[Vision2020] Drafting Ordinances

[Jeff Harkins]

Good evening all,

Again,  comments are being sent (thank you) and I am beginning to sense 
that both sides of the aisle are seeing problems with the land use ordinance.

And after the torrent of threads tonight, it is time for another 
installment of observations about the proposed ordinance.

Tonight's episode will focus on Section 1, the proposed "Administration" 
element of the ordinances.

There are a number of points to note, and I will try to address them by 
Section Number, after some general observations about the overall thrust of 
the proposals.

General Comments:

Except for referencing the authority granted to the Planning Commission, 
there seems to be no reference back to the Comprehensive Plan in any of the 
provisions offered.

For example, Section 1.02.01 establishes the Planning Department and 
provides for the appointment of a Planning Director.  But Latah County 
already has a planning department.  Obvious confusion!  If a new department 
- why, and what are the budget implications.  As I think will be obvious, 
this entire Section suffers from this kind of difficulty.

Specific items by subsection:

1.02.01 - this section provides that the Planning Department may establish 
procedures and rules it deems necessary for compliance with the 
ordinance.  But there is no provision for oversight stated. Are the rules 
and procedures subject to approval by the Commissioners?  Is there going to 
be a process for appealing the rules and procedures (not the decisions mind 
you, but appeal of the rules and procedures)?  Is the general public going 
to have an opportunity to provide testimony or input about proposed 
rules?  If yes to any of these questions, the Section should refer to that 
process.

I am sure there are other significant questions here.

1.02.02 - this section seems to be codifying by ordinance that the County 
shall establish land use zones, regulations, and development 
standards.  Since this power is granted to the County by Title 67, Chapter 
65 of the Idaho Code, it wouldn't seem necessary for this provision to be 
necessary.  Furthermore, this power is already affirmed in the Long Range 
Comprehensive Plan.  There seems no compelling reason for this section to 
be here.  If there is a reason, that reason should be stated.

1.02.03 - this is the "severability" clause and would appear to be 
reasonable boiler plate.

1.02.04 - this is the "conflicts" section and again appears to be 
reasonable boiler plate.  The essence is if two or more provisions of the 
ordinance conflict, the provision which is more restrictive or imposes 
higher standards is applicable.

1.02.05 - this section identifies the official map of Latah County - and 
its accessibility by the public.

1.02.06 - this section refers to the adoption of a "fee schedule" for the 
Planning Department for administration of the Department.  This is a 
budgeted-type activity and a proposed budget and estimate of fees should be 
provided.

1.02.07 - this section establishes the penalty provisions of the 
ordinance.  Fines of up to $300 for each day of a single violation, 
imprisonment for up to six (6) months or both are the maximum. Perhaps one 
or more of our lawyer would weigh in on this one.

1.02.08 - this section establishes the Latah County Planning 
Commission.  But this Commission already exists - it wrote the proposed 
ordinance.  Does this mean that the current commission has no standing?  If 
this is replacing a current policy - that should be referenced.  If the 
current planning commission is not in compliance with current state law, 
what is the implication for decisions they have already made?

1.02.09 - 1.02.11 - these sections address the organization, the terms of 
the commissioners and the jurisdiction of the commissioners.  If these are 
changed from the current policy, the change should be identified.  Since 
the Planning Commission already exists, why is the ordinance 
necessary?  Should the appointment of commissioners require some mandatory 
diversity.  Latah County is divided into numerous factions - e.g., 
agricultural/forestry types, stockmen, townsfolk, business people, 
students, retirees.  Should the Commission be structured so that factions 
have representation?

1.02.12 - 1.02.15 - these sections pertain to the creation, terms and 
jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission.  Since a Zoning Commission already 
exists, the same questions surface as raised for the Planning 
Commission.  Redundancy? Change? Diversity of Commissioners?

1.02.16 - 1.02.17 - these sections pertain to the designation of the Zoning 
Commission as the Land Use Board of Appeals and define the establishment, 
jurisdiction and process for land use appeals.  Again, Latah has a Land Use 
Board of Appeals and an appeal process. Is this ordinance a change in 
process or a confirmation of the existing process?  The context of the 
ordinance needs clarification.

1.02.18 - this section defines the process for appeals of decisions by the 
Zoning Commission or the Land Use Board of Appeals.  Does this process vary 
from the current process? If so, why is it needed?  The process seems 
reasonable, but the context is missing.  It would sure be nice if 
the  legal eagles would weigh in here.

1.02.19 - this section defines the standard for mediation in conformance 
with Idaho Code Section 67-6510.  On the surface it seems reasonable, but 
if a change from current law in Latah, the change should be stated and an 
explanation of why the change is needed is warranted.

1.02.20 - this section defines that the permit applications for building 
permits for new structures or for changes in existing applications must be 
approved by the Planning Department.  The only thing that concerns me here 
is the specific reference to approval for a change in use of the 
structure.  Some changes are benign - changing a greenhouse to a haybarn or 
chicken coop or a woodshed or a playhouse, for example - would that require 
a building permit and approval by the Planning Department?  Maybe I am 
being a bit paranoid, but I am always uncomfortable with laws that define 
absolutes.

That concludes the comments about the "Administration" sections.  Most of 
the concerns are framed around context - why is the ordinance there?  Why 
is it necessary? Your comments and inputs would be appreciated.

Next are definitions - some real interesting things there - and then we 
move into the details (and the corresponding devils!)  Stay tuned.