then how do you deal with the injustice of prescribing a 25' buffer on citizen A's property and then a 150' buffer on citizen B's? Those kinds of differences are a real possibility with landscapes I'm familiar with for stream habitat protection.

What I'd like to see in a thread like this is where the price of criticism is that those criticizing the KCC's decision offer a constructive alternative. Given that the County has access to many experts in environmental fields, it would be interesting to read the alternative suggestions by the PP BB experts.

In the spirit of fair play, here's my suggestion. I think the universal, broad based regulations should be pretty stiff. Then a landowner has the option of following those, or presenting an alternative development plan for approval. The performance standard is that the County officials have to issue a determination that the alternative plan equals the general regulations in terms of environmental protection and impact.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.