> It seems to me that there is little to be gained by supporting the
> 20 acre partitioning since it is contrary to the county agricultural zoning
> plan allowing parcels to be divided into no smaller than 40 acres, and it
> seems unlikely that division of this parcel into small parcels would be
> permitted since it has already been denied twice and agricultural rezoning
> laws have become stiffer in the recent past.
I agree with your analysis. The rezone is contrary to the Latah
County Comprehensive Plan and merely amplifies the mistakes of the
past. Many individuals would agree (including the last set of
County Commissioners) that Woodland Hills/Eastman Acres do not
represent good planning. These developments would not be allowed
(hopefully) to occur today.
Because the current proposal of (5?) parcels is better than
the previous plan, I fear that adjacent residents will grow
weary of the never-ending struggle to maintain their rural
lifestyle. Opposition from area residents needs to be strong
and decisive. The development should be opposed because it is
inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. "Cutting"
a deal to potentially avoid a worse scenario down the road
should be avoided.
> Furthermore, this represents "a
> foot in the door" of the agricultural zoning plan along the Moscow-Troy
> corridor. If this tract is allowed to be parcelled into smaller than 40
> acres parcels others will be sure to follow.
Unfortunately, the Latah County P&Z opted for corridor development
with the latest Latah County Comp Plan. The Commissioners
then approved the plan. Essentially, the Moscow/Troy corridor
(and it is a *very* wide corridor) is designated "rural" rather than
"prime agricultural" in the Comp Plan map. These "rural" designations,
will be rezoned before "prime" designated lands. As one who has mapped
and studied these Comp Plan designations, I can assure you that there
is little rational basis (based on agricultural productivity) for some
of the "rural" designations. Corridor development, based on the current
Comp Plan, is the inevitable outcome of such a plan. Bad planning,
IMO, based on the values that Latah County residents appear to want
preserved.
With the new Comp Plan in place, the chances of this rezone
being approved this time are much greater. I believe the case
is stronger for this development being inconsistent with the Comp
Plan, but the new Comp Plan has been sufficiently weakened
and filled with ambiguity that the outcome of this rezone
request is still very much up in the air, especially with the
current political climate.
> This is an important decision by the Planning and Zoning Board and
> deserves the attention of all Latah County residents who understand the need
> for a preservation of our agricultural legacy here on the Palouse.
Absolutely. Like Cameron farms, this proposal is important
for the County. The implications of the decision extend well beyond
the area in question.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@uidaho.edu) Computer Services Adjunct Assistant Professor, College of Forestry,Wildlife,& Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 885-2126 Fax: (208) 885-7539