- FIFA adds prison labor to its arsenal
- Sitting on a scoop: the story behind the V-E headlines of May 1945
- Bilderback repeats at Speedway
- US permits Arctic drilling, but questions about safety remain
- ISIS takeover of Ramadi means hard choices face the Iraqi and US governments
- State Roundup: Democrat sponsored prevailing wage amendment passes
- Facebook’s Instant Articles not a threat to media
- U of I expert: Rauner’s pension fix ‘unconstitutional’
- State Senate approves lesser penalties for marijuana possession
- State Roundup: Natural gas vehicle tax stalls in committee
Responding to the editorial “2030 plan faces second test, but does it matter now?” in the June 9-15 issue, Winnebago County Planning & Zoning Officer Troy Krup offered a clarification regarding the editorial’s suggestion that emphasis had shifted from whether a zoning request is consistent with the “land-use plan” to whether it is consistent with the long-range map.
In the editorial, Krup indicated the consistency response has always been with regard to the long-range map and that, prior to adoption of the 2030 plan, the county’s 2010 plan was only a map without policies. Because the 2030 plan has policies as well as a long-range map, he added, an asterisk is now used to denote that there are policies to be considered in addition to what the map reflects.
The editorial noted, however, that even after the 2030 plan was passed, information presented to county board members still stated whether a zoning petition was consistent with the “2030 Land Resource Management Plan,” not the long-range map, as later became the case this year.
In an e-mail after the editorial was published, Krup clarified, “The land plan summary section on the agenda(s) may have used one phrase or another in the past, but the ‘ANSWER’ has always been with regard to consistency with the ‘future MAP’ only, and the asterisk was added to clarify.”