From the UVA (Uncompahgre Valley Association) and Montrose Citizens for Responsible Growth (MCRG). This notice includes vital information about the stand we take on density vs. lot growth within Montrose County. Included in this notice are the names and contact numbers for all the current members of the Montrose County Planning Commission and information about their meeting date on 23 March.
Archive for March 2006
15 March 2006
Action Alert
Meetings, Updates
8 March 2006
Open Letter to BOCC
Uncategorized
This letter, written by Linda Orcutt on behalf of the Uncompahgre Valley Association (UVA), is in response to activities that occurred at the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting on 6 Mar 2006. Within this letter is a request that the BOCC reject the “Proposed Resolution Concerning the Determination of Consistency with the Montrose County Master Plan” offered by Rick Gibbons. According to the letter, Mr. Gibbons used a few select, out of context, pages of the Master Plan as a “zoning map,” in direct contradiction of the Land Use guidelines of the Master Plan itself. He disregards the remainder of the Master Plan as no more than an “advisory document.”
7 March 2006
More Democracy to Control Growth
Blogroll
“It is predicted that Montrose could be as large as Grand Junction in 20 or 30 years. Rather than resign ourselves to the idea that this growth is inevitable, I believe we need to take steps now to move toward more sweeping, long-term structural changes.” To this end, Kevin Williams offers insight into how Montrose citizens can control growth within their county with six ways to use more democracy “to control the growth machine in Montrose County, which by no means represent all the possibilities. I have included options that apply to the city and county because both are major players and neither one alone can solve the growth problems we face.”
1 March 2006
Proposed Subdivision Revisions
Blogroll
A message from “The Folks,� who speak on behalf of private citizens of Montrose County and well over 250 voters in this County, regarding the issue of public notification and public input. There is concern that, in spite of serious issues raised by a large number of citizens, developments are approved simply because they “substantially comply� with the regulations. Public input is largely disregarded, especially in regard to subdivision regulations. Read details in the full document version.
