Fig. 1 The tract (black outline) lies in a very sensitive part of the Mattawoman watershed, with significant nearby acreage purchased by the state as Natural Environment Areas. The anadromous Blueback and Alewife Herring (collectively River Herring) migrate to this area from the Atlantic Ocean each spring to spawn. River Herring egg abundance averaged over the 1998 season is indicated. Also shown are locations of freshwater mussel beds documented in a 1996 survey by Friends of Mattawoman Creek (predecessor of MWS).

Fig. 2 Golf course under construction.

Development Proposal: Pomfret Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) has assembled a 974-acre tract abutting Mattawoman Creek and blanketing several of its highly sloped tributary stream valleys. (See map, Fig. 1.) The corporation is proposing a “championship golf community” that would include 350 very large, upscale homes laid out in pods around an 18-hole golf course. The developer stated that the golf course would be constructed within the stream valleys. This would require extensive clearing and grading (Fig. 2), construction of golf-cart paths and bridges, etc. in sensitive tributaries.

The name of the development, Port Tobacco Valley Country Club, is very misleading in that it lies entirely within the Mattawoman watershed.

The project comprises nine parcels of Tax Map 22 (Parcels 31, 34, 36, 37, 41, 50, 60, 177, and 275). It is divided into two portions. A smaller 200-acre piece lying north of Pomfret Road (Rt. 227) and 774 acres to the south. It touches on the Mattawoman Interceptor thus allowing for a direct sewer connection. (See Fig. 1)

The development, first proposed in 2005 [2], would benefit from a zoning text amendment passed in 2006 (The ordinance is reproduced in Appendix A). The ordinance provides for a lot-size exemption from RC(d) zoning depending on several criteria. [RC(d) means “Rural conservation (deferred),” 10-acre minimum lot size.] RC(d) zoning applies to the Deferred Development District, an 18,000-acre area that was down-zoned to alleviate leapfrog development. One of the criteria, which the developers claim to meet, is stated in the text amendment as:

“prior to the recordation of any lot created under the terms of this provision, the property owner shall execute and record a permanent conservation easement on those portions of the development site that fall within the Mattawoman Creek stream valley to prohibit future subdivision of all land on the development site that is within the Mattawoman Creek stream valley and to maintain the land in a natural state.”

A first step to developing the property is to obtain from the County Commissioners a “determination of appropriateness,” that is, a determination that the proposal meets criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance. On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., the County Commissioners heard a presentation by David Umling, Director of Planning, who stated the development proposal met the criteria of appropriateness for “restoration” of zoning to that which existed (RL) prior to the downzoning to RC(d).

While a public hearing is not required for a zoning “restoration” according to County Attorney Roger Fink, the Commissioners voted to hold a hearing after concerns were raised by Bonnie Bick, Jim Long, and Bruce Kirk.

The reversion to prior zoning density is permitted by the zoning ordinance in part because the site has access to the main sewer interceptor and to water (S3, W3 categories). The developer claims that reversion to RL zoning would entitle them to over 900 houses “by right,” but they are limiting themselves to only 350. Clearly, it would be impossible to erect 900 houses on this steeply sloped site: flat land is available only in small pockets (Fig. 1). Note that significant bridging for access to these pockets appears necessary.

Stream Valley Protection: Of the recommendations made by the Corps of Engineers’ 2003 Watershed Management Plan, stream valley protection is the most important. The Plan states:

The stream valley scenario was the only management technique that reduced future discharge in any meaningful way. The stream valley strategy is the only scenario that effectively reduces the ‘flashiness’ of the system. [page 32]

The stance in the Corps’ Watershed Plan is that the valleys would be protected within the entire watershed. In fact, to help the County protect the stream valleys as recommended, the Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) has performed a sophisticated delineation of the valleys and communicated the information to the County. However, Charles County Planning & Growth Management staff states that no comprehensive ordinance is in the works. A county staff analysis indicates that most of the undeveloped stream valleys occur in the deferred development district, such as the four miles of valleys on the present site (see note 4).

The present zoning ordinance effectively invites higher density to crowd against Mattawoman and its tributaries, since a site must have stream valleys to “protect” to be eligible for higher density. The present ordinance further promotes subdivisions along the Creek by stating:

Where a pocket of developable land is surrounded by land within the Mattawoman Creek stream valley, the Planning Commission may approve a road crossing to access said development pocket where it can be determined that no feasible alternative exists…

The Fig. 1 map shows small pockets of flatter land that are nearly isolated by stream valleys that would have to be bridged for access. It is as if the ordinance were designed specifically for this very project. The ordinance also allows for a zoning reversion if a historical property is “protected.” Can we expect an application in the near future that employs this criterion as well?

