Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Development January 18 1989J WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE January 18, 1989 The meeting was called to order by Committee Chairman Tom Burton with member Emily Jackson present. Also present was Dan Taylor, Planning; Stafford Smith, Attorney; Bob Tull, Attorney; Dale and Alice Lee, Open Space applicants. RFR3r*T1W03W1J59 The election of officers was delayed until all three members of the committee are present. Open Space - Dale and Alice Lee Taylor explained why they had been rejected for a tax break on open space. The Lees stated that it is assessed far too high and they are having to pay $1340 per year in taxes for a fully treed 40 acre parcel. This parcel is visible from Mt. Baker Highway and acts as a buffer for the lots around it. It was recommended that they develop a plan to show how they will protect wildlife, etc. and return in one month. 1 � 1.1 - -u-1�. 1! 1 - II •1 1! .r- -. • -� .1 . RIM Taylor explained the ordinance and the changes that are being considered. Tull, who is representing clients against the moratorium, had just seen the new conditional use ordinance that is being proposed. He saw some areas that he would have problems with and suggested that the committee hold a public hearing. Smith, representing the residents for the moratorium, distributed a memo showing three minor changes in the proposed ordinance. 1 . 1.1 = .II-It �. 1- •.1 1.- .. - .,,. 01-1 - . .1 1,.. ... 4or -1 11 • 1 • .1 1 . /.1 - .11 -1- 1. 1- ..1 fq- .. - •,,. -1-1 r -1 Il.r .1. • 1 • -1 11.. 1! • - - -1 .. - •1 �- Taylor stated he is developing landscape language for this ordinance. This may not be ready until March. Planning and Development, 1/1ip/89, Page 2 a: Nielson's Comprehensive This was postponed until February. Tull indicated that it was nearing completion and may be resolved by the time it comes up again. Public Benefit Rating Changes Taylor updated the committee members on the progress that has been made on this project. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. ATTEST: Barbara Maher, lerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNCIL, WASHINGTON �L 6alzi�� Tom Burton, Member WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE February 1, 1989 The meeting was called to order by Committee Chairman Tom Burton with member Emily Jackson present. Will Roehl was absent. Also present were Dan Taylor and Carl Batchelor, Planning; Ed Henken, Engineering; Lee Murphy, KGMI; Albert and Sheila Marshall and Charles Evans.of Lummi Island; Martin Keeley and Glynnis Christie of Point Roberts. Taylor stated that there were three different options being put forward: (1) a 30 day emergency interim moratorium, (2) a one year moratorium and (3) a zoning code change. Taylor will be explaining these options at both the Council meeting February 7 at 7 p.m. and the Public Hearing in Point Roberts on February 9 at 7 p.m. Henken mentioned the land use along Tyee Drive. Originally this was meant to be used as a storage lane but is now used as a regular lane. Often both lanes are blocked for some distance at the entry to Canada. The only way to make another lane would be to enclose drains and gutters which is very costly and not on the b year plan. DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR OPEN SPACE AND TIMBER APPLICATIONS EURSUANT TO RQW 84.34 Batchelor discussed the progress that has been made on the proposed system. Both Burton and Jackson are concerned with the language "timber harvest" in the document. Taylor says original intent was to log rather than suburbanize. Batchelor stated that even after clear cutting and replanting, the property would still be considered as forestry so would qualify for a tax break. Burton felt we should add a "preservation" clause. Mrs. Marshall objected to the sign; she felt it attracted the casual as opposed to the concerned visitor. There was some suggestion that each owner could add his own list of requirements on the sign including a statement that the owner must give permission for entry. Mrs. Marshall suggested keeping a list and map of open space permits at the planning department, library, etc. and then only concerned people would go to the bother of finding them. The sign with OPEN SPACE in large print and the restrictions in small print attracts people looking for a place to party and puts a lot of liability on the property owner. Mr. Marshall listed his objections to the idea of the public rating system in an attached letter. Planning and Development, 2/x/89, Page 2 Burton stated that he would like to change the "commercial" aspect of open space. There was some suggestion that the open space language could be modified. Meeting adjourned at 5:42 p.m. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Maher, Coun Clerk Tom Burton, Member TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Albert W. Marshall 2781 West Shore Drive Lummi Island, WA 98262 DATE: February 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Public Benefit Rating System for Open Space /Open Space I have have been criticizing the so- called "Public Benefit Rating System" for open space /open space at every opportunity because I believe that it has serious flaws. The original open space law was enacted partly in response to the public outcry raised when ill - advised tax policy "did in" the Kent Valley. It should be clear from hard learned lessons of the past that we need the open space law now more that ever. Many people are attracted to Whatcom County because of its unique natural environment. That attraction will continue to serve us, but only to the extent that we are willing to care for it. The open space law is one of the few tools we have for that purpose. It is my impression that the proposed public benefit rating system was patterned after Spokane law when local planners found it difficult to devise a more sensible system. The original intent of the open space law tends to be subverted by a number of serious flaws in the proposed rating system: 1. A single really good reason should suffice to qualify a property for classification as open space. But the proposed rating system requires a diversity of reasons. 2. The rating system is not based on a sensible set of criteria; some important benefits of open space are ignored while some questionable and vague benefits are included. Consequently, it does not fairly measure public benefit. 3. Land should qualify for open space when it is in the public interest to preserve its current use; qualifying land should then be taxed at current use value. But the Public Benefit Rating System seeks to substantially increase the tax on open space /open space. 4. The rating system is much too complicated to be understood except by a select few. Consequently it is difficult to evaluate, and can only confuse the public. 5. The public access requirement can be criticized for at least four reasons: a. It distorts the meaning of the term "open space ", and suggests that open space is land open to all trespassers, b. It suggests that open space has no value except as a substitute for park land; in fact many benefits accrue to the public without their walking on the land, c. It can impose serious security problems on resident land owners, it can expose owners to unreasonable liability, create problems with fire control, with livestock, and with vandalism. The sign requirement is particularly ill - advised; a better alternative would be to make available a map showing properties conditionally open to the public, so as to invite thoughtful rather than casual visitors. d. Because boundaries of open spaces are generally not well marked on the ground, neighboring properties will be subjected to all of the problems listed above under c. 6. Separate rating of adjacent tax lots under the same ownership is not reasonable, and it forces owners to ask the assessor to combine the tax lots as one. Reasons for imposing this burden on land owners and the assessor are unclear. 7. The public benefit rating system will be very difficult to administer. When land use of a property is changed, any adjoining open space will require reevaluation. Proper evaluation requires expertise in geology, hydrology, wildlife, botany, archaeology, local history and other disciplines. Because of this, it is unlikely that land will be properly evaluated without a great effort on the part of the owner. 8. City properties are not going to be subject to the new public benefit rating system, unlike those outside the city. The unfairness of this disparity should be cause for concern. The reasons for adopting the public benefit rating system have not been adequately explained. The previous and present Directors of Planning gave me different reasons, as follows: 1. Inappropriate properties were being admitted to open space classification, as no criteria existed for denying applications. 2. Open space classification represents a tax subsidy that puts an unfair burden on those paying tax at regular rates. To substantiate the second reason, it would be necessary to quantify the value to the public of open space and to compare its value with the very small "subsidy" that it receives. If this is the real reason for developing the public benefit rating system, it should have been clearly stated, and the issue of fairness should have received more attention. Then, the amount of so called subsidy to be retained could have been determined by conscious policy rather than by a poorly understood, arbitrary and complex mathematical formula. It is now time to admit that the energy and expense invested in the Public Benefit Rating System has not born fruit. It would be much better to revert to the old law than to implement the new system in its present form. 4/4 1 st/k? 17177 27V IV. eer.- 9-uk; 'Iap /�,, ,