Thursday, November 15, 2007

Second Try

I think I should have whittled down that last post before publishing it. I'm not a lawyer like Eric but points 2 and 3 are my careful interpretation of California State TPZ codes.

The core message I'm trying to get across is;

1. I want to avoid a permitting process that makes necessary residences on TPZ land cost prohibitive.

2. To me, a necessary residence is one needed to manage the land which has been given a TPZ designation. The state code doesn't require that a residence is needed to grow trees.

3. Management includes engagement in any use that is compatible with, but not limited to, timber production. Some compatible uses would be grazing, stream and forest habitat restoration, road improvement, hunting, fishing, foraging and much more.

Update 11/16

Mark Lovelace posted a comment on this blog yesterday (Nov. 15th) which included the folowing:

"The Humboldt Watershed Council has taken the clearly-stated position that a person who owns a manageable piece of timberland should reasonably be allowed to live on that land. "

and

"HWC has advocated for a distinction between industrial timber and non-industrial timber, with different residential allowances for each. We have also advocated for a ministerial (non-discretionary) permit for residences on non-industrial TPZ properties of 160 acres or more. On properties smaller than 160 acres, we believe the County should have some reasonable discretion to ensure that the development does not detract from the ability to manage the land, or neighboring TPZ lands."

Thank you for clarifying the Humboldt Watershed Councils position on this.

3 Comments:

At 11/16/2007 08:10:00 AM, Anonymous Bolithio said...

"2. To me, a necessary residence is one needed to manage the land which has been given a TPZ designation. The state code doesn't require that a residence is needed to grow trees."

What is the difference between managing land and growing trees? I think this provision of the rule was created when these places were still considered remote - and "ranch hands" had to live out there to get anything done. It seems dated to me.

I think one solution is to just alter the rules to allow for a single family residence - which is what people really are going to be doing anyways. There is tons of TPZ land that is not managed - with or without a house.

 
At 11/16/2007 11:17:00 AM, Blogger John Doe #86 said...

Some of these places still are remote. You may not need a house to grow the trees, but you may need one to protect the land from wood poachers and animal poachers, etc. Also don't forget about other compatible uses.

Do you believe that there should be a minimum acreage that a house should be allowed on? If so, what is it?

"There is tons of TPZ land that is not managed - with or without a house."

I think that has more to do with the landowner than the TPZ code.

 
At 11/21/2007 12:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW - thought I would point out that county ordinances currently in place are identical to state law regarding TPZ. The county only adopted the statute's standards of compatible uses and chose NOT to expand it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Search the Web at eWoss.com