Thursday, November 15, 2007

Forestry Review Committee against TPZ draft


The consensus Tuesday among some Forestry Review Committee members was a residence on land zoned for timber production shouldn’t “detract” but it need not be “necessary.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, committee member Gary Rynearson said he felt “the issue of necessary” as is written in the California Government Code has caused confusion.

California Government Code Section 51104 (h) states a “compatible use” for timberland is that “which does not significantly detract from the use of the property” for growing and harvesting timber.

Subsection No. 6 states a residence or other structure could be included if deemed “necessary” for timberland management.

Rynearson said with respect to the issue at hand, whether a residence is “necessary” is less important than what constitutes a compatible use of timber production zone land....

...After about two hours of discussion on Tuesday, Rynearson crafted a five-part motion, which was revised several times and which also had as its centerpiece the issue of 160 acres.

The vote, which was approved 4-2 (Yana Valachovic and Mark Andre dissenting), was for the following:

1. Residences on parcels 160 acres or more should not require discretionary review.

2. The committee does not approve of the current draft TPZ ordinance.

3. The FRC would like to work with staff to develop objective standards for residential construction on legal substandard parcels that are less than 160 acres. These standards would take into account “consistency with the definition of compatible use” and that the developments “do not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing or harvesting timber.”

4. TPZ matters should be put back into the Humboldt County General Plan Update discussion.

5. The committee requests a study session on Jan. 15 or “another suitable date” with supervisors, the Planning Commission and county staff on TPZ issues....
Read the full article

Interesting post at Save Ancient Forests

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Damn poor job by Rynerson. Where is the protection for tree sitters and dope growers? Very un-PC of the FRC.