I find poetic justice in this article! Its ok for the Greens to force their ideology onto every one until it affects them personally, then they cry Foul.
Jack
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...96_land15m.htmlThursday, April 15, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Proposed land-use changes outrage landowners
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
"Welcome to paradise!" Doug Lapchis calls out to a visitor to his 20 acres of forested land.
It's an apt description of a place with parklike groves of cedars and five creeks that flow into nearby Lake Marcel.
Lapchis and his wife, Jennie Sanford-Arnold, like the place so much they want to build a home for themselves and invite several "like-minded people" to settle there, too.
Current King County land-use policies would allow four homes on the land on the eastern edge of the Snoqualmie Valley, one for each five acres. But under environmental regulations proposed by County Executive Ron Sims, Lapchis fears he would be able to build only one house.
Early last month, Sims sent the Metropolitan King County Council proposed updates to the comprehensive plan and ordinances on critical areas, stormwater and clearing and grading.
Lapchis, a retired elementary-school teacher, is upset about two parts of Sims' proposals that would restrict use of his land: wider buffers around streams and limitations on cutting down trees and other vegetation.
County administrators and environmentalists say a growing body of scientific research shows stricter development restrictions are needed to protect streams and threatened species such as chinook salmon and bull trout.
The restrictions have sparked outrage among rural landowners such as Lapchis, who says they are excessive. It will likely be the most politically volatile issue the council will deal with this year.
The County Council's growth-management and unincorporated-areas committee will hold five meetings, starting tonight in Enumclaw, to hear public testimony on the proposals.
In the rural areas, Sims' ordinances would expand the required buffers around the most important wetlands to 300 feet and along lake shores and fish-bearing streams to 165 feet on each side. Smaller buffers would be required around less environmentally valuable streams and wetlands.
Current buffers range from 25 to 100 feet everywhere except in the Bear Creek watershed, where some are larger.
Sims' proposals also would protect animal habitat, drinking-water aquifers and streams by requiring rural landowners to limit the clearing of plants to 35 percent of the property. The county currently has different clearing standards for different areas, with the 35 percent limit used only in the Bear Creek basin.
Property owners also would be allowed to put "impervious surfaces" such as houses, patios and roads on only 10 percent of their land.
If the council adopts Sims' ordinances as drafted, the width of buffers required on each side of Lapchis' five creeks would be increased likely from 100 feet to 165. That would leave just enough developable land to build one house.
Unexpected conflict
Lapchis never expected to find himself challenging an ordinance aimed at protecting water quality. During his 10-plus years as a Lake Marcel resident, Lapchis helped spearhead an effort to monitor water quality and educate property owners on what they could do to keep the lake clean.
"I'm not against their goals," Lapchis says of the proposed regulations. "I'm in support of their goals. It's just how they're going about it. If they want some sacrifice from the rural landowner, I can live with that. But they're offloading it all on the rural landowner."
If the county wants to reduce the value of rural land, he says, property owners should be compensated perhaps through a fee on properties that are developed countywide.
Without a detailed examination of Lapchis' property, county officials say, they don't know exactly how many homes he would be allowed to build. Along with stricter environmental standards, they note, the law gives landowners flexibility to bend some rules.
For instance, if Lapchis submitted a "stewardship plan" in which he promised to leave 85 percent of his forest uncut, the width of the stream buffers could be cut in half, said Harry Reinert, an architect of the critical-areas proposal.
Landowners submitting stewardship plans also would be eligible for property tax breaks.
'Best available science'
A key issue in the emerging debate over Sims' proposals is whether they are based on "the best available science," as required by the state's Growth Management Act.
A two-volume scientific review released along with the proposed ordinances acknowledges there is "no consensus in the scientific literature" on how wide a buffer must be to protect a stream.
Preston resident Ken Konigsmark, a member of the "stakeholders group" that advised county officials on the critical-areas ordinance, agrees with the environmental goals of the proposed regulations but believes there should be more financial incentives and tax breaks for rural landowners.
County Councilman Dow Constantine, D-Seattle and chair of the growth-management committee, said he knows the proposals will be controversial. "When you go out and solicit comment," he said, "you've got to be prepared to deal with whatever it stirs up. That's the whole point to make sure it's brought to people's attention ... and people can weigh in."
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com
