[Vision2020] Proposed Land Use Ordinance - Section 3 Comments

[Jeff Harkins]

Good evening all,

Here is a compendium of comments and concerns about Section Three of the 
Latah County Proposed Land Ordinance.

Article 3 defines the Land Use Zones.  Two new zones are created.  The 
zones are:

3.01 Agricultural/Forest Zone
3.02 Rural Residential Zone
3.03 Suburban Residential Zone (formerly the single family and multi-family 
zones)
3.04 Commercial Zone (formerly Highway business and Neighborhood business)
3.05 Industrial Zone

Changes to each zone could be troubling for many that live in those zones.

3.01 Farmers and foresters will be pleased that they are allowed, by the 
ordinance to continue these ag/forest operations.

3.01.01  Permitted uses include the right to:

.1 Raise, feed and sell livestock, but if grazing animals are contained, 
they must be situated at least  35 feet from any stream shown on a USGA 7.5 
minute map.

Testimony at the first hearing revealed that the notation of streams on the 
7.5 minute map is not a uniform scientific basis for denoting 
streams.  Further, there was testimony that this standard would not stand 
up to a court test.

.4 Accessory buildings required to conduct farming and/or forestry business 
are permitted, but only if there are less than six employees.  No 
definition was provided as to whether that refers to a full-time equivalent 
employee, part time employees, year-round employees, etc.

.5 Ag/Forest folks can have an airstrip and heliport provided they are used 
for ag/forest operations.

.6 Ag/Forest folks can have two rooms (not three or more) for rent and 
these rooms cannot exceed occupancy for more than two (2) per room.  Guess 
couples with infants are out of luck or rent two rooms.

.7 Ag/Forest folks can have a home occupation, but they must conform to the 
standards defined at 4.02. (Tomorrow night)

.8 Ag/Forest folks can have two (2) wind generators per parcel with a 
residence (20 acres or 2000 acres doesn't seem to matter.  They cannot 
exceed 60 feet.  No guy wires are permitted.

Ardent energy conservationists should be concerned.  No rationale was 
provided as to the limit of wind towers to two per parcel.  No rationale 
was provided for the height restriction - in many cases that won't get 
above the trees around here.  No rationale was offered for the "no guy 
wires" but during the hearing I asked about that and was told it was to 
keep from killing birds.  My thought now is that only Avista and Clearwater 
are allowed to kill birds, because all of their poles have guy wires.

What I have learned about wind generating configurations is that they must 
be engineered to each site - and these standards would preclude many 
proposed sitings.  Perhaps some of you have experience with this field.

3.01.02 Condition Uses in the Ag/Forest Zone

.1 If operation has more than five employees, they must get a conditional 
use permit.  No mention of full time, full time equivalent or part time.

.2 This section deals with the CAFO issue (contained animal feeding 
operation).  It is not clear whether the ordinance would be in compliance 
with state regulations.  There was some testimony on the issue, but I don't 
have much knowledge about this.  Perhaps some of you could offer some 
input.  Here is one section from state statute that I stumbled across:



