Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council June 1 1992WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 1, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 6 p.m. in Arntzen Hall 100, Western Washington University, by Council Chairperson Daniel M. Warner. Present Absent Larry Harris None Marge Laidlaw Barbara Brenner Ken Henderson Bob Imhof Dennis Vander Yacht PUBLIC HEARING: TEMPORARY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB92 -058B) Warner announced that Thursday June 4, 1992, 5:00 p.m., will be the deadline for written comment.Included in his lengthy introduction was the statement that this is the 100th meeting on this process of adopting the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He asked that the speakers address the Council, not the audience, and tell the Council how the speaker came about his /her decision. Don't direct anger at individuals on the Council, he said. He said speakers should focus on interests instead of positions, give the Council some options, and help them understand the speaker's reasoning and problems. The Council decided to take the speakers in order of appearance on the sign up sheet (on file) rather than giving consideration to those who may have special problems. The public comment began at 6:20. Wendy Borgesen, Bellingham: As a seventeen -year resident of Whatcom County and a property owner, she supports the ordinance. Commends the Council on the work that has gone into it this past year. Would like people in the County to take a look at the benefits to be gained from the ordinance. Bill Managan, 3897 Mosquito Lake Rd., Deming: Against the ordinance, does not agree with the way the County Council is presenting the States Growth Management Act. Feels that he is doing his part for energy efficiency and does not feel it is fair that one's life style should be regulated. He had a four -page list of regulations and restrictions imposed on his land and life style in just the last three years. Randy Godfrey, 5056 Galbraith Rd., Acme: Full support for the Critical Areas Ordinance. Tom Brown, 7024 Mt. Baker Highway: Owns 25 acres in the County. Does not agree with Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 1- the sign up sheet; there should be a space for those who would like to see it modified. Asked that the plan be implemented with the minimum amount of restrictions possible, realizing that the cities will have growth management plans of their own and that a large part of the County is already publicly owned. Asked the Council Members to be observant and look at how many properties are going to be influenced by this ordinance. Concerned about impact of setbacks and buffers on the lower classed streams and wetlands. The adopted ordinance should contain this statement: "All property owners who lose rights to fully utilize their property will be fully compensated by the County. Also, any property owner who has a permit held up for more than 30 days will have the said permit automatically validated." David M. Schmalz, President of Whatcom County's Audubon Society: Please adopt the CAO with no further delay. We need a working document so we have something to work from. Pointed out that the public simply does not have the funds to compensate every person who would lose some land to the public good. Joe Burton, 3766 Greenville St., Bellingham: Land owner and registered voter. Objected to the presence of those who were not landowners or taxpayers. Would like to have a copy of the mandate to create this ordinance. Very much in opposition to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Asked for an extension of time before adoption of the ordinance so that the public could have time to study and understand it; it's a very difficult ordinance. Ivan Buchbinder, 1658 Emerald Lake Way, Bellingham: Supports the Critical Areas Ordinance. We need this ordinance in order to save the ecosystem. We need to protect things for future generations so that they have not only what we have, but more and better. Steve Neff, 5271 Noon Road, Bellingham: County property owner and taxpayer. Opposed to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Surrounding the inhabited areas of Whatcom County are millions of acres of unoccupied lands that contain the critical areas we need. Instead of remembering this, the freedoms and rights of property owners in the small occupied sections are being taken. Compensation for the "takings" should come from the special interest groups who are interested in aspects of his property, and then they can pay the taxes. Fred Sears, 2716 Walnut, Bellingham: Property owner and taxpayer. Worried about wildlife habitat and the decrease in it. Supports the CAO. This is a very complex ordinance and he feels that it is a beginning. Adopt and move on. Walt E. Chowning, 1430 Horksell Rd., Ferndale: Farmer and property owner in the Nooksack Valley. Acknowledges that there have many meetings on this, but somehow people have not been adequately informed on the ordinance and know little or nothing about it. Favors adoption of some plan, but feels that this one needs further public clarification and more work. Jim Johnson, 408 Arbutus