I've been on Latah Co. Planning (P&Z before 1995) for several years and
am now vice chair of the commission. As most of you know, we've been
working hard to evaluate and modify the "stopgap" (now "entrenched")
40-acre rule.
After many hours of public meetings and deliberation, it looks like we're
on the brink of proposing the following (this is strongly abridged and
doesn't cover some other issues):
1. Divide the current Ag/Forest zone (about 99% of the county outside of
the cities and areas-of-impact) into 2 zones: an Ag/Forest zone and a Rural
zone.
2. The rural zone coincides with the "rural" region on the comp plan map
(aka the Blue Area). (Very) roughly, that area is about a 6-section
corridor centered by the Troy highway, plus other corridors in the northern
part of the county. The new Ag/Forest zone is the rest. The boundaries were
drawn in based on demonstrated agricultural and forest potential and
productivity, taking into consideration current use.
3. In the Rural zone, land splits (partitions for a residence) that will
require only administrative approval (no hearing; minimal sewage and road
access standards) are based on the following formulae:
a. Minimum lot size is 1 acre.
b. Lots larger than 10 acres get one split.
c. 3/4 of each additional split parcel (above the 1 free one) must be
demonstrated to be unproductive. Productivity will be based on the soil
maps in the SCS soil survey.
c. The number of additional splits (above the 1 free one) is based on
the total number of unproductive acres on the existing lot:
Unproductive acres Additional splits
================== =================
15-40 1
40.01-80 2
80.01-160 3
>160 4
4. In the Ag/Forest zone:
a. Minimum lot size of 1 acre
b. Lots larger than 160 acres get 1 split, only meeting minimal standards.
c. Parcels >160 acres that contain between 10 and 40 acres of
unproductive land (as defined by soil type, again) get two splits, each of
which must be 3/4 unproductive.
_______________________________
Please keep in mind that these proposals are preliminary, and I put them
out here for direct feedback (no need to start legal action, yet). Rest
assured that there will again be a major call for public participation,
once a concrete proposal is formulated. *This is probably the most
important land use legislation to face this county for a decade. If you
care about the rural part of the county, you should participate*.
I should also say that unless convinced otherwise, I view my main role as
meeting 3 goals of the comprehensive plan:
1. Preserve productive ag and forested lands.
2. Preserve the rural character of the county.
3. Provide a diversity of housing types in the county.
Personally, I do not feel that my role is to represent the wishes of
individual potential *sellers* (of course, with no affront to
constitutionally-guaranteed land-owners' rights). However, it is my belief
that that constituency can dominate the public participation process, and
they are well represented by others on the commission and the Board of
County Commissioners.
This is way too long. Sorry.
On another note: please feel free to contact me about any issue involving
county zoning. I like to feel that I'm representative. Email
(dgeist@uidaho.edu) is a great way to do it. I'll keep correspondence
private if you request it.
My Best Regards, Dennis
==================================
Dennis Geist, Associate Professor
Geology Dept.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844
208-885-6491
208-885-5724 (Fax)
dgeist@uidaho.edu
http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgeist/