Don’t rush zoning law

Forgive us a brief excursion into exaggeration, but compared to Baker County’s draft zoning ordinance, “War and Peace” is a pamphlet.

Which is to say the ordinance — all 45 chapters — is long and complicated.

County officials have been putting the thing together for five years, after all.

They shouldn’t be in a rush now to make the ordinance official.

We don’t fault the county’s efforts thus far to explain to residents and property owners what’s going on.

The county put on six public meetings earlier this fall across the county to unveil the draft ordinance. Paper copies are available at the library, the courthouse and city halls, and an electronic version is posted on the county’s Web site.

The county Planning Commission listened to public comments during a hearing last week, and has scheduled a second hearing for Dec. 2 to take comments about proposed transportation standards specifically.

All that makes for a solid start to this vital public process, but the county, before commissioners vote on the ordinance, should do two more things to give people a reasonable chance to understand the ramifications of the ordinance and to express their opinions, either in person or in writing.

First, county officials ought to compile a list of the changes in the proposed ordinance that they believe will have the most significant effect on the largest number of property owners — a Top 10, if you will, although the number might well be larger than 10.

This is a subjective exercise, of course. Yet we’re confident that the county officials who deal with land-use matters — who know what people tend to want to do on their property — can put together a useful list of the substantive differences between the current, 24-year-old ordinance and its replacement.

In any case, such a list would serve as a compass of sorts to help property owners navigate the ordinance.

Second, the county commissioners should schedule at least a few more public hearings, preferably during the first quarter of 2009.

We’re not suggesting the public comment period continue in perpetuity.

It’s neither reasonable nor realistic to insist that the county ensure every property owner has read every word of the zoning ordinance.

But it is reasonable to demand that the county strive to make the ordinance as accessible as possible, and to accommodate property owners’ busy lives by scheduling a full complement of public hearings.

This ordinance is, after all, probably the most consequential one commissioners will vote on during the next decade or two.

The ordinance controls what is, for many people, a fundamental matter: What can I do with the land I own?