| Land-use restrictions may face court battle By
Keith Ervin King County, WA - Opponents of sweeping changes in rural-development
rules may propose a referendum to overturn the ordinances adopted
early yesterday. "We've got a lot of pledges coming in," McFarland said yesterday. The citizens group was formed to oppose the "critical-areas package" of land-use ordinances adopted by the Metropolitan King County Council yesterday. The most controversial provision requires rural landowners to keep 50 percent to 65 percent of their land in native vegetation, depending on the size of the parcel. Other parts of the package widen no-development buffers around streams, adopt a new buffer formula for wetlands and tighten regulations on storm-water runoff. The laws apply throughout the unincorporated areas of King County, but the most significant changes are in areas designated as "rural residential" under zoning laws. The laws, adopted on 7-6 party-line votes, go into effect Jan. 1. Proposed in March by County Executive Ron Sims, a Democrat, they were supported by all of the Democrats on the County Council. County Council members adopted the ordinance on land clearing around 1 a.m. after passing the critical-areas and storm-water ordinances in a marathon meeting that began around 1:30 p.m. Monday. Environmentalists hailed the ordinances as necessary measures to increase protection of streams, wetlands, wildlife and underground drinking-water supplies. "King County has shown its commitment to salmon recovery. Now it's time for other counties to do the same," said Ross Freeman of the conservation group American Rivers. "We've stepped up to our responsibility to preserve rural character,
make sure that the aquifers and the streams and wetlands are protected
and ensure that there will be a rural way of life in King County in
the future," said Councilman Dow Constantine, D-Seattle, chairman
of the growth-management committee. Sims and Constantine on Monday introduced proposals to streamline review of land-use permits, provide more technical assistance to landowners seeking permits and help owners qualify for reduced property taxes. But those ordinances have not yet undergone council review. Opponents question science Angry property owners said the new regulations aren't needed and said the land-clearing restrictions constitute an illegal theft of their property. "We have raised many questions about the scientific basis for these proposals and the underlying need for such severe restrictions, which may be the strictest land-use laws in the country," said Councilman David Irons, R-Sammamish, vice chairman of the growth committee. In justifying the strict land-clearing rules, the county relied on studies by scientists at the University of Washington and elsewhere that found the health of streams and the fish in them plummet rapidly when development removes about 35 percent of the trees in a watershed. A consulting fisheries biologist, Robert Crittenden, appeared at a press conference held by council Republicans on Monday and said those studies were flawed. If McFarland's property-rights group files a referendum, it would be for a vote only among residents of unincorporated King County, where the ordinances apply. Referendum proponents would need to collect petition signatures from registered voters in those areas numbering 8 percent of the votes cast in the most recent election for county executive. McFarland said he also expects lawsuits to be filed by property owners. Irons said Monday that the critical-areas package will be "a full-employment program for every land-use attorney in the state of Washington." McFarland said residents of the rural unincorporated areas are upset over the content of the ordinances as well as the fact that the laws were approved despite the objections of three of the four council members who represent significant rural unincorporated areas. "It's one thing to go lose a close political fight, but it's a whole other one to lose where the cards are so stacked against you and you have no way of causing any repercussions for those who voted to take half your land," McFarland said. Pierce adopts similar rules Similar clearing restrictions were adopted in the 1990s in King County's basin plans for Bear Creek, Issaquah Creek and May Valley. The Pierce County Council, in a unanimous, bipartisan vote last week, adopted similar ordinances that require rural residential landowners to keep 65 percent of their land in native vegetation. Debby Hyde, special project coordinator for Pierce County Executive John Ladenberg, said that restriction already had been adopted in community plans governing 70 percent of the unincorporated area. Tim Trohimovich, planning director of the growth-management group 1000 Friends of Washington, praised the Metropolitan King County Council's passage of the ordinances, saying they are based on "the new science" that shows forests must be protected throughout a watershed, not just along streams, to maintain healthy streams and aquifers. Trohimovich said 1000 Friends was disappointed that stream buffers in urban areas weren't widened beyond Sims' proposal. Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com
|