1. The comp plan map (illustrated on my web site) does not have *zones* on
it. These are merely planning *areas* whose purpose is to illustrate broad
planning goals. They carry ordinance weight only in that any rezones or
CUPs have to be consistent with the goals defined for those areas. In
contrast, zones, and the uses in them, are precisely defined and are
ordinance in themselves.
For example, the rural *area* is entirely contained in the ag/forest *zone*.
Hey, I didn't design the system and only marginally understand its
purpose. It's required in the State Planning Act, though.
2. What the commission has proposed is that the rural *area* (which
entirely lies within the current Ag/Forest *zone*) be redefined as a new
Rural *zone*, thus blurring the distinction. This area was defined in 1994
by current use and proven lower ag and forest productivity.
By the way, I am strongly opposed to this provision. I would like to
have a much smaller Rural zone, perhaps constituting about 1/2 of the rural
area on our comp plan. I'm in the minority, obviously.
3. The commission's proposal is that slightly higher density (than in the
current 40-acre rule) can occur in the new rural zone, but it will be
focussed on non-productive lands and on smaller lots.
4. Partitioning in the rest of the existing Ag/Forest zone (i.e. the new
Ag/Forest zone) will be more tightly controlled in some ways (fewer
partitions in the 40 to 160 acre range) but permit a few more >1 acre lots.
I'll be putting the draft ordinance on the web as soon as all this paper
disappears from my desk. The first public hearing on it will be in late
Oct.
Please remember that I am speaking for myself, as your representative. I do
not speak for the commission.
==================================
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/