In case the Indy doesn't publish this next week, here is my response:

In response to Audrey Scott's letter in the Friday, July 4, 2008, Independent, Situation complicated by misinformation and exaggeration, I have several comments.  One, I feel her insinuation that the state director of land use planning and analysis doesn't understand zoning is outrageous, unbelievable and ridiculous.  Two, Audrey Scott comments that traffic has no bearing on rezoning and should be out of order and not considered in the decision, however, that is one of reasons the planning commission voted to recommend the rezoning...well which is it?  Whichever suits the moment?  Three, the underlying intent of Ms. Scott's letter seems to be to remind the commissioners of their options, rather than address the facts presented in the advisory letter from Maryland Planning.  Mr. Chaney claimed in the article, State rips Chaney rezoning, that if the state knew "the Chaney View", they might have a different opinion.  The state was supplied with their application for rezoning, as well as, the "Chaney Dream Letter" which was submitted to the planning commission.  They were well aware of the "Chaney View" when writing their advisory letter to the commissioners.  So...Whose comments should the commissioners put more stock in - The state of Maryland's Director of Land Use Planning and Analysis or does the "Chaney View" and "the Audrey Scott spin" become the official guideline to follow?