|
Commissioners deny Estates at Copeland
Landing |
|
March 27, 2012 |
Despite pursuasive arguments by applicant James
Fox that development was going to happen and
that his proposal for a clustered development of
30 lots along the Kootenai River at the Copeland
Bridge was the best way for the county to attain
its goal of retaining its prized agricultural
lands, county commissioners today agreed with
the Planning and Zoning Commission and
unanimously denied a request to develop the
Estates at Copeland Landing Subdivision.
As proposed, the application would have allowed
the platting of 30 riverfront lots ranging in
size from 2 1/2 to three acres in size, and
preserved approximately 240 additional acres,
the best agricultural land of the more than 300
acres encompassed, for production, in perpetuity
... or until the zoning changed, whichever came
first.
The applicant argued that the change would never
come, as the history of clustered development in
the U.S., spanning more than 100 years, and in
Europe, where it's existed considerably longer,
shows that, properly planned, high density
residential use and high-yield agricultural use
can exist side by side, with both thriving.
Only one person spoke in favor of the
application, not so much in favor of the plan
itself but for the right of the property owner
to use the land in his own best interest,
beholden to no one but the owner's neighbors and
God.
Many who spoke agreed with him, but took up his
one caveat; that what a property owner did with
his land shouldn't hurt his neighbors.
Despite the applicant's assurances, everyone
else who gave testimony raised concerns that the
proposal would harm not only them personally,
either by interfering with their way of earning
a living or by threatening their safety either
by overloading existing roads or by increasing
the danger of flooding through damage to dikes
and the banks of the Kootenai River, but the
community as a whole, putting more pressure on
the sole economic leg the county continues to
stand on, agriculture.
Under the cluster development concept, a
property owner isn't restricted by minimum
parcel size, but by net residential density. In
the Prime Agriculture zone district, the minimum
parcel size is 10 acres and the applicant owns
more than 390, thus the right to build 39 homes.
The Estates at Copeland landing would have
reduced residential sites by nine, setting aside
approximately 16% of the total ground for
development and preserving 84% for farming.
The idea and the concept was good, many said,
the location wasn't.
While Fox, whose family has owned that land
since 1934 and who contends he met all the
requirements and restrictions of both the county
comprenensive plan and zoning ordinance as
regards clustered development, has the right to
appeal the commissioner's decision in a court of
law, it doesn't appear that he's going to go
that route.
Instead, he told his surveyors and county
commissioners, he's going to submit another
preliminary plat application breaking the
properties into 39 lots each 10-acres or more in
size, setting aside nothing. By the rules of our
ordinance, he said, he can't be turned down for
that. |
|
|
|
|
