SULLIVAN'S SALVOS
December 12, 2019
Sullivan’s Salvos 12/17/19
In this edition:
*Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
*Did You Know?
*Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
As you may know, Johnson County has been working on a new Comprehensive Plan for quite some time. Back in May of 2018, after 18 months, 31 public meetings lasting over 100 hours, and hundreds of public comments, Johnson County passed its 2018 Comprehensive Plan by our usual 4-1 vote.
But that still left considerable work ahead. Ever since that time, Johnson County has been working on our Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO is basically a collection of all county ordinances dealing with planning, zoning, and development.
After months of work, we are nearing the end. Most of our ordinances are in good shape and ready to be updated. The biggest challenge we face is coming up with a new and improved approach to the Ag Exemption.
A bit of history: Long ago - even prior to the 1988 Land Use Plan - Johnson County began feeling the pressure of people wanting to move here. They were gobbling up farmland to put up housing developments. It seemed a shame that some of the world’s best farmland was being sacrificed for these houses.
In addition, land values went through the roof. There was little incentive for some farmers to grow commodities and sell at low prices when they could just sell their land for development. Young farmers were shut out by these high land prices.
So the Board of Supervisors acted. They began to prioritize the preservation of Ag land, especially prime Ag land. And as soon as they did, developers started finding ways around it. They knew that Iowa law provided something known as the Ag Exemption. The Ag Exemption, written specifically for farmers, allows unfettered building of farmhouses. Suddenly, every person with an apple tree was a “farmer.” The Board was going to need to do more, or all the Ag land would be gobbled up.
One of the ways in which they did this was the “40 Acre Rule.” This is pretty simple. It says that in order to be considered Ag exempt, you must have a minimum lot size of 40 acres. 40 acres is basically the standard Iowa field, also known as a quarter of a quarter section.
By limiting the Ag exemption to lots of 40 acres or more, the Board put a stop to 5 and ten-acre residential lots, while still allowing conventional farmers to enjoy the exemption intended for them. This worked fine for many years.
As the local food movement took hold in the 90s, and as it has grown since, more and more people want to get involved in growing their own food. There are few prohibitions on this, mind you. You can start growing food almost anywhere in Johnson County. What you could not have was the Ag Exemption, which allows you to build a house. That is the key to the rest of our discussion.
You will often hear people disparagingly claim that the Board says less than 40 acres is not a “farm.” Here is the deal - everyone has her/his own definition of a farm. When people talk about the definition of a farm, they are typically referring to the Ag Exemption. Ag Exempt property is just that - exempt - from most zoning laws.
So there are several things you can do on Ag Exempt property. You can have a virtually unlimited number of animals. You can build two houses, and the houses do not need to be inspected. You can build an almost unlimited number of outbuildings, and these buildings do not need to be inspected.
There are people who grow food on several acres, but are taxed residentially. There are people taxed as Agricultural who don’t grow anything. Tax status has nothing to do with the Ag Exemption.
Ag exempt homes are typically not inspected. If you build your dream home on 3 acres, the County inspects it. If you build your dream home on 40 acres, the County does not. Do we really want every home going uninspected? How many lives will be lost? How many unsuspecting buyers need to get burned? (Literally and figuratively!) Personally, I believe ALL houses should be inspected, period. Who cares what the owner does for a living?
One more housing related issue. As I mentioned earlier, since the 1990s, Johnson County has done a really good job of reducing sprawl and saving farmland, despite incredible growth pressures. Look at the growth rates of Coralville, North Liberty, and other cities before 1990, then after. As the County reduced options for new housing, population in those cities exploded! And that is a good thing. In general, it is better that people live in the city if they are not farming. Johnson County has done a great job of making this a reality!
The Ag Exemption can be used as a tool to get around County zoning requirements. It is easy to picture the young farmer buying her 10 aces, building a nice house, and starting to farm. What happens in two years when she decides farming is too hard? The house is already there. The farmland is already gone. This creates a HUGE loophole!
Anything the Board does to change the 40 Acre Rule could have a devastating effect in terms of urban sprawl. We need to make changes, but we need to make them thoughtfully, carefully, and with a sharp eye toward unintended consequences.
Thankfully, County Planning staff have come up with what I believe to be a very good set of compromises. This UDO is something of which we should be VERY proud!
Unfortunately, all this good work is overshadowed by a single topic over which we have no real control: Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.
