Good question. I moved this off to a separate discussion.

First, there may often be more than two opposing views on a particular DR.

Second, the absolute last venue is a court room.

Since Mr. Olson's arrival it is beginning to look like the state may have to appoint a another judge to handle the case flow from OPA.

Whose opposing views are we discussing? Those of a lot owner versus OPA, those of a lot owner versus CPI, those of a lot owner versus ECC? Those of a lot owner versus a neighbor?

The DRs, in many areas, leave a great deal of latitude for decision makers like ECC and OPA Board. The coverage percentage is a perfect example. There is absolutely nothing in the DRs about percentage of coverage. The DRs do stipulate setbacks, setbacks that as I recall are in some instances less stringent than the county setbacks so the county setbacks apply.

Someone simply "invented" coverage percentage. I am not suggesting a guideline for coverage percentage is not allowed under the DRs. They are, because the DRs, when it comes to building a home or an addition, give near absolute power to ECC, even to the extent of saying ECC decisions are FINAL.

I am suggesting that some arbitrary percentage of coverage limit applied to all lots is both stupid and unfair. If ECC wants to restrict size of homes it can certainly do so, but any limitation should be based on each individual case and the primary deciding factor should be whether a house larger or higher than the county code allows will do some definite harm to the community or adjoining properties.

That is a long-winded way of saying OPA/ECC should be exercising common sense and not playing this ridiculous "numbers" game.

If you had something else in mind regarding "venue" please ask again.

Note for readers: Mr. Choate is a member of ECC so he must deal with these sorts of issues on a regular basis. It is a difficult job, at best. He did not write the Guidelines and certainly did not write the DRs.