Here are my notes from the main testimony
presented at the hearing. Apologies to anyone whose
arguments I've misrepresented; mistakes are not
intentional but the result of occasional lapses of
attention on my part! It was a long meeting.
Ashley Lyman, an economist at the U of I, made a
variety of arguments about why he thinks an unregulated
market for land north of Moscow would produce outcomes
preferable to those under the current comprehensive
plan. * One of the comp plan objectives is to preserve
ag land, but there is no evidence that ag land needs to
be preserved. If anything, we have too much of it. *
Land prices are artificially high now because of
speculation and the 1 house per 40 acres ordinance.
Artificially high prices are making it impossible for
all but the rich to own land north of town. * There
is a significant residential demand for land in the
area under consideration, and Latah County should make
land available to meet that demand so the university
can continue to attract professionals. * Rural
residential tax revenues for this area will exceed ag
forestry tax revenues, and therefore increase money
available to provide services. * Publicly imposed
limitations on private land use, as in the case here,
constitute economic takings, which Lyman estimates to
be roughly $400,000. (This figure was subsequently
used by Cameron's attorney, A. Schwam, although the
calculations weren't spelled out too clearly.) *
Finally, with respect to environmental issues,
residential development would likely reduce runoff into
Paradise Creek, and it's cheaper than the CRP.
Shelley Bennett testified that she thinks the comp
plan amendment and rezone offer the best alternative to
meeting public demand for rural residential land. This
particular site is perfect for development bec. it is
outside the city but close enough to be convenient.
Mountain View Road is flat, paved almost up to the
Cameron land, and among the "least encumbered" close to
the city.Kids could ride their bikes in to town and
schools from the proposed development. The topography
allows for clustered housing and good road access.
Cordell Cameron argued that the parcel of land
under consideration averages 62-65 bu/acre, lower than
the cutoff of 65 bu/acre used to define "productive"
agricultural land. Hence, it should be designated as
rural residential.
Andrew Schwam then gave lengthy testimony in
support of the plan amendment and rezone. His main
arguments were as follows: * People testifying at the
hearing in opposition to what is being proposed are
acting entirely in selfish, private interests, and
represent a tiny fraction of people in the county AND
of the people that elected these three county
commissioners. (!) If the affected residents don't
want the land developed, they should buy it themselves.
* The commissioners are allowed to amend the comp plan
whenever they want and in any case, the Idaho
Legislature has amended the relevant statute (sorry, I
missed what this amendment was, exc. that it has to do
with safeguarding private property rights). *
Designers of the comp plan purposefully (!) blocked the
Camerons from developing their land. Evidence: there's
an unexplained jog in the lines demarcating productive
ag land. * This would not be hopscotch development
leading to inefficient service provision because it's
close to Moscow. * There really isn't * a lot* of
demand for rural residential property such as that the
Camerons want to sell; demand will largely be met with
the breakup of this 83 acre parcel. (The people who
testified in favor of Camerons' proposal seemed to go
back and forth on this particular issue.)
Stephanie Tovey and Gary Machlis then gave a joint
presentation in opposition to the proposed development.
Their main arguments: * Using a map that shows current
property lines in the land near Camerons' acreage, they
testified that the proposed development would
significantly increase population density, but not
produce any affordable real estate (both points, I
think, are relevant to stated objectives in comp plan).
* Current well spacing is about 1 per 10-20 acres,
spread out relatively evenly on the landscape. The
spacing would likely be much closer if all 83 acres
were turned into 5 acre lots. The pattern of bad wells
-- dry wells and declining water levels -- suggest that
additional demand on supply could have serious,
negative consequences. It's difficult to predict well
interference, bec. of extreme variability in water
supply, but the likelihood of problems is high with a
density of 1 house per 5 acres. If increased
development causes water problems for existing
residents, those problems constitute a taking that
could easily rival that claimed by the Camerons. * The
area of impact is designed as a buffer zone between
residential and agricultural land use. Putting 1 house
on every 5 acres will increase conflicts between these
two uses. * Approving the amendment and rezone would
constitute spot zoning, not orderly growth and
thoughtful planning. The best development would move
in an orderly way outward from Moscow. * The argument
that there is insufficient land available for rural
residences is bogus, according to P and Z Commission
report. * Septic fields from the proposed development
could cause problems for neighbors, bec. of steepness
of land.
Roughly half a dozen people, including but not
only residents from the area surrounding Cameron Farms
-- testified against the proposed development. They
talked about the precedent that would be established by
this action, whether this land is properly classified
as productive (it is, Greg Brown testified), and the
necessity of preserving agricultural land.
John Bond, a hydrologist (I think but am not sure)
testified that he did a study in '93 for the Camerons
to ascertain water availability. He agreed with Tovey
and Machlis that it's impossible to guarantee adequate
water supply in the area. however, he said, various
management and planning tools can be used to make water
available. He also said it was unlikely that an
additional 12 houses would interfere with current
wells.
The County Commissioners will deliberate on both
the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment at 2 pm,
August 8th, in Room 2-B of the Courthouse.