TITLE  67
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6529C.  DEFINITIONS. As used in this act, the following definitions
shall apply:
     (1)  "Animal unit" means a unit of measurement for any animal feeding
operation calculated by adding the following numbers: The number of slaughter
and feeder cattle multiplied by one (1), plus the number of young slaughter or
feeder cattle less than twelve (12) months of age multiplied by six-tenths
(0.6), plus the number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by one and
four-tenths (1.4), plus the number of young dairy cattle multiplied by
six-tenths (0.6), plus the number of swine weighing over twenty-five (25)
kilograms, approximately fifty-five (55) pounds, multiplied by four-tenths
(0.4), plus the number of weaned swine weighing under twenty-five (25)
kilograms multiplied by one-tenth (0.1), plus the number of sheep multiplied
by one-tenth (0.1), plus the number of horses multiplied by two (2), plus the
number of chickens multiplied by one-hundredth (0.01);
     (2)  "CAFO," also referred to as "concentrated animal feeding operation"
or "confined animal feeding operation," means a lot or facility where the
following conditions are met:
     (a)  Animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or
     maintained for a total of ninety (90) consecutive days or more in any
     twelve-month period;
     (b)  Crops, vegetation, forage growth or postharvest residues are not
     sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or
     facility; and
     (c)  The lot or facility is designed to confine or actually does confine
     an equivalent of one thousand (1,000) animal units or more.
Two (2) or more concentrated animal feeding operations under common ownership
are considered, for the purposes of this definition, to be a single animal
feeding operation if they adjoin each other or if they use a common area or
system for the disposal of wastes;
     (3)  "CAFO site advisory team" shall mean representatives of the Idaho
state department of agriculture, Idaho department of environmental quality and
Idaho department of water resources who review a site proposed for a CAFO,
determine environmental risks and submit a suitability determination to a
county. The department of agriculture shall serve as the lead agency for the
team;
     (4)  "Environmental risk" shall mean that risk to the environment deemed
posed by a proposed CAFO site, as determined and categorized by the CAFO site
advisory team and set forth in the site advisory team's suitability
determination report;
     (5)  "Suitability determination" shall mean that document created and
submitted by the CAFO site advisory team after review and analysis of a
proposed CAFO site that identifies the environmental risk categories related
to a proposed CAFO site, describes the factors that contribute to the
environmental risks and sets forth any possible mitigation of risk.

One apparent conflict between the ordinance and state law pertains to who 
gets to testify at conditional use hearings.  The state says "real property 
owners", while the county ordinance says "anyone."  That seems like a 
problem to me.

.3 Deals with various conditional use permits - rv parks, campgrounds, golf 
courses, parks, rec fields etc.  Oddly, it includes Vet Clinics - which are 
excluded as home occupations. That seems odd to me.

.4 Deals with Horse Activities and Related Facilities - this traditional 
and cultural animal husbandry activity was segregated, by definition, for 
separate restrictions.

This issue is a hot one and, in my opinion, should be withdrawn from any 
consideration at this time.  Remember, this section of ordinance is for the 
agricultural/forest zone of the county.

There are many things odd about this set of provisions. First, other 
grazing animals were excluded from the section (llamas, alpacas, sheep, 
goats, elk, deer).

If ten or more horses on the parcel (size not specified) - the operation 
must have a conditional use permit.

Even more interesting, if less than 10 and you have access by the 
public  or have retreats, clinics or events (not defined) the activity must 
have a conditional use permit.

The horse enthusiasts are well organized on this one and it will have 
significant challenges, but those interested should let the Planning 
Commission know your views.

.5 Dog training, boarding, breeding, for hire and rescue operations must 
have a conditional use permit.

No mention of why, nature of problem, etc.  Dog enthusiasts in the 
ag/forest zone need to get organized on this one.

.7 Comm towers and transmission facilities must have conditional use permits.

A number of questions arise here - does this apply to HAM radio operators, 
satellite links for data, etc.?

.9 While farmers and foresters can have an airstrip or heliport without a 
permit, anyone else in the ag/forest zone (say a consultant who commutes to 
Spokane) must have a permit.

.11 Schools (not defined) must be permitted.  Does this mean that if a 
group of families are cooperating on home schooling (already controlled by 
the Department of Education) that they must also have a permit?

.13 Bed and Breakfasts with up to four rooms outside the primary residence 
must have a conditional use permit (recall two rooms require no 
permit).  No rationale for the different treatment provided.

.15 Farmworker/Farm Apprentice Housing rules have to be read to be 
appreciated.  After you read it, I think you will agree with me that it 
would make more sense for the farmer/operator to buy a bunch of old pickup 
campers or motor homes and use those.

This ends comments on Agriculture/Forest Zones.  I will get some comments 
about the other zones in the next posting.  Hopefully, each of you will 
examine the standards for your zones.

Please continue to provide your comments - they have been helpful.

The next meeting of the Latah County Planning Commission is Tuesday, Feb 1, 
2005  at 5:30 at the Latah County Courthouse.  Commissioners have indicated 
that they will discuss their findings from the hearing last week.  If you 
have concerns, it would be a good idea to plan to attend.  It is unlikely 
that they will take public testimony, but they will accept your written 
comments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050129/f09046f9/attachment.htm