[Vision2020] Latah County Land Use Ordinance

[Thomas Saylor]

At 09:39 PM 1/22/2005, Jeff Harkins wrote:
>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

I read this document after the recent public hearing at the courthouse. By 
accounts, the place was packed, with more people crowding the adjacent 
hallways. Those in attendance recited a common themes: why is this 
necessary, how did something of this magnitude come up on the radar so 
quickly, and what can we do to preserve our property rights. The level of 
attendance alone suggests deep concern about this ill-advised "reform" 
across a spectrum of landowners and residents.

I agree with Mr. Harkins when he says we should all be concerned about this 
sweeping ordinance. In some ways it simplifies issues, but in many ways it 
places unnecessary restrictions on landowners who, for a very long time, 
and for the most part, have been good stewards of their land and good 
neighbors without the need for this intrusion.

Yes, the alarmists will say that toxic waste dumps, pig farms, killer radio 
towers, illegal junkyards, rural apartment complexes, overcrowded animal 
feedlots, inappropriate home businesses, unapproved cemetaries, and rogue 
bed and breakfasts will sprout all over the county unless we enact this 
ordinance immediately. These are the same people who generally don't live 
in the rural county, and who don't understand the uses being addressed in 
the ordinance.

I suggest there are laws and mechanisms already on the books that address 
these issues, without the need for a clampdown of this magnitude. I'm 
curious: can anyone name specific examples of the dreaded uses listed 
above? If so, what existing laws and processes could be brought to bear today?

Regarding towers and hazards to air navigation, as a pilot and 
telecommunications consultant, I know the FAA and the FCC are directly 
involved in the approval and lighting of any tower exceeding certain height 
limits and/or within critical air navigation areas. From the FCC website: 
"The FCC always requires an FAA determination that an antenna tower will 
not pose an aviation hazard before it will grant permission to build that 
antenna tower." Should the county now feel obligated to weigh in on this?

Most wind generation and personal radio towers (ham radio, TV reception, 
etc.) are less than 100 feet tall. And, the ordinance restricts wind 
generation towers to 60 feet. Those familiar with wind generation may agree 
this could effectively squelch wind generation (a component 
of  "alternative and renewable energy") in this county. Depending on site 
and wind conditions, windmills may need to be much higher off the ground to 
escape turbulent air at lower heights. Turbulence reduces generation 
efficiency and shortens the life span of wind generators. Does the county 
want to stymie personal communications and development of alternative energy?

People who run cattle, keep horses, or other domestic livestock should be 
concerned as well. The ordinance mentions a one animal per acre limit. Does 
this apply to chickens as well? Most people I know who manage domestic 
livestock on their property do so in a responsible and ethical manner. Laws 
exist regarding animal cruelty and protection of riparian areas. Should the 
county add another layer of bureaucracy?

Folks, let's remember these are your tax dollars being expended for 
questionable returns. If I felt threatened by any of the issues being 
addressed in this ordinance, I would have been before the commissioners or 
sued under existing laws long ago. I hope others of reasonable mind agree: 
If there are specific problems, let's fix them. Otherwise, put the broad 
brush away and work the individual issues as necessary.

Now I'll brace myself for the onslaught of criticism. I realize I will be 
called selfish to dare fight restriction of my landowner freedoms under the 
guise of promoting the "health, safety, and general welfare of the people 
of Latah County." I promise to focus on my other public service and 
humanitarian efforts to make up for my insensitivity.

Tom Saylor
Troy, Idaho
A responsible "rural residential zone" landowner