Background ... The Planning Commission originally proposed an ordinance
that would have made a limited number of small splits relatively more easy
than they had been in the past. Splits, and therefore housing development,
would have been easier on less productive soils, and on land in the rural
residential zone. Splits would have been harder on more productive soils
and on land in the ag forestry zone. Land zoned rural residential was
generally, tho not entirely, along major roads and near towns.
After complaints from farmers that residential development was too easy,
and very likely to cause conflicts over farming practices (esp. spraying),
the Planning Commissioners proposed a new ordinance, which will be
presented to the County Commissioners Wednesday night. The new plan is
more restricive in that there is only one zone, ag-forestry, and fewer
splits are allowed (or so it seems). A landowner gets one split if they
have 20-40 a. of less productive soil, another if they have over 40 a of
less prod. soil, and then additonal splits for every 160 a of total land
owned.
My thoughts ... It may seem hard to believe, but I plan to testify in favor
of the original proposal, or something similar (perhaps with less land
zoned rural residential). The short of my argument is that this
extraordinary place in which we we live will attract more residents in the
future, perhaps significantly more if we have the water. A highly
restrictive ordinance will not stand the pressure of time. Therefore, it's
better to bite the bullet now and determine where we want growth to occur
-- certainly near existing towns and near transportation routes.
It's true that the second proposal will push development on to less
productive ground. But new houses will still be built willy nilly, i.e.
randomly over the land scape. I believe we'll be more likely to get
planned -- and (somewhat) logical -- development under the original
proposal.
Comments? P Salant (psalant@moscow.com)