Place, Bellingham: Property owner, works for Washington State Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 2 Fisheries & Wildlife. Supports the adoption of the temporary CAO. He has seen a real change in the state of the environment in Whatcom County. Favors property rights, but not when private property rights take precedence over public property rights, that is, those things owned in common by mankind and which need to be protected. Bob Stoothofi 8186 Mt. Baker Highway, Maple Falls: Main problem with this ordinance is his rights guaranteed by the fifth amendment and the fourteenth. The fines are excessive; enforce the existing laws and punish the abusers- -most property owners don't fall into this category. He is opposed to the CAO. Martin Van Buren, 623 E. Wilson Ave., Bellingham: Owns fifteen acres on Y Rd. Ditch. He is opposed. He said this ordinance trespasses against the constitutional rights of every property owner in Whatcom County. Asked how expensive the adoption and enforcement of this ordinance is going to be - -what is it costing the taxpayers? Who is the administrator? Points out that there is no appeal process beyond the administrator. Resents that "someone" has deemed him not capable of administering his own property and that he is under the control of some environmental administrator. Do not adopt as is, give more time. Asked for a vote by the citizens of the County. Jeanie Johnson, 1715 Larrabe, Bellingham: Concern is for future generations. Supports the adoption of the ordinance with some changes. Sue Lorentz, 511 Wilson Ave., Bellingham: While there are private property rights, there are public rights, too: the right to clean air and water. She is concerned about the decrease in care for wetlands shown in this version of the ordinance, e.g. increased size of wetlands, omitting critical wildlife habitat from category 3 criteria, allowing development in buffers. She listed changes on pgs. 35, 42, 51 as weakening the document. Her concern is that the ordinance does not do enough to protect wetlands and wildlife. BREAK for comments: Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts, Planner Terry Galvin, and Planning Director Dan Taylor answered questions from the Council. Taylor stated that the cost of putting ordinance together has cost somewhere in the area of $200,000. Earl Quinn, 3142 Mack Rd., Everson: Wants the Council to talk to the people who have to live with the regulations- -the land owners in the County, most of whom were late in hearing about the ordinance. Suggests that the Council work through the ordinance again and make it a little easier to live with. Carl M. Prince, 4024 Pipeline Rd., Blaine: Resident for fifteen years. Wants to see the growth managed, and this is going to take some individual sacrifices. This document will allow the people to have some control over what the growth is and what's going on in the County. "None of us lives in a world that affects no one else." Rollin Harper, 7601 Kendall Road, Sumas: Lives on 25 acres in the County. This isn't just Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 3- a black and white issue. The emphasis is not just to protect the environment, but also to protect the people. The ordinance may be going too far, but is in favor of passing the ordinance, then working out the details, being open to individual problems as they arise. Worried about, for instance, some of the class 5 stream classification. The buffers for those seems excessive. Slap Richards, 214 N. Commercial, Bellingham. Submitted written testimony to the Council Members. Suggested that it might be interesting to tally the comment forms submitted. Expressed fear that once this ordinance is passed, it will be relegated to the back burner and forgotten. Another concern is that no Economic Fiscal Impact Analysis has been done. The Assessor says there will be an impact; this should be a known before the ordinance is passed. He suggested that a total inventory of the critical areas is needed. Shared a letter from a County dairy farmer facing severe fiscal impacts from this ordinance. James A. Maricle, 3326 Cedarville Rd., Bellingham: County resident who is opposed to the CAO. Feels there are enough ordinances as is. He feels that the County should just bundle up all the existing ordinances and send them off to the State since they are requiring this Growth Management Plan. Pointed out several problems with the CAO: its impact on most of the inhabitable areas, lack of identity of the administrator, lack of limitations to the administrator's powers, lack of time limit on administrative decisions. Ted Olson, 5443 Mosquito Lake Rd., Deming: Property owner. Pointed out to the Planning Department that the reason their hearings had been so poorly attended was because people had life to live beyond and had been taking care of their business. Pointed out that the temporary ordinance was scheduled to last for three years, but the final maps were due in four years; ordinance says that the Council selects some board, but that the Executive selects the membership of the board, which is confusing; too much power--in the hands of an undefined administrator; objects to lack of compensation; too