Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

The following article appeared on the Leader website on June 23, 2006.

---

6/23/2006 10:41:00 AM

Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

At least 120 farmers, ranchers, loggers and landowners came out in force Wednesday night before the county planning commission to oppose proposed environmental regulations that would protect wetlands.

The one person who spoke from the audience favoring changes in streamside buffers and wetland regulations was loudly booed.

“It's like the pastor preaching to his own choir,” said Roger Short of Chimacum, disappointed that county commissioners and Washington Environmental Council staff supporting the ordinance were not present.

“The people needing to be listening were not here,” Short said. “We are never going to accomplish anything if both parties - for and against - are not here.”

The planning commission said they would do their best to accommodate Short and others. Chairman Jim Hagen said representatives of the Washington Environmental Council, county commissioners and county legal staff would be invited to the July 5 planning commission meeting, during which people could ask questions about the ordinance.

The planning commission meeting's location is uncertain as a larger venue may be needed, judging from the audience that turned out June 21.

“This was a significant statement by the public,” Hagen said. “The commissioners will be very aware of what happened here tonight.”

The planning commission agreed to extend indefinitely the deadline for accepting written public comments in response to numerous statements by audience members complaining about a lack of public information regarding proposed regulations.

The planning commission's special meeting scheduled for June 28 is canceled because many people who would want to attend will be at a meeting of the new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau.

Josh Peters, county staff's senior planner, told the audience that existing farm buildings are exempt, but future construction would need to follow the new regulations.

Under the proposed changes, some streams and wetlands could require a 450-foot buffer zone to protect habitat from the impact of development or farming. The buffer zone requirements vary depending on the kind of stream or wetland and how the surrounding land would be used.

Audience members didn't seem so concerned about existing uses as they were about future uses, including what it meant to families. Wetland buffer changes could also reduce property values, some people said. Many voiced the fear of losing farm production. Sixty people were signed up to speak, with a general theme of the ordinance being too complicated and too severe.

Legal language and numbers contained in documents and spoken by Peters frustrated many of those in attendance.

“This is a complex issue,” Peters told The Leader following the four-and-a-half hour meeting June 21. “At this point we really need to do a better job explaining what the proposal is and what it does.”

At the end of the night Hagen said the commissioners had discussed the ordinance in prior meetings and were unhappy with it.

“We previously expressed rejection to this in our minutes,” Hagen said.

Hagen said the last meeting with a turnout this large occurred in August 2005 for the Water Inventory and Resource Area issue concerning the in-stream flow rule being developed by the Washington Department of Ecology.

“There are many parallels in the two issues,” Hagen said. “People just weren't aware of it. This proposal came real close to passing without people knowing about it.”

Amendments to the critical areas ordinance were developed as a result of a legal settlement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide nonprofit advocacy group, and include stream buffers, which some people said could rob them of the use of part of their land.

Under the agreement, the WEC “reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture.”