ShareThis Page
News

County commissioners let deadline for farm plan pass

| Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002

The Armstrong County commissioners Tuesday decided to miss the Dec. 19 deadline for the county's Farmland Preservation Plan, compiled by the local Agricultural Lands Preservation Board (ALPB), to be submitted to the state Department of Agriculture.

They fear the plan means more state mandates costing county taxpayers more money.

Commissioners Jim Scahill and Homer Crytzer said yesterday they have questions about the plan that can't be addressed in the few days leading up to the deadline.

The plan would give accepted applicants the legal right to maintain their property for agricultural purposes into the future.

In addition to questions commisioners have, the ALPB, which submitted the plan's initial draft to the state in March, received the document back in November with requests for several changes.

"We need to discuss the plan with the board without a lot of pressure," said Scahill, who added that the state actually suggested the plan be resubmitted for approval by the deadline on the promise that any discrepancies could be worked out through amendments afterward.

"That's no way to run a railroad; we feel we'd rather take the extra time necessary, and everybody's agreed that it's better to have the best plan we can have going in."

By delaying the plan's implementation, Crytzer said, the commissioners are preserving their legal right to stay involved with ALPB in regard to any amendments made to the plan before it is finalized.

"In my opinion, if the plan were approved now, that would take us out of the game altogether," said Crytzer.

"We have questions about our involvement that we'll get ironed out at our meeting with the preservation board."

One of the main issues, according to Crytzer, is that the plan currently states the Armstrong County Planning Department (ACPD) will administer the program entirely.

"I'm not sure after speaking with Rich Palilla (ACPD executive director) that the planning department can handle the administration of this program as it is written," said Crytzer.

According to Scahill, commissioners talked to ALPB about processing all of their planning information through ACPD. That was not meant to say, however, that any plan involving ALPB would therefore be handled within the County Comprehensive Plan, which planning officials are currently applying to all 47 county municipalities.

"We're going through the first ever comprehensive plan, and there was an assumption made that we would use the planning (office) to process whatever the (ALPB) had to do with their meeting dates and things like that," said Scahill. "We didn't say use the (County Comprehensive Plan), we said use the planning office."

If the county does in fact require the use of the planning department for handling aspects of the plan, Crytzer said, the county might have to look at hiring another employee to do it.

"Our solicitor's already overworked. Is the board going to have to hire a solicitor to do all the work necessary for the plan?" asked Crytzer. "The answer is probably yes because it's not written in the plan, and there haven't been any funds provided."

Crytzer also questions the statement in the plan that the county will provide insurance for the members of the board.

"What type of insurance, it's not spelled out," said Crytzer. "We're gonna work these things out and we will be involved in the program if not this coming year, then next year."

Sandra Robinson, administrative officer for the state Department of Agriculture, saud the latter is more likely.

"There will be a meeting in February, and they can present the revised plan at that time. If approved, the funding for the plan will be made available for 2004," said Robinson.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me