much infringement on rights of citizens. Jeffrey Gisenbrey, 2330 Park St., Bellingham: Renter, but remember that renters pay taxes through their rent. Pointed out that many of the lakes in the world including the United States are now toxic; we can't let that happen here. Issues too complicated to be mastered in depth by those leading regular lives are the reason officials are elected. Because he respects the work these people have done, he supports the CAO. Emily Jackson 8367 Berthusen Rd., Lynden: Asked that everyone begin seeing beyond labels, that each rethink his position, and that everyone begin to worth together, looking beyond the past toward tomorrow. Chris Fairbanks, 914 12th St., Bellingham: Property owner. He says he has rights: clean air, fresh air, etc. But he also has responsibilities toward his neighbors and others in society. Regulated land use will benefit society and aid in progress. He supports the CAO. Critical Areas Hearing 611192, Page 4 Don Salhus, 1950 Central Rd., Everson: (Not allowed to speak because he hadn't been called; claimed he had signed up early because he had another obligation). Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham: Entitled her comments "Community vs. Frontier." Worries that a stress on "rights" without equal stress on "responsibility," then "liberty" can deteriorate into 'license." Contends that the CAO is a strong property ri�bia document because lands are better protected because behavior of a good neighbor is codified. Daniel Meehan, 18321 40th Ave. N.W., Stanwood: Property owner in Whatcom County. Noted that he had never received any notice of any meetings concerning his property. The fines for infractions are excessive. Suggested that in the future all property owners be notified of any and all issues being considered that would affect his use of the property so that the process could benefit from the joint input of those most closely involve. The CAO should be put to a vote of the people because this issue is too critical for seven people to decide. BREAK for comments: Galvin, County Council Staff Member Bob Woods, Laidlaw, Brenner, and Taylor addressed some of the concerns that had been expressed so far. Roy Ingham, 2721 Russell St., Bellingham: Feels this is an issue of how people relate to the land. Often there is a conflict between freedom of action and struggle for existence. Balance must exist between rules and education. Aaron Tegerdine, student at WWU, 9071/2 High St., Bellingham: Pointed out that the earth belongs to no one and everyone belongs to the earth, that everyone has a responsibility toward everyone else, and that it is sad that humans_ don't remember that. Michael Pietro, 4409 Lakeway Dr., Bellingham: Landowner whose lands will be affected by these ordinances, but he fully supports the ordinances anyway. We're at a crossroads now when we can decide what kind of land we wish to leave for our children. This ordinance is an important step in this planning process. Fred D. Nowicke, 3341 Berg Rd., Everson: Finds himself in a quandary over this because he can see both sides. Pleads that the factions will work together so that everyone is protected. Give the interim process a chance and take the time to work through this. It takes a start; let's start and go forward together. Carl Franz, Mosquito Lake Road, Deming: Owns 20 acres including 10 acres of prime mosquito land. Loves wetlands (it's like owning a private zoo), understands their intrinsic value, and therefore thinks that the buffers aren't wide enough or the regulations stringent enough, but some tax incentive or development credit should be given to landowners who maintain wetlands on their own. The negative reactions indicate a lack of education on the part of those reacting; suggests an educational program for the general public, which would cool down a lot of the fears. Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 5- Kenneth Dickinson, Bellingham: Businessman and landowner. Warns of the distinct difference between the theory of the CAO and the practice that will be followed implementing it. Mary Cutbill, 1032 Geneva St., Bellingham: Because of the tremendous growth that Whatcom County is experiencing and expecting, it is necessary to plan and manage this growth unless we become like Los Angeles or Houston. Adopt the ordinance now. Elaine McRory, 1781 Northshore Rd., Bellingham: There is more to agree on than to disagree on with this ordinance. It will take the cooperation of every industry to protect the environment and the resources that we have. We can work together to make this a fair ordinance for all of us. Bob Bezona, 2219 Lummi Shore Rd., Bellingham: Lived here 50 years. Would like to call the Council the "Politburu." Expressed fears of losing his land through excessive taxation and regulation because the lawmakers are not recognizing or honoring property rights. What is he getting for his increased taxes? More bureaucracy, more regulation, but less freedom for the little guy. Mitch Freedman, 1133 N. State St., Bellingham: Biologist and executive director of Greater Eco- System Alliance. Identified the anger as growing pains, but people try to get along because they