You are going to hear that the Supervisors who supported the new ordinance “voted for CAFOs.” That is simply false. Here are the facts: the State of Iowa does not allow local governments to regulate CAFOs. We can pretend all we want that we somehow have control here, but we do not. The State law is clear. The idea that our old “40 Acre Rule” kept farmers from putting up CAFOs is ridiculous. If a farmer wants to put one up, he will put one up. They always have. If the rule was stopping CAFOs, how did we get the ones we have?
There are people who think Johnson County should write an ordinance that expressly bans CAFOs. Let the Farm Bureau go ahead and sue us, they say. I say be careful what you wish for. The State level Iowa Farm Bureau would love to hurt the residents of Johnson County. Governor Reynolds would love to hurt the residents of Johnson County. The Republicans in the Iowa Legislature would love to hurt the residents of Johnson County, and ALREADY have a bill ready to go that takes away even more local control. This is not a game. This is not the “friendly rivalry” politics of the 1980s. They hate us, and they want us to suffer. And they have the power to make that happen.
I do not want to lose a great set of ordinances over an issue we cannot control anyway. I’d love to see a rural western Iowa county with three Republican Supervisors push the CAFO issue. But Johnson County is not the right messenger. Couple that with the fact that State Law is already against us, and I see fighting this as just a waste of staff time.
In fact, changing the 40 Acre Rule is something local small farmers have been requesting for 20 years. Finally, Johnson County has made a move to address their concerns. Why jeopardize that?
The Board had considered requiring a public hearing for new CAFOs. Not existing ag operations or even existing CAFOs, mind you – just new CAFOs. Why add a public hearing when you really cannot regulate the activity? Because neighbors deserve to be aware that something is proposed.
The Farm Bureau is up in arms about this. But spare me the outrage. You can do any damn thing you want. If you want to construct a CAFO, your neighbors deserve to know. That is all I was trying to do. But unfortunately, this appears to be where the Farm Bureau and Iowa Legislature are drawing the line.
So, what to do? I have been back and forth on this topic. I was one of three Supervisors that suggested the Planning, Development, and Sustainability Department (PDS) draft rules that required a public hearing. Unfortunately, the idea of a public hearing appears to be the thing that gets us sued. It appears to be the thing that holds up all the other good things in the UDO. In the end, I had to ask myself if an essentially meaningless public hearing was worth holding up the whole UDO. I decided it was not.
The people who claim the world is ending because of this? Give me a break. The UDO always ran the risk of becoming the proxy battle between rural and urban residents of the County. Unfortunately, it got far worse than that. It became a reflection of America under President Donald Trump – falsehoods of every type being repeated constantly. Great public servants under attack. It has been ugly, and the people who led the charge should be ashamed.
In the end, the vote on December 5 was 3-2 in favor. (Passing the ordinance requires 3 readings; they are scheduled for the 5th, 12th, and 19th of December.) Supervisors Porter, Heiden, and myself voted in favor. Supervisor Green Douglass voted no because she wanted the public hearing piece included. Supervisor Rettig voted no because of the public hearing piece and because this was “too much regulation.”
Supervisor Rettig was always going to be a “no” on this, as she is on every major piece of legislation. It comes as no surprise to anyone that follows county government. It never mattered what was actually in the plan; her vote was decided a year ago.
Nobody got everything they wanted out of this process. We did the best we could in a situation where there are multiple issues with multiple competing interests. I do not want to see the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So, let me be very clear: this UDO does the best possible job of protecting farmland and stopping urban sprawl, while at the same time empowering small local farmers. This UDO deserves your support.
*DID YOU KNOW? You can find the UDO on the PDS section of the Johnson County website.
Anyone interested in learning more about County government should take a look at the County website-
"Sullivan’s Salvos" is sent once per week to any interested party. It will give a brief update on issues of interest to Johnson County residents.
These messages come solely from Rod Sullivan, and neither represents the viewpoints of the whole Board of Supervisors nor those of groups or individuals otherwise mentioned.
If you do NOT want the weekly E-mail, simply reply to this message, and type "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you know anyone else who might be interested, just forward this message. They can E-mail me at rodsullivan@mchsi.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.
As always, feel free to contact me at 354-7199 or rodsullivan@mchsi.com. I look forward to serving you!
---Rod
posted by Rod Sullivan @ 10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home