Re: P&Z and rural residential

[Greg Brown <gregb@alaskapacific.edu>]

JS M wrote:

> Daily News article, Feb 10: "Moscow P&Z rejects proposed subdivision."
> According to the article, the P&Z Commission cited problems with the plan
> for large-lot homes and the concept of rural residential development.  This
> week, Whitman County and the City of Pullman are circulating a survey to
> various homeowners just outside the city limits asking if there is any
> interest in rezoning the area to allow rural residences of 1/2 to 5 acres.
> Concurrently, Whitman County Planning will begin speaking with potentially
> affected interests about the possibility of "loosening" restrictions on
> rural residences in agricultural areas.  Any discussion on the subject is
> encouraged.  What's the concern with rural residential development?  What's
> the concern with putting a home on five acres surrounded by agriculture?
> There is a market, as is evident by the expensive homes on top of every
> ridge surrounding Moscow.  How did Latah County come up with the formula of
> a house per 40 acres?

   Well, I'm sure you'll get a very different version from Gerard butthe 40
acre choice was a political compromise, not grounded in any
rational discourse about appropriate or effective land use.  In theory,
planning and zoning regulations should enhance the functional values
of the landscape.  Subdividing farm land into 40 acre chunks is
not efficient to Palouse farming and not efficient to rural resident
service delivery.  Why 40 acres?  Good question.  I doubt that
anyone can rationally defend it.

   The county had subdivision rules based on historical property
splits but was unable to track land splits administratively.  (For
example, no 80 acre parcel could be split more than 3 times). In fact,
there were many illegal land subdivisions at the time the 40 acre
rule went into effect.  The rule was accompanied by amnesty for
all existing illegal subdivisions.  The 40 acre rule bailed the county
of a situation where county government was legally liable for
potential harms associated with unregulated subdivision.

   I have a question in return...Whitman County had performance
standards to guide rural residential development to protect
valuable farmland.  Why is the county changing this?  What
is the "problem" that is necessitating the rule change?


--
Greg Brown, Associate Professor
(gregb@alaskapacific.edu)
Alaska Pacific University
(907) 564-8267
Fax: (907) 562-4276