have to live here together. Proud of all the citizens who turned out to share their feelings because this is what makes the country great. Has faith that with the good leadership in this community; people can work together to make Whatcom County great. Lee Williamson, 6455 Mt. Baker Hwy, Deming: Feels that this CAO is the product of some small interest groups like Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and so forth,-to further their own private agendas. These people's own literature claims that first they'll take out the loggers, then the fishermen, and then the farmers. These people claim that people are expendable, the earth isn't. Williamson says that the County has regulations in place right now to handle the growth. Suggests laws should be bundled up, and sent to the State as the County's Growth Management Act and let the State tell the County what further is needed. Herman Almojum, Box 2311, Ferndale: Member of Nooksack Tribe and Tribal Council member. His grandfather claimed a large piece of land that still belongs to the family to this day, making it the largest piece of Native American held land in the County. Because of his close ties, he is a part of Mother Earth. As a caretaker of this land, he must support every plan for taking care of the land and therefore must support the CAO. Roy Giles, 5385 Shields Road, Bellingham: To say to get the regulations in place now and think about them later is no way to do business. It should be worked out thoroughly before a decision is made. He has been through a land condemnation process, and it isn't pleasant. He was adequately compensated, but doesn't see any place in this ordinance for compensation for takings. Asked that the decision be postponed until the cost of it can be Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 6 analyzed. Mark Ellis, 614 E. Maple, Bellingham: While no one is totally satisfied, this ordinance has been created in a fair and democratic way. It's time to follow through with the document. Carol Gallaghar, Box 4464, Bellingham: Asks that the property owners recognize that the Growth Management Act enables local governments, local people, to develop policies tailored to the local needs. This draft is a compromise. Focus on the positives and help work out the negatives. This ordinance is protection. Bruce Ayers, 4112 Harrison St., Bellingham: This ordinance is a good start in getting people together to work and think about the future and their land. Pointed out some serious problems with the ordinance's administrator and the powers given him. In fact, the administrator hasn't even been clearly defined by the ordinance. This is an example of some of the lack of clarity in the ordinance. Asked that the ordinance be re- written. Peter Cutbill, 1032 Geneva St., Bellingham: Pointed out the importance of developing rules for dealing with land use conflict and the uncertainty that often exists. The underlying assumption is that no one piece of land exists in a vacuum. It's a good start, and he strongly urges its adoption. Allyson E. Kemp, 227 So. Forest #3B, Bellingham: This ordinance looks at the County as a unit rather than as individual pieces of a puzzle. Because it protects our quality of life, now is the time to pass the CAO. Phyllis Graham, 5447 Tsuawassen, Blaine (Birch Bay): County resident and property owner. Glad to see so many interested people here willing to take part in this process. Education is needed -- implementing this ordinance will educate the land owner. Land owners will find they can live with the regulations without losing their lands. The regulations will be adjusted to fit this County and its particular needs only through implementation. Tony Idczak, 6300 Saxon Rd., Acme: By working together, opposing factions can come up with a good plan. This has been done, and should continue through the fine - tuning in the three years until the final ordinance. Shelley Weisberg: 1817 McKenzie Ave., Bellingham: Member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Remember that this is not an environmental ordinance. It's a planning ordinance. There's a lot of fear about this ordinance, but it's because people don't understand what's in it. Take this first big step, then work on it later. Steve Seymour, 3725 Dana, Bellingham: Operates an oyster farm and farms about 30 acres. Very active in Drayton Harbor's watershed planning. The landowners want to do what's Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 7 right. Their hearts are in the right place. Getting the information out to them and working with them will be well worth it in the long run. Janet Nagel, 2538 Grant, Bellingham: Sees an expression on everyone's part of powerlessness. On the one hand people see the environment being destroyed and they want more government to control this. On the other hand people see their rights being destroyed in the face of more government. Attention needs to be paid not to larger buffers, but to administration and to the recourse people with complaints may have. More citizen input and implementation is needed. Oliver Zurbel, 1024 22nd St., Bellingham: People do have to consider what happens to those downstream. Pointed out that the