As the Cameron Farms' attorney, Andy Schwam argued for about two
hours that the county made an error when it drew the comprehensive
plan map, in so far as land that's highly desirable for rural residences
was zoned ag/forestry. He was speaking specifically about a strip of
land just north of the impact area and west of land zoned for rural
residences. For the commissioners to approve the Carmeron Farms
request, they would have had to agree that the plan was indeed in
error.
Scwham built his case around a host of arguements (proceeding
sequentially through the comp plan), including:
(a) there is tremendous and unstoppable pressure for rural residences
outside Moscow,
(b) the demand for such residences understandably goes northward
bec. of good views,
(c) forcing people's demand into 40 acre parcels needlessly "gobbles"
up agricultural land (he argued that 40 a parcels would be taken out
of production and later made the point that we are protecting
farmland, not farmers, without whom there will be no farmland ...),
(d) creating a bedroom community for Whitman County residents who
want rural lifestyles is a fine and sustainable way to contribute to
Latah's economy (esp. as it increases demand for Moscow services
e.g. Gritman Hospital),
(e) 5 acre parcels are actually very low density so they don't have to
be adjacent to existing development,
(f) we should consider it fortunate that there's a willing seller and to
help meet demand for rural residences,
(g) the 80 a piece is one of Cameron Farms' least productive areas
(witness the erosion and bald spots), hence it should be used for a
higher value use rather than agriculture,
(h) creating 5 acre lots is an excellent way to preserve open space,
(i) under the current situation, there is no diversity in housing types -
only the very wealthy (of whom there are many, mostly "outsiders",
few locals) can afford to build, and they build extravagantly,
(j) clustering houses on 5 acre lots is a far more efficient way to
provide services (e.g. school bus transportation, note that the houses
would ea. have their own septic and water systems),
(k) the new homes would be pulling water downslope from existing
residents, who are therefore unnecessarily concerned about water
supply,
(l) opposition to the request comes mostly from residents in the area
acting in their self interest (e.g. to preserve views and keep others
out) and some from Visions (sic) 2020 -- a small group of people that
think they understand the public interest but will likely be proven very,
very wrong (the Romanian internet observer was correct in his
assertion about 2020's communist tendencies), and finally,
(m) the winners in last year's county commissioner race were people
who argued in favor of relieving the pressure on demand for rural
residences, so if the demand isn't met soon, the political process will
work again to make the real estate market function unimpeded.
It was a long but interesting presentation - much of it convincingly
focused around problems with the one-house-per-40-acre ordinance,
with respect to meeting goals of the comprehensive plan.
Shelly Bennett testified briefly in support of the request, mainly to the
point that demand for rural residences is high, but supply almost nil.
Responding to a question from L. Stauber, she said that farmers inside
the area of impact are unwilling to sell land for rural residences. Dale
Wilder, a builder, also testified in support. He bought a 40 a. piece
from Cameron Farms, drilled a highly productive well, and argued that
people aren't being allowed to do what they wish with their land.
The hearing then came to a surprisingly quick resolution when Karl
Mickelson asked for motions that first, the rezone request is
inconsistent with the plan as adopted (the motion passed with one
abstention), and second, Cameron Farms presented insufficient
evidence that the plan had been developed in error (the motion passed
unanimously). The Commission concluded that testimony did not
address the criteria used to draw the map, but rather focused on the
40 acre limitation. That ordinance is now being reconsidered, and
would be improved much sooner (Karl argued) if Commissioners didn't
have to spend so much time at hearings such as the one last night.
And that was that.