Today in History revisits an article that discusses a proposal to restrict development in Grand Forks City’s “fringe area” to homes on five-acre lots to protect farmland from subdivision development. City engineer Frank Orthmeyer advocates for even stricter measures, wanting no building except for farm buildings.
However, the county planning and zoning commission gave preliminary approval to lower the minimum acreage for development to 2.5 acres to save farmland. The proposal sparks debate between various stakeholders, with differing opinions on the best way to preserve valuable land. The article concludes with details on the upcoming public hearing and final vote on the proposal scheduled for April 28, 1977.
By Greg Dawson, Herald Staff Writer
For Frank Orthmeyer, the world of planning and zoning turned upside down Thursday night, March 24, 1977.
With the exception of planner Bob Bushfield, Orthmeyer, city engineer, may be the loudest advocate in city government of zoning laws to protect farmland from subdivision development.
Next month the Grand Forks City Council votes on a measure — drafted by Bushfield and backed by Orthmeyer — that would restrict development in much of the city’s “fringe area” to homes on five-acre lots — no smaller. Orthmeyer considered that a compromise. He wanted no building at all, except farm buildings.
So Orthmeyer didn’t know what to think Thursday night when the county planning and zoning commission, representing mostly the farmers Orthmeyer seeks to protect from urban sprawl, gave preliminary approval to lowering the county’s minimum acreage for development from five acres to two and one-half acres.
“You really should limit it to farm construction unless it’s next to the city. That way you wouldn’t lose any of that valuable land,” Orthmeyer suggested.
As so often happens in the world of planning and zoning, what looks to be upside down to one person appears to be right side up to the next, and so it is with this newest proposal.
County Commissioner Emmons Christopher, who offered the amendment, said it’s designed not to encourage development but to save farmland.
“Farmland is too valuable to break up five acres for one home,” he told the commission. “That’s too much land to take out of production.”
On the other hand, “five acres did discourage a lot of developers,” said commission chairman Jerome Endres. And, he added, he knows of a developer ready to come in with a 28-home development as soon as the county lowers its minimum from five acres to two and a half.
Christopher’s proposal was a shocker for Jerry Waletzko, an environmentalist who came to the meeting saying even five acres is an “inducement to developers” and that the county’s minimum ought to be raised to 40 acres, a standard adopted in other states.
No matter what minimum is set, “you’ll always have somebody coming in asking for something less,” Endres said, indicating less-than-full support for the proposal.
In defense of a lower minimum, Christopher said, “I don’t think we’ll have an influx into the area because of the two and a half acres.”
The minimum would apply to all county land except that which lies in the city’s “fringe area,” a two-mile-wide belt surrounding Grand Forks.
State’s Attorney Thomas Jelliff reminded the commission that townships may do their own zoning, a prerogative most have ignored.
“Townships may zone themselves but most have gone along so far with the board (commission),” Jelliff said. “They don’t have to relinquish their authority.”
In other words, any planning decision made by the county can be overridden by township decisions. To do that, however, the townships must have planning commissions and follow certain legal requirements.
A public hearing and final vote on the proposal will be held at the planning commission’s next meeting, April 28.
MARCH 25, 1977, WEATHER FORECAST
Our newsroom occasionally reports stories under a byline of “staff.” Often, the “staff” byline is used when rewriting basic news briefs that originate from official sources, such as a city press release about a road closure, and which require little or no reporting. At times, this byline is used when a news story includes numerous authors or when the story is formed by aggregating previously reported news from various sources. If outside sources are used, it is noted within the story.