2024-10-30 Tawn Keeney MD Testimony GP 2045

Home

more housing for our heritage residents, but it seems that a preponderance of development housing actually goes to immigrants. The County, for probably excellent reasons, seems unable to solve this problem, and so, as much as we build, build, build… there are still the same number of heritage residents who seem to have to move to the mainland to find work and housing that are more practical. Consequently I don’t think that the assumption should be made that we need to remove barriers to residential development. The County has made the assertion that 90% of the increase in population by the year 2045 will be from out-of-state immigration. The County also has stated that by 2045 45% of the population will be over the age of 65. It is not clear that this is a desirable picture that needs acceleration by removing barriers to residential development. It is also not clear that even though residential development has be accelerating consistently decade after decade, that there has been an increase in housing stock availability and increase in affordability. This policy/action and indeed this ‘mindset’ should be eliminated from the General Plan. P. 78 - “Advocate allowing for County initiated State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendments to meet the preferred land use pattern.” Comment: It is entirely appropriate that, consequent to communication and collaboration between the State Commission and the County that the State Commission would take responsibility for initiating District Boundary Amendments to be considered by their Commission. However, it seems that this procedural proposal runs counter to reasonable administrative divisions and it has not been explained why current State Land Use Commission District Boundary Amendment procedures fail to represent an appropriate balance of State and County interests. P. 237 - “Amend the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to allow Cluster Plan Developments to be applied to all zoning districts with appropriate building site standards.” Comment: This is certainly a controversial proposal and, as such, should not be sited in the General Plan, but rather is an issue which should be weighed carefully as an individual proposal, considered and discussed by the Public and the County Council. P. 237 - “Amend the Zoning Code to allow for Planned Unit Development to become administrative permits and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.” Comment: There might be a reaction to this Draft General Plan that the thrust is toward acceleration of the process of development. With that perspective, and less than unanimity in endorsement by the public of this perspective, it would be most desirable that there would be County Council oversight applied to the enthusiasm of the Planning Department for all significant development, whether Planned Unit Developments or any other category of Development. If it is felt that the public would be supportive of this proposal then it should be subject to Council and Public consideration and discussion rather than placed in the General Plan. P. 98 - “Support the development of small scale visitor accommodations with heritage, agriculture, wellness or similar themes in rural areas and near points of interest.”