Re: P&Z and rural residential

["JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>]

OK, I had to pull out the Latah County subdivision ordinance to clarify 
this.  The county subdivision ordinance was amended a few years back to make 
the placement of houses on farm land a little more restrictive.  The way 
this reads, at least 3/4 of a proposed new parcel must be "less productive" 
acreage.  The minimum size parcel is one acre, but if it is divided from a 
parent parcel of 40 acres or less, or a parcel 160 acres or more, then only 
one land division (lot) is allowed.  Over 40 acres up to 160 acres, two land 
divisions are allowed.  So, if I own 100 acres, I can put two houses on it 
and sell an acre with the houses.  If I own only 40 acres, I can put one 
house on it and sell an acre.  Likewise with 160+ acres.  AND, where I put 
the house and acre must be on "less productive" land as defined by the Latah 
County Soil Survey.  Got all this?  Taking notes? The end result is to 
restrict the division of large parcels of prime farm land, and push the 
division of land onto less productive land.  It might just work.  The 
deciding characteristic is how productive your land is based on the soils 
report.  I think that means houses along ridges with farmland in the draws.  
Nice, if you can afford it.
jm


>From: "Wolfgang Schwartzenweintraub" <wolfman@turbonet.com>
>To: "Ken Medlin" <dev-plan@moscow.com>,"JS M" 
><jbiggs50@hotmail.com>,"Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: P&Z and rural residential
>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:47:00 -0800
>
>Hi Ken: It has been a while since I have dealt with this but does'nt 40
>acres give the land owner some special tax breaks by putting the property
>into some sort of an agricultural status.  If that is true then each of the
>owners have a special farm status that gives them favorable tax treatment 
>as
>a farmer.  I believe that once they then establish their 40 acres as a farm
>they must maintain it in that status for ten years.  Just some thought I 
>had
>on the matter.  With all due respect;
>
>Wolfgang M. Schwartzenweintraub
>
>*********************************************************
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ken Medlin" <dev-plan@moscow.com>
>To: "JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
><vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:21 AM
>Subject: Re: P&Z and rural residential
>
>
> > >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?
> > If only market forces drive our decisions affecting ecological
> > conditions, then sustainability of life-producing and -enhancing
> > conditions, qua Nature,  goes out the window so far as scientific based
> > decision-making is concerned. Over time, where does that lead us? I
> > maintain that policies can no longer be driven only by market forces.
> > We're undermining the very ingredients of natural life. I've learned 
>from
> > another post that 40 acres is no longer the norem, contrary to what I 
>was
> > told by a City official a couple weeks ago.  Let's dialog in an open
> > forum! KenM.
> >
> > ------------------------
> > William K. Medlin
> > Dev-plan associates
> > 930 Kenneth Street
> > Moscow ID 83843
> > 208/892-0148
> > dev-plan@moscow.com
> >
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com