Apart from a flawed approach to stream valley protection, it appears that a crucial issue in the present ordinance is the meaning of maintaining a stream valley in a “natural state.” A golf course is by no means a natural state: see the Oxford English Dictionary’s description, note 3. The intent of the Corps’ Watershed Management Plan seems clear: prevent development and maintain forested conditions in the stream valleys. Excerpts from the plan (emphasis added):

p. 29: Stream Valley Protection: This scenario is based on the removal of the Mattawoman
stream valley, approximately 28% of the watershed, from the Development District. [This conclusion is misleading. See note 4.] It effectively maintains the natural integrity of the stream valley and includes the following:

• The area from the top of the steep slopes to the Mattawoman stream [including tributaries] is protected from development. This translates into approximately 17,200 acres, or 28% of the watershed, removed from the Development District. [acreage & percentage are misleading, see note 4]
• This results in a significant landuse change, with large portions of the watershed maintaining forest cover, rather than the expected suburban development.

p. 32: The stream valley protection technique is successful in reducing peak [stormflow] volume by maintaining wide buffers, extensive forests for infiltration, and maintaining the wetland systems.

p. 34: Furthermore, this scenario maintains the extensive riparian buffers and wetland systems, thereby maintaining a functioning floodplain, with its associated pollutant buffering and sediment trapping capacities. Among the most important factors is the decrease in peak concentrations during high flow events.

p. 35: Suspended solid concentrations remain high over all management scenarios, although the most reduction is in the stream valley protection scenario at approximately 10%. This is probably due to providing the maximum amount of forest cover and wetlands to serve as a filter during storm events.

Fig. 3 Entire property (black outline), including stream valleys, is heavily forested and forms a greenway with Myrtle Grove. Development would take out a large amount of forest contiguous to Mattawoman.

Greater forest loss: At the June 27 presentation to the Commissioners, the developer justified converting the stream valleys into a golf course because parts of the site were once farmed. To the contrary, the Google map in Fig. 3 shows that the streams are primarily forested rather than farmed. Note that farming, unlike a golf course, does not permanently remove land from possible reforestation. Furthermore, consideration of Fig. 3 shows the argument is even more specious. The site in fact represents a tract more densely wooded than the surrounding land, and provides a contiguous greenway via DNR’s Natural Environment Areas to Myrtle Grove Wildlife Management Area and Chapman Forest. Note that research finds that large contiguous forested tracts are beneficial to fish. [5]

The developer also claimed that best management practices protect aquatic resources from golf course pesticides and fertilizers. Materials available on Richard Klein’s Community and Environmental Defense website (www.ceds.org) state that BMPs can reduce impacts significantly, but that siting is the most critical element to consider. Clearly, siting a golf course in a forested stream valley does not protect aquatic resources as would a forest. A golf course would alter hydrology by clearing and grading, would increase stormflow discharge, and represents a radically altered ecology compared to the forested natural state.

Conclusion: At the upcoming but hearing, our primary position should be that the development proposal meets neither the letter nor spirit of the county ordinance.
(i) Because a golf course is not a natural state, the proposal fails to meet the criterion “to maintain the land in a natural state” as required for “restoring” the zoning to Development District status. Figure 2 emphasizes that a golf course is not a natural state.
(ii) The spirit of the ordinance is purportedly to implement the Corps’ Watershed Management Plan. It is clear from the above excerpts that the Plan intends to maintain forested conditions in the Mattawoman tributary stream valleys in order to maintain watershed function and enhance water quality. A golf course is a form of development that would remove present tree cover and is contrary to the plan’s intent.

References & notes:

[1] Mattawoman Creek Watershed Management Plan—Charles County, Maryland, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (2003).

[2] On Feb. 10, 2005, the Washington Post Southern Maryland Extra, published an article about Pomfret LLC’s proposal to build 350 houses on the same site in exchange for building a school. See article in Appendix B.

[3] The Oxford English Dictionary’s relevant definitions of “natural” and “natural state” are:

Natural: A. adj. I. Existing in, determined by, conforming to, or based on nature.
1. Existing or present by nature; inherent in the very constitution of a person or thing; innate; not acquired or assumed.
6. Formed by nature; not subject to human intervention, not artificial.

b. Occurring in, or part of, the environment; inherent in the form of an organism, etc.
c. Of vegetation: growing of itself; self-sown, self-propagated; not introduced artificially. Also of land or a landscape: not cultivated or altered

IV. Special uses.
2a. natural state, the state or condition in which something occurs in nature, untreated or unprocessed, as before the application of any manufacturing process; the condition to which a thing, person, or system tends in the absence of external influences.

