This decision was a good test to see if the County Commissioners
intend to protect agricultural/rural interests in the Area
of Impact. They do not. There was overwhelming opposition to the
Tuck Plat and yet the Commissioners approved the Tuck Plat.
With the Area of Impact plan drafted by the City P&Z continuing
the development status quo (the plan will probably be even more pro-
development by the time the City Council is done with it) and
the County Commissioners showing their unwillingness to represent
agricultural/rural interests, one cannot be very bullish about the
preservation of open space, conservation of water supplies, and the
small community quality-of-life enjoyed by current residents.
-----------
November 26, 1995
Board of Latah County Commissioners
Latah County Courthouse
Moscow, ID 83843
Dear Commissioners,
I'm sorry that I'm unable to attend tonight's meeting. This letter is in
reference to your decision regarding the Tuck Plat. I'm familiar with this
request because I was present when the Moscow City Council voted to
allow the Tuck subdivision, in contravention of its newly adopted
regulations regarding Ag/Forestry zones within the Area of Impact, and in
contradiction to the recommendation of its own Planning and Zoning
Commission to deny the subdivision.
From your letter dated November 21, 1995, it would appear that you
have already rendered a decision to approve the proposed plat. I would
encourage you to carefully rethink this preliminary conclusion. The Tuck
subdivision decision is important because it sets the standard by which the
Commission will be viewed as protecting rural agricultural values in Latah
County.
The Tuck subdivision is a worst-case example of what can happen
in the Area of Impact when decisions are made by political representatives
who do not represent the people affected by the decisions. These are the
facts: 1) after adoption of Area of Impact agreement, differences between
the County and City zoning regulations encouraged subdivision and
conversion of agricultural land in the Area of Impact, an unintended result
of the agreement, 2) the Board of County Commissioners, recognizing the
unintended outcome, requested that the City of Moscow adopt zoning
regulations consistent with the County (I was present when Commissioners
Greene and Solomon made this request to the Moscow City Council), 3)
the Moscow City Council took many months to act upon the
Commissioners' request but finally, and I suspect grudgingly, adopted
regulations for Ag/Forestry zones consistent with the County's regulations,
4) the Tuck hearing requesting subdivision of the property occurred after
the 40 acre regulations were adopted by the Moscow City Council, 5) the
Moscow City Council, in violation of administrative procedures and in
direct contravention of its newly adopted Ag/Forestry regulations, voted to
grant Tuck an exemption from these regulations, overturning the unanimous
recommendation of its own Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission to
deny the subdivision request, 6) numerous Latah County residents, including
myself, appealed this decision and requested that Latah County Board of
Commissioners deny the Tuck subdivision upon review.
Decisions that are made affecting residents in Area of Impact are
made by political representatives and appointees from the City of Moscow.
As any observer of Moscow City Council decisions over the last 3 years
will note, the Moscow City Council has been pro-development and pro-
annexation. Residents in the Area of Impact have been affected by City
development decisions but have had no representation on these issues.
Rural residents outside the city limits are only represented by you, the
Board of Commissioners.
In order to preserve the high quality of life that both City and
County residents enjoy, and to preserve rural, agricultural values in the
County, there must be balance in the discussion over development in rural
areas. There should be conflict between the development of agricultural
land and the preservation of a rural, agricultural values because the rural,
agricultural characteristics of Latah County are those that residents prize the
most as evidenced by the survey of Latah County residents conducted by
the University of Idaho in 1994. Such balance is completely lacking on the
part of the Moscow City Council which simply does not understand the
necessity of preserving rural, agricultural lifestyles. The balance in this
discussion must come from the Board of Commissioners who must be
strong champions of preserving rural values in Latah County.
The Tuck Plat proposal is important and precedent setting for Latah
County. Please think carefully about the ramifications of your decision.
If you decide to uphold the Tuck request, you will have, in fact, violated
the special trust of rural residents, including those who farm, who are
counting on you to protect rural values in Latah County. A decision to
uphold the Tuck request, a request that epitomizes profiteering and land
speculation in the Area of Impact, sends that message that the rural,
agricultural lifestyle that we all enjoy in Latah is for sale and that farming
activity will not be protected in Latah County.
I sincerely hope that you, as a Board, will honor your commitment
to protect agricultural and rural lifestyles from land speculation by denying
the Tuck request.
Sincerely,
Greg Brown
-- 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