<html>
<body>
Good evening all, <br><br>
Here is a compendium of comments and concerns about Section Three of the
Latah County Proposed Land Ordinance.<br><br>
Article 3 defines the Land Use Zones. Two new zones are
created. The zones are:<br><br>
3.01 Agricultural/Forest Zone<br>
3.02 Rural Residential Zone<br>
3.03 Suburban Residential Zone (formerly the single family and
multi-family zones)<br>
3.04 Commercial Zone (formerly Highway business and Neighborhood
business)<br>
3.05 Industrial Zone<br><br>
Changes to each zone could be troubling for many that live in those
zones.<br><br>
3.01 Farmers and foresters will be pleased that they are allowed, by the
ordinance to continue these ag/forest operations. <br><br>
3.01.01 Permitted uses include the right to:<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
.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. <br><br>
.5 Ag/Forest folks can have an airstrip and heliport provided they are
used for ag/forest operations.<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
.7 Ag/Forest folks can have a home occupation, but they must conform to
the standards defined at 4.02. (Tomorrow night)<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
3.01.02 Condition Uses in the Ag/Forest Zone<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
.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:<br><br>
<br><br>
<pre>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.
</i></pre>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.<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
.4 Deals with Horse Activities and Related Facilities - this traditional
and cultural animal husbandry activity was segregated, by definition, for
separate restrictions.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
If ten or more horses on the parcel (size not specified) - the operation
must have a conditional use permit.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
.5 Dog training, boarding, breeding, for hire and rescue operations must
have a conditional use permit.<br><br>
No mention of why, nature of problem, etc. Dog enthusiasts in the
ag/forest zone need to get organized on this one.<br><br>
.7 Comm towers and transmission facilities must have conditional use
permits.<br><br>
A number of questions arise here - does this apply to HAM radio
operators, satellite links for data, etc.?<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
.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?<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
.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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Please continue to provide your comments - they have been
helpful.<br><br>
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.</body>
<br>
</html>