taxpayers will have to pay no matter what -- either for the takings of aquifers or for the filtration of water later on. Sarah Evenson, 2501 College St., Bellingham: Student, aged 17. Concerned about the future and the children she's going to have. Must take care of _the land, the water, the water sources, and trees. Jayson Reimer, 1860 H St. Rd., Blaine: The poor education system is responsible for the lack of knowledge about the country's history and purpose. More and more regulation has raised the taxes until no one can afford to buy a house any more. People need to get all the facts before making decisions; suggested tuning in' radio personality Rush Limbaugh. Environmental scare tactics are going to cost people everything their forefathers have built. Suggests that this issue be put before the population for a vote. Lee Denke, 615 N. 4th St., Mt. Vernon: Feels this ordinance largely duplicates ordinances already on the books. Talked about private property rights and that these rights by law shall not be taken without just compensation. Further, County tax income can be damaged by lowered values of the land. This ordinance makes it appear as if the landowner is withholding clean air, clean water, open space, oxygen from the public, so the law needs to come in and free it for the public by punishing the landowner. Frankly, another approach needs to be found; the criminal penalties written in the ordinance are uncalled for. Beyond that, this ordinance creates conflict because there are no maps, there are no specifics saying on this land people may do this, people may not do that. Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Tr., Bellingham: Found this, his first experience as a public servant, to be frustrating. Suggests that a clearer method for revision, a clearer path for people to travel to express their concerns, be written into this ordinance. Appreciates the large interest that finally happened. This will make the final product better because of the input over the next three years. Roger Almskar, 1400 Broadway, Bellingham: Finds the CAO hard for the ordinary person to understand. People are involved with Coalition for Land Use Education (CLUE) out of total frustration over the way the process has worked. He finds the CAO to restrictive and Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 8 out of balance. He attended many of the hearings, bringing out his concerns, and every point has been ignored. For details of his concerns, see the memo he tamed in. He does find the variances unfair. Ron Roosma, 4977 Waal Rd., Bellingham: The wetlands aren't sitting there unprotected; laws have been on the books for some time now. Further, the buffer requirements make many pieces of land in Whatcom County unbuildable. Rob Staveland, 4780 Nettle Lane, Bellingham: Discussed property rights and their history. He, is not abusing his land, considering ownership a privilege. As a contractor, he sees this CAO impacting the small owner and contractor, not the big company like Trillium. Asked for grandfather rights for private citizens. Asked for more creative zoning. Dudley Evenson, 2501 College St., Bellingham: People assume property rights are a god - given right, but remember the errors made in the thinking of those who felt it right to own people. That wasn't an appropriate ownership right. Perhaps some of the rights people claim in terms of land use are as inappropriate. Need to consider the whole picture. Supports CAO. Richard Haard, 3276 "Y" Rd., Bellingham: Farmer and landowner (land contains wetlands). Has seen tremendous, uncontrolled growth in his hometown. Doesn't want to see that happen here. People need the CAO and Growth Management Act, then they need to get to work identifying and protecting the watersheds and other critical areas in Whatcom County. Ike Reimer, 1860 H St. Rd., Blaine: Owns 160 acres-of land, some of it wetland that he is protecting. The ordinance needs to be condensed to three or four -pages and clarified, written in simple words so everyone can understand it. A man's property is his; come to a man's door and ask for access to his property. Don't take it, don't invade it. Rebecca Meloy, 2431 Lafayette, Bellingham: Sees the CAO as a plan for building and developing into the future. Please pass it. The ordinance, however, does need a section on failed mitigated wetlands. There must be assurances of no net losses; mitigated wetlands must become functioning wetlands. Further, the ordinance needs to address the total picture from sea to mountain, not just focus on isolated wetlands which aren't isolated. Susana Musi, 1325 N. Forest, Bellingham: Student. Approves of the ordinance. Rick Maricle, 3900 E. Smith Rd., Bellingham: Farmer. Has read the ordinance. Is concerned about the definitions of wetlands on farms. They're so broad and vague that nearly any piece of land in Whatcom County could be considered wetland. Further, the U.S. considers western Whatcom County a number two seismic area. The administrator of the ordinance is not bound by the maps. The ordinance is too hard to understand and too vaguely worded. Nowhere in the ordinance does it say that there is a three -year limit to the ordinance