Dismayed at ramifications of density proposal

Editor,

I was recently informed of some of the ramifications of the plan proposed by the Lake County Commissioners called the "Lake County Density Map and Regulations." As the information unfolded, I was dismayed that a countywide plan with this kind of impact upon land owners could possibly pass undisputed by a large, (informed) constituency.

I was then told that several articles had been written about this bill and invitations to open meetings concerning it had been posted and held. What occurs to me, in all of this, however, is that while I consider myself just an ordinary "Joe Dokes," and didn't really understand what had been presented in the newspaper articles, that many other just like me probably read in a cursory sort of way, the articles or the captions of the articles and did not comprehend just what was being proposed.

So, in trying to authenticate some of this information, I called a surveyor and asked if what I had been told was true and found out that:

1. Any Lake County land owner, living outside of the city limits could not then, by the plan's provisions subdivide any of his/her own private land down to less than what is stated by these regulations. This would cripple the individual who may have been planning to subdivide and pass on an individual acre or two to their children, or simply planning on selling off a few acres to provide for retirement.

2. The seizing of the rights to subdivide by personal plan on his/her own private land is not compensated in any way by these regulations, unless you are a large land owner and/or developer with the expertise and financial wherewithal to subdivide in a certain way: the ways having been quoted as fair, by one of the commissioners.

Example: If you had 100 acres and wanted to submit for subdivision, you may in the (20 acres per living unit density region), supposedly only subdivide up to 5 parcels (5x20 acres=100), however, you may receive what is called a "bonus" if you reserve a certain percentage of that 100 acres for conservation and subdivided the acreage so as to create lots around what would be called a common area. That reveals to me some amount of injustice to the Lake County land owner who does not own nor cannot subdivide a large parcel.

3. Normally, I would be in favor of a countywide plan to supervise the inevitable growth we will continue to experience but not one that is inequitable to the "little guy." I have no stake in this whatsoever, in-as-much-as, I don't have 20 acres or so that I am looking to subdivide, but I know there are those landowners out there that need to be informed as to the "nuts and bolts" of this plan and that there is a deadline to respond and that deadline is Dec. 18 at the Lake County Courthouse.

Lianne Petersen

Polson