I have been studying Board Policies, Practices and the Ordinances and am finding discrepancies in language and in how reality is compared to policy. Policies are put in place for a reason and if they need to be changed, then they should be amended to ensure accuracy and clear intent.
Today I will focus on only one of the discrepancies related to unbuildable lots. I think the issue of selling the unbuildable lots will resurface, so I am researching in preparation.
Policy 16.1.1 specifically calls out that unbuildable lots are excluded from the Recreation Roll (Section 1.0 item 3). Therefore, the unbuildable lots of Bitterbrush should have never had Recreation fees associated with them. But wait.....read on and you find language on the next page (Section 2.0 item 7) that states unbuildable parcels may be removed from the Recreation Roll following the owner's petition. Then later in Section 5 item 1, it explains how an unbuildable lot can be reinstated to the Recreation Roll. Then there is a diagram showing this removal/reinstatement for unbuildable lots.
So how is it we have a policy that clearly states unbuildable lots are excluded from the Recreation Roll but then language about how to move them on/off the Rec Roll? We need policies that are well written, clear, and then used for decision making. How will this one be clarified?
Maybe what I am finding is why Mr. Guinasso is in the process of writing the completely new "IVGID code". Maybe all of these will be replaced. I wonder how the Board will decide how this policy is to be understood?