or that Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 9- there will be an appeals board of citizens. Stephen Brisbane, 1609 Knox Ave., Bellingham: Feels that the problem with the ordinance is that the burden of the ordinance falls on a very select few: the farmer and small landowners. These are not the ones that have caused the problems. It's wrong to make them bear the brunt of the solutions to the problems. This is not just. These people need to be listened to. Actually, we can take our present land use laws and, working with SEPA, meet all the State regulations mandated. These things are already in place and funded. It is not a fact that it is state mandated to adopt this ordinance. Jerene Merk, 643 Locust St., Sumas: Somewhere within the document needs to be a clear statement about compensation for taking lands or the use of lands. Landowners feel like they're being run rough shod over their backs. COMMENTS FROM WARNER, BRENNER, TAYLOR: Ordinance's burden; laws already on the books; ordinance time limit. Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley, Bellingham: In a capitalist system, no one should have anyone guarantee them a profit. It's the same with private property. Pass this and get on with the work of perfecting it. Remember the NOPE initiative, the negative publicity from the power company, and the positive results of detailing what the power company could and cound not do. Lorena Havens, P.O. Box 179, Acme: Rural property owner. Feels privileged to own wetlands. They add to the value of her property. Supports the wetland section, though it should be stronger. The democratic process has been followed in developing this plan; it should be passed, even though there are some flaws that need further work. Alvin Starkenburg, 7416 Hannegan Rd., Lynden: Questions what has been done with the mineral resource ordinance. Requests that this ordinance and all the suggestions and criticisms from the public hearing be sent back to the committees that worked it up to begin with for them to re -work and re- present. John Van Boven, Sand Rd., Everson: Worries him that all the gravel mining areas are lying on top of critical aquifer recharge areas. How can the Council allow this? Notes also that the Council has altered what was passed on land use from the Planning Commission. Please consider the effect this ordinance will have on the small operators in the County and on the employees they have. Art Castle, 1241 Roland St., Bellingham: Historically, our founding fathers realized that an oppressive type of government resulted from concentrated land ownership. Therefore they set up the Constitution so that land ownership would be in the hands of as many people as possible. Regarding the takings issue, realize that you are asking the small property owner to spend ten years and probably half a million dollars in legal costs to protect what they Critical Areas Hearing 611192, Page 10 have, and that's only after they have spent thousands and thousands in consulting fees to fulfill the law's requirements. Steve Williamson, 6856 Goodwin Rd.: Believes this ordinance goes against the reason this country was formed. It's being used by a few to force the many into submission to what the few want. Realize that God's plan is very simple. The County's plan is very complex and hard to understand. This ordinance takes away rights of American citizens by denying landowners to use their land as they see fit. The ordinance has a serious problem in "administrator." The landowner is not being considered. Gordon R. Beattie, P.O. Box 137, Deming: Landowner, tax payer, voter. The message from the pros and cons tonight should indicate to the Council that there are holes in this ordinance, indicating that it should be re- worked and the concerns expressed in the testimony addressed. If this isn't done, the issue could lead to law suits and /or a citizen initiative. Elise Beattie, P.O. Box 137, Deming: This ordinance does not contain any due process for those adversely affected by it. (Due to tape changing, part of this testimony was lost; it's against the ordinance.) Erik Bjornson, 2829 Birchwood, Bellingham: property owner. Worries that in the democratic process we go overboard and have 200 hearings. Pass the ordinance. It will protect the quality of life in Whatcom County. Michael McRory, 1781 N. Shore Rd., Bellingham: Property owner who has spent the last two years restoring a critical area on his property. The buffers and other protections written into the ordinance are essential for protecting our environment. Supports the ordinance. Robert S. Andersen, 3274 "Y" Rd., Bellingham: Land use planner and environmental planner in Whatcom County for 24 years. The ordinance is complex, which frightens people, who know they are the ones who will be asked to pay the bill for compliance. But the fact remains that the laws can be simplified. As it stands, the ordinance is too subjective. Submitted some comments in writing. Gayle Luedke, 7963 Woodland Rd., Ferndale: Submitted some comments in writing. Illustrated the cost to the small land owner of determining wetlands or of appealing County designations in order to verify how much wetland he has