You make a good point about property rights, Ken. But I'm not prepared to ditch the whole idea of zoning. Part of the reason zoning exists is because of the crowding conditions that you mentioned.
Also, subdivisions like Country Lakes and Golden Beach were built before St. Mary's adopted zoning in the 1970s. These communities were built miles away from schools, utilities and adequate roads. When zoning came in, the county government argued that it had an overriding community interest in directing growth to areas where these sevices could be provided easily. As the argument went, the taxpayers pay less to expand an existing school than to build a new one, and one sewer plant controls nitrogen pollution more easily than hundreds of septic systems.
While I find that a compelling argument, I certainly agree that it can be taken too far. When the zoning office makes home owners jump through a zillion hoops just to build an addition, that does absolutely nothing to maximize the use of expensive utilities.
Ken, you're absolutely right that rural character shouldn't be preserved at the farmers' expense. At one point, the county had proposed "transferable development rights" where farmers could sell the development capacity of their land to landowners closer to town centers. I don't know if that will work, although it's an interesting idea. My point is, should the government have any role at all in directing growth (as opposed to limiting growth)?