[Vision2020] Latah County Land Use Ordinance

[Janice Willard]

Hi Jeff and other visionaries,

I attended the meeting last week to discuss this new land use ordinance.
The meeting was so well attended that they had to move it to one of the
courtrooms and, even then, people spilled out into the hallways.  A majority
of the people attending were farmers from the outlying areas of Latah
county: Potlatch, Kendrick, Deary, etc.  Most everyone who testified were
very concerned because of provisions in this new ordinance that, if
interpreted in certain ways, would essentially put them out of business.

And interpretation was a significant problem.  One person testified that,
while he was able to have personnel at the zoning office explain the intent
of the rules in a way that seemed reasonable, if that employee left and the
county commissioners started interpreting things differently, then there
could be a lot of trouble with the vague wording.  For example, one
provision that got a lot of comment was the one requiring animals in
confinement to be kept  35 feet away from streams.  The confusion relates to
the word "confinement." What this was apparently written to address was a
close confinement system like a feed lot (and that was why a lot of the
restrictions were written, as a way to prevent large feedlot operations from
operating in Latah county, like to ones over in Ellensburg.)  But the
farmers all interpreted the word "confinement" to mean, any form of
confinement, like pastures.  And since a majority of the pastures in this
county do have some form of stream or drainage running through them, this
would effectively eliminate a great deal of pasture land from most people's
farms, thus putting them out of business.  (While those of us here in Moscow
tend to get the lights in our eyes and think we are a city, it is good to be
reminded that most of the county is a farm based economy).  As one man
asked, "If I can't use a third of my pastures because of this rule, do I
still have to pay Latah county taxes for that land?

So obviously the provision was poorly worded, did not express the zoning
committee's intent and was open to extremely wide interpretation.

The real crux of this problem is that, although the zoning committee has
apparently been working on this document for years and soliciting public
comment, no one has been coming to the public meetings that they have been
holding in the communities for several years now.  None of these concerned
citizens who crowded the courtroom had heard of this new document until,
apparently, enough people spread the concern by word of mouth.   Nor had I
heard about it.  I heard about it at the stable where I am taking riding
lessons, because the horse community was very concerned at how they were
being singled out in this document and they spread the word.  It was only a
grass-roots notification by concerned neighbors that got the word out to the
people and brought the huge crowd of concerned citizens to that meeting.
They should have been involved early on, and that looks back to inadequate
mechanisms for notification.

So first and foremost, they need to improve the public notification system.
Simply putting something in the legals of the Daily News is not adequate
notification, particularly when most of the people down by Kendrick and
Juilietta are more likely to take the Lewiston Tribune.

Secondly, the document is obsolete because it contains nothing about one of
the  major physical threats to citizens on the Palouse.  It has nothing in
it about mining and the danger that extractive industries pose to long term
health of communities (if you doubt this statement, just look north to the
Silver Valley or east to Libby, Montana). And since a mineral processing
operation currently planned has the potential of considerable detrimental
circumstances for our county, I would like to see this addressed.  Having a
feed lot in the county won't have near the negative impact that losing our
water supply would have on the citizens of this county.  This new threat
needs to be evaluated and zoning regulations added to this document that
would address this.

I want to commend the planning and zoning committee members for a *great*
deal of grace under fire.  There were quite a few, very upset people
testifying and I would have had a hard time sitting on that hot seat and
listening to that testimony directed at me.  I don't know what is the next
administrative step, but I think that it should be obvious that this
document presents too many ambiguities and too many problems to proceed with
it at this time.  The public notification system used, quite apparently, did
not get the public comment needed early on to mould the document into one
that would be adequately functional.  My sincere hope is that the planning
and zoning committee will ride the wave of public concern to revamp their
notification and communication system, take the ambiguities out of that
document and work more closely with the people to re-write this into a more
workable document.  They need to step back and start over, and I hope they
realize this and will pause in the process to do this right.    I think that
a year from now, with the help of the concerned citizens that showed up at
that meeting, they would have a much better document to put forward.  To go
ahead to the next step with it now is foolish.

JW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Latah County Land Use Ordinance


> URGENT POSTING
>
> After digesting the 82 pages of the proposed Latah County Land Use
> Ordinance, I call your attention to this document and urge you to read the
> proposed revisions carefully.  In all my 22 years in Latah County, I have
> not seen a more intrusive collection of policies proposed for property
> owners.  Virtually every provision attacks or limits your rights as a
> property owner in Latah County.  The link is:
>
> http://www.latah.id.us/Dept/PB_ZoningOrdinanceDraft.pdf
>
> Here are some highlights:
>
> The ordinance is divided into 9 articles as follows:
>
> Article 1 - Administration
> Article 2 - Definitions
> Article 3 - Land Use Zones
> Article 4 - General Land Use Regulations
> Article 5 - Overlay Zones
> Article 6 - Zoning Map Amendments
> Article 7 - Conditional Use Permits and Variances
> Article 8 - Divisions of Property
> Article 9 - Design Standards
>
> One or more of those articles should get your attention.
>
> Keep this in mind - there are some 117 individual provisions to this
> omnibus ordinance - many of them restrict your rights as a property owner
> and will require a fee-based conditional use permit (CUP) in order to
> comply with the ordinance.
>
> No doubt some of the proposed rules are reasonable, but all need to be
> given the greatest scrutiny before they are considered by the County
> Commissioners.
>
> You might want to know that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners have
> stated that they have worked on this document for seven (7) years.  They
> advertised the draft document for the public hearing (held last week)
> during the first week of January.  The draft document discussed at the
> hearing was dated January 11.  This provided you and I about one week to
> digest the details of this ordinance.
>
> Here is something that struck me as a problem.  Apart from the blanket
> statement that the purpose of the ordinance is to "promote the health,
> safety and general welfare of the people of  Latah County ...", the
> document provides no detailed purpose statements or context statements
> which attempt to define why the specific regulation is needed, what is the
> problem or issue being addressed, etc.  Furthermore, none of the
> regulations provide for a measurement or assessment standard that would
> allow citizens to determine whether the regulation or policy is effective.
>
> After you read the document, perhaps you will appreciate why I am
proposing
> an ordinance of my own - no public policy or regulation or rule affecting
> land use should be adopted unless the proposed policy, rule or regulation
> provides a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose - detailing
precisely
> what the problem or issue is that the County officials are trying to
> address.  Further, as applicable, the proposed policy, rule or regulation
> should have a means of assessing or determining whether the rule is
> effective at dealing with the problem.  Over time this may help to
> highlight those rules or policies which should be eliminated.
>
> After review, contact me directly or post your comments back to
> Vision2020.  I know it may be difficult for all to find the time, given
all
> the other major public policies being debated just now (water issue,
> highways, public schools) but this document  - when combined with the
> impact of the other major issues being decided - has real and significant
> consequences for all of us.
>
> I look forward to your comments (oh, horse owners, dog owners, home
> occupation folks, farmers that use apprentice housing, rural property
> owners and individuals planning to use wind powered generators should be
> sure to review the document).
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