and of which category his wetland is. Urges great caution in delineating wetlands; this area of the ordinance needs some extensive work. Harold Boldt, 1096 Polinder Rd., Lynden: As with most laws, the intent of this law is good, but we have to pay attention to the letter of the law, and with this law, too much of the letter of the law is inadequate. Should state in the purpose of the Growth Management Act that it is the intent to protect personal property rights. Please note that private property Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 11 rights have been watered down in successive drafts of this ordinance. Reiterates the great expense put upon the small individual property owners, especially if the owner does not agree with the administrator. Wayne Sorenson, 224 Forest Ln, Bellingham: Pointed out that most regulations don't work very well, and that the new environmental regulations have been extremely expensive for the ordinary homeowner. Asks that the costs that will be incurred if the ordinance is passed be calculated and considered before a final decision is made. John Neff, P.O. Box 188, Lynden: Taxpayer and voter. Pointed out that there were two to three times as many people outside as were inside at the start of this meeting. Property. owners are responsible people who don't need to be legislated into taking care of their property. Said that the Council itself didn't even fully understand this ordinance, yet they're planning to pass it into law. The money spent thus far and the money which will be spent in the future is a total waste; there are already laws on the books to cover the abusers. Asks what happens to those who don't have the money to appeal. Asks that the ordinance be put on the ballot for the people themselves to vote on or table the ordinance permanently. Roger Hawley, 495 E. Axton Rd., Bellingham: Concern is the power of the administrator. If an extremist holds the office and denies the farmer use of fertilizers and chemicals, what will become of the farmers and their ability to produce? He just returned from Russia where these things are not used and where people are standing in lines waiting for what little food there is. Too much regulation will push people back until they are like the Russians. Chuck McCord, 3365 Robertson Rd., Bellingham: Recognizes that the Council has been mandated to enact a growth management law, but the mandate stipulates that the economic impact should be addressed: He doesn't find any of that in the CAO. The GMA identifies critical areas in 33 words, yet in Whatcom County it takes 89 pages to say the same thing. The ordinance is too far - reaching and ambiguous, and encourages lawsuits. The County already has enough laws to cover the mandate. Before this ordinance is ever adopted, it should be extensively reworked. In the purpose statement, the government should have the power to regulate private property but not to manage it. Gave some other very specific word change suggestions. Mark Wiegand, 108 Kale St., Everson: There are errors in the ordinance. First, and most important, is the unlimited power given the administrator. The time element given the property owner is too stringent. Second, the topic of compensation must be addressed in the ordinance, not only under what circumstances a taking would occur, but the method of determining compensation, including the loss of value because a wetland has been identified on the land. Last, the document should not be sent to the state with weaknesses in it. It should be fixed here in Whatcom County before it is either adopted or sent on. Gerb deBoer, 1791 Harrison Rd.: Dairy farmer. While the population of the United States and the world is increasing, the number of farmers in the world is decreasing. Even though Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 12 they're feeding the world, farmers aren't being compensated for what they do. Individual rights are being eroded every day; more people, more laws. Predicts that by the year 2000 people will be standing in line for food in this country. For that reason, every person who owns property will value that land dearly, because he will then become a food producer and considered valuable. Send it back to the drawing board for some very badly needed revision. Todd Kruger, Bellingham: Property owner in the County. Not one person in the room would sign a contract that had as many loop holes in it as this document has. Council needs to nail down the issues that are loop holes and deal with them before the "contract" is signed. This document needs extensive revision. Audie Hicks, 702 Parklyn Way, Ferndale: Suggested that parts of the ordinance pertinent to single family home owners, parts pertinent to farmers, parts pertinent to developers, etc. should be broken out for the information of those groups. It might make it seem less forbidding. Because there was no further testimony, the hearing was adjourned. The chairman pointed out that written testimony would be taken through Thursday, June 4, at 5 p.m. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL r Nancy alin, Assistant Clerk an1e1 M. Warner, Chairman c \nanty \cao.601 Critical Areas Hearing, 611192, Page 13