[4] The Corps states that the stream valley (note that this includes tributaries and adjacent slopes) comprises17,200 acres, and that protecting it would remove 28% of the Development District from development. These figures are evidently in error because the 17,200 acres includes Prince Georges County. According to a Charles County Interoffice Memorandum from David Umling to Gene Lauer dated November 29, 2004, of the 17,200 acres, only 12,907 are in Charles County. Of these, 8973 acres were already developed or were protected through Resource Protection Zoning (but it is uncertain if this includes valley slopes) or through DNR ownership. Left unprotected in 2004 were 3,934 acres “mostly in RC(D),” i.e., mostly in the deferred development district.

Because the Port Tobacco Country Club proposal covers 974 acres in the deferred development district, most of which is within DNR’s delineated stream valley (see Fig. 1), this one proposal would alter with a golf course a sizable fraction of the 3,934 unprotected acres of stream valley.

[5] Effects of landscape change on fish assemblage structure in a rapidly growing metropolitan area in North Carolina, J.G. Kennen, M. Chang, B.H. Tracy, Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 47, 39 (2005). A conclusion of the study: “…aquatic ecosystem integrity would be optimized…by maximizing the conservation of contiguous tracts of forested lands…”


APPENDIX A (relevant zoning bill copied from a pdf version)

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND
2006 Legislative Session
Legislative Day # 10
BILL NO. 2006-09
Introduced by: Charles County Commissioners
RC(D) Lot Size Exemption
Date introduced: 05 / 01 / 2006
Public Hearing: 06 / 19 / 2006
Commissioners Action: 07 / 11 / 2006 Enact
Commissioner Votes: WC: Y , RF: Y , AS: Y , EP: Y , CQK: Y
Pass/Fail: Pass
Effective Date: 07 / 26 / 2006 12:01 a.m.
Remarks: ________________________________________________
Bottom of Page 1

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND
2006 Legislative Session
Bill No.2006-09
Chapter. No._297
Introduced by Charles County Commissioners
Date of Introduction May 1, 2006
BILL
1 AN ACT concerning:
2 Zoning Ordinance
3 Addition of Language to govern the adjustments to minimum lot sizes on certain properties
4 in the RC(D) Zoning District
5
6 FOR the purpose of:
7
8 Adding language to Zoning Ordinance to allow owners of properties within the RC(D) Zone that:
9 (1) contain features that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or; (2)
10 contain portions of the Mattawoman Stream Valley as delineated by the U.S. Army Corps of
11 Engineers; to create lots smaller than ten (10) acres in order to protect sensitive natural resources
12 and provide critical supporting infrastructure.
13
14 BY amending:
15 Chapter 297, Section 88 E
16 Code of Charles County
17
18 AND BY adding:
19 Chapter 297, Section 88 F
20 Code of Charles County

Bottom of Page 2

1 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
2 CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND, that the Laws of Charles County, Maryland read as
3 follows:
4
5 Chapter 297: Zoning
6 Article VI - Base Zone Regulations
7
8 Section 297-88: Rural Zones:
9
10 E. REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES
11 LOCATED WITHIN THE RC(D) RURAL CONSERVATION DEFERRED
12 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONE.
13
14 (1) WHERE A PROPERTY IN THE RC(D) ZONE HAS BEEN DETERMINED
15 BY THE CHARLES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONTAIN
16 A LANDMARK, STRUCTURE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, OR OTHER
17 FEATURE THAT SATISFIES ALL APPLICABLE MARYLAND
18 HISTORICAL TRUST ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LISTING
19 ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES OR IS LISTED
20 ON SAID REGISTER, IT MAY BE SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS
21 CONTAINING LESS THAN TEN (10) ACRES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
22 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
23
24 (a) THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS THAT MAY BE CREATED ON
25 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE
26 MINIMUM BASE DENSITY OF ONE LOT PER TEN (10) ACRES,
27 EXCEPT WHERE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
28 SUBPARAGRAPH (b) BELOW.
29
30 (b) THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR ALL LOTS CREATED UNDER
31 THIS PROVISION SHALL BE THREE (3) ACRES, UNLESS THE
32 PROPERTY SHALL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND

Bottom of Page 3

1 SEWER, IN WHICH CASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT
2 PROPERTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY RESTORATION OF
3 THE BASE ZONE THAT APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT
4 PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
5 OF THE RC(D) ZONE.
6
7 (c) ANY DEVELOPMENT WHICH RECEIVES AN INCREASE IN
8 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY,
9 THROUGH RESTORATION OF THE BASE ZONE THAT
10 APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY
11 PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RC(D) ZONE,
12 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
13 SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD IN
14 ACCORDANCE WITH § 297-298 OF THE CHARLES COUNTY
15 ZONING ORDINANCE.
16
17 (d) ANY LOTS CREATED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
18 PROVISION SHALL BE LOCATED OR SITED, TO THE
19 MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, IN AN AREA OF THE
20 PROPERTY THAT WOULD MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACT
21 OF THE SUBDIVISION AND ALL SUBSEQUENT
22 DEVELOPMENT ON THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE AND
23 SETTING OF THE HISTORIC FEATURE. THE CREATION OF
24 NEW LANDSCAPED BUFFERS, EARTHEN BERMS, FENCES, OR
25 WALLS ON THE PROPOSED LOT(S) SHALL BE CONSIDERED
26 AS AN OPTION TO MITIGATE VISUAL IMPACTS ON THE
27 HISTORIC FEATURE ONLY WHEN NO ALTERNATIVE LOT
28 LOCATION OR ARRANGEMENT IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE,
29 DUE TO REGULATORY OR ENVIRONMENTAL
30 CONSTRAINTS.
31                                                                  Bottom of Page 4



1 (2) WHERE A PROPERTY OR A PORTION OF A PROPERTY IN THE
2 RC(D) ZONE FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
3 MATTAWOMAN CREEK STREAM VALLEY, AS DEFINED AND
4 DELINEATED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN THE
5 AUGUST 2003 MATTAWOMAN CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
6 PLAN, IT MAY BE SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS CONTAINING LESS
7 THAN TEN (10) ACRES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
8 CONDITIONS:
9
10 (a) THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS THAT MAY BE CREATED ON
11 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE
12 MINIMUM BASE DENSITY OF ONE LOT PER TEN (10) ACRES,
13 EXCEPT WHERE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
14 SUBPARAGRAPH (b) BELOW.
15
16 (b) THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR ALL LOTS CREATED UNDER
17 THIS PROVISION SHALL BE THREE (3) ACRES, UNLESS THE
18 PROPERTY SHALL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND
19 SEWER, IN WHICH CASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT
20 PROPERTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY RESTORATION OF
21 THE BASE ZONE THAT APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT
22 PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
23 OF THE RC(D) ZONE.
24
25 (c) ANY DEVELOPMENT WHICH RECEIVES AN INCREASE IN
26 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY,
27 THROUGH RESTORATION OF THE BASE ZONE THAT
28 APPLIED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY
29 PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RC(D) ZONE,
30 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE
31 SITE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD IN

Bottom of Page 5

1 ACCORDANCE WITH § 297-298 OF THE CHARLES COUNTY
2 ZONING ORDINANCE.
3
4 (d) THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE DESIGNED IN A
5 MANNER THAT NO NEW LOTS OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
6 SHALL BE CREATED WITHIN THE AREAS OF THE
7 DEVELOPMENT SITE THAT FALL WITHIN THE
8 MATTAWOMAN CREEK STREAM VALLEY. WHERE A
9 POCKET OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IS SURROUNDED BY LAND
10 WITHIN THE MATTAWOMAN CREEK STREAM VALLEY, THE
11 PLANNING COMMISSION MAY APPROVE A ROAD CROSSING
12 TO ACCESS SAID DEVELOPMENT POCKET WHERE IT CAN
13 BE DETERMINED THAT NO FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS
14 AND THAT THE ROAD CROSSING WILL HAVE MINIMAL
15 CLEARING, GRADING AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS
16 ON LAND WITHIN THE MATTAWOMAN CREEK STREAM
17 VALLEY.
18
19 (e) PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF ANY LOT CREATED
20 UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS PROVISION, THE PROPERTY
21 OWNER SHALL EXECUTE AND RECORD A PERMANENT
22 CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THOSE PORTIONS OF THE
23 DEVELOPMENT SITE THAT FALL WITHIN THE
24 MATTAWOMAN CREEK STREAM VALLEY TO PROHIBIT
25 FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF ALL LAND ON THE
26 DEVELOPMENT SITE THAT IS WITHIN THE MATTAWOMAN
27 CREEK STREAM VALLEY AND TO MAINTAIN THE LAND IN A
28 NATURAL STATE.
29
30 [E.] F. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the rural zones shall be in conformance with
31 the uses permitted in the Table of Permissible Uses.11

Bottom of Page 6

1 SECTION 2. BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, that this Act shall take effect FIFTEEN
2 (15) calendar days after it becomes law.
3
4 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHARLES COUNTY,
5 MARYLAND
6
7 ________________________________________
8 Wayne Cooper, President
9
10 ________________________________________
11 Robert J. Fuller, Vice President
12
13 ________________________________________
14 Allan R. Smith
15
16 ________________________________________
17 Edith J. Patterson
18
19 ________________________________________
20 Candice Quinn Kelly
21
22
23 ATTEST:
24
25 ________________________
26 Denise Ferguson
27
28 Prepared: October 21, 2005
29 Revised: November 15, 2005, November 28, 2005, December 2, 2005, February 6, 2006,
30 March 14, 2006, July 11, 2006

APPENDIX B (Washington Post S. MD Extra article on Pomfret LLC proposal).

Charles Weighs Price of Growth

Fast-Track Plans Focus of Debate

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page SM01

To get permission from Charles County to build a golf course, country club and 350 houses on 900 acres in Pomfret, the developer offered to sweeten the pot of public facilities that builders often provide.

Beyond the standard amenities -- a well system, water tower, sewer lines and neighborhood streets -- developer Pomfret LLC also proposed donating a 10-acre park for the Southern Maryland Youth Organization.

And, for each of the houses, the company would pay $10,000, or $3.5 million total, to cover school construction costs that the state would usually contribute.

"Twenty years ago, I don't think any developer would be in the position to make these kinds of proffers," said Robert Heier of Ben Dyer Associates, a consultant for Pomfret LLC. Heier said the extra costs will be absorbed into the price of the houses, which will start at more than $1 million. "The economy is hot right now. Demand is very high, and supply is very low."

The proposal by Pomfret LLC to pay for school construction is the first of its kind in Charles County. A county law passed in October allows special agreements between the county and builders to put projects on a fast track if developers donate money to build schools, roads or other infrastructure.

Such an agreement would allow the developer to avoid spending years on a waiting list that allocates building permits based on student capacity in public schools. The benefit to the county is a new source of revenue to build schools at a time when most schools are crowded beyond official capacity and the state's construction funding is stretched thin.

"This gives us a quick fix. Forget the state," Commissioner Al Smith (R-Waldorf) said as officials discussed their options during a meeting Monday morning. "This methodology is needed. What we have today is not working to get our schools built where we need them, when we need them, at a cost we can afford."

Only one such proposal, known as a development rights and responsibilities agreement, has been formally submitted, but the county commissioners have been approached by several other developers. Heier said his company has other clients "waiting in the wings" to see how the commissioners treat the Pomfret proposal before submitting development agreements.

County officials raised several concerns about how to manage the agreements. Commissioner Robert J. Fuller (D-St. Charles) said he is worried that small local builders would not be able to compete with large companies that could afford to pay for a school to move projects along.

"That to me is a very fundamental issue, a very serious issue of fairness," he said.

County Attorney Roger Fink suggested setting aside up to 700 building permits per year for builders not entering into the agreements.

Charles County approved 807 building permits for single-family houses last year, the lowest number since 1996. Permits have been dropping because the public schools do not have the classroom space to accommodate the additional students who would live in new developments, officials said. Because the newly sanctioned developer's agreements could create more room in schools, they could also bring a fresh wave of building.

"My concern is too fast of growth. Too rapid of growth. Not being able to control growth," said commissioners President Wayne Cooper (D-At Large).

To keep growth in check, the commissioners discussed limiting the number of development agreements they could enact, requiring builders to phase their projects in over several years, or simply monitoring growth closely. County planners were asked to review the options and recommend a strategy to the commissioners.

Smith said the county needs to return to issuing about 1,100 building permits a year so it can generate sufficient tax revenue to pay off its debts.

"We've got to get away from that downward trend" in permits, Smith said.

Because the Pomfret project is the first to involve a proposed developer's agreement, county planners at Monday's meeting were still hashing out the approval process. A proposal would move through the Planning and Growth Management Department, county attorney's office, Planning Commission and the county commissioners' board in a series of reviews. Officials debated whether public hearings were necessary at the Planning Commission level or just before the county commissioners. Either way, officials stressed that they want to move forward in an open, cautious manner.

"We want to try to assure the public that we're managing the growth and the build-out in the county in some organized fashion," said Planning Director David Umling, "rather than just running around willy-nilly and plopping [schools] on the ground where we can get the money to do it."