MEMORANDUM Clallam County Department of Community Development

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM Clallam County Department of Community Development Date: August 1, 2007 To: Clallam County Planning Commission From: DCD, Planning Division Re: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Application Dempsey-Beauvais Application Summary: The proposed action is a Type C Rezone to amend the Clallam County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map by changing the designation for the property referenced by Assessor s Tax Parcel Number , from Commercial Forest (CF) to Rural Low Mixed (RLM). The subject property consists of approximately acres of undeveloped land and has an address listed as Hwy 112, Port Angeles. The subject property is located adjacent to and mostly north of SR 112 in the vicinity of Miller Road, south of the former railroad right of way in the NE¼SW¼ of Section 33, Township 31 North, Range 8 West, W.M, and it is bounded by large tracts of CF zoned DNR state land to the north, northeast, and east; by privately owned RLM zoned properties to the southeast, south, and southwest; and by the Joyce UGA to the west. A basemap of the subject property is attached as Appendix A. The purpose of CF zoning is to protect large forest land parcels from encroachment of uses which threaten effective forest management practices (CCC ), while the purpose of RLM zoning is to conserve and enhance the rural character of the eastern portion of the Straits Regional Planning Area by providing for the retention of large rural lot sizes allowing productive woodlots, pasture lands and other rural uses typically requiring more than five (5) acres. The RLM zone preserves open land, sensitive natural areas, and rural community character that would be lost under conventional development while allowing developers to reduce road and utility cost (CCC ). Under the current CF zoning, there is a possibility of developing the subject property with one dwelling unit (du), subject to a conditional use permit as it appears that this parcel was owned by ITT Rayonier on June 27, 1995, and was thus part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the Commercial Forest zoning district, on June 27, 1995 (see fn 1 at CCC ). Under the proposed RLM zoning, there would be a possibility of developing the subject property with a non-clustered development containing two residential units plus accessory dwelling units. Under the proposed RLM zoning and the superseding minimum standards at CCC , there would be a possibility of developing the subject property with a clustered development containing six residential dwelling units. In either case, residential development under RLM zoning would not be subject to any forestry-related performance standards or conditions. Criteria for Approval and Preliminary Analysis: When considering an application for rezone, the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are required to evaluate the amendment with regard to six criteria contained at CCC in the Zoning Code, and at CCC in the Comprehensive Plan. These six criteria, or "Required Showing for an Amendment" provide the scope of consideration that the Planning Commission and Board must respond to in order to determine if a rezone should be approved. The following summarizes staff's preliminary analysis with regard to the required showing for amendment.

2 Criteria 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Clallam County Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in the Clallam County Comprehensive Plan, the various Regional Plans, and the Clallam County Zoning Code provide the framework for land use decisions in Clallam County. Particularly relevant to this request are the goals and policies that were specifically developed to guide the designation of both Commercial Forest (CF) and Rural Low Mixed (RLM) zoned lands, and these are discussed below. For your convenience, excerpts of any referenced county code sections are contained in Appendix B which is attached hereto. For the full text of the County s Code, go to policies.htm. The Comprehensive Plan states that "It is the task of this plan to provide the policy framework necessary to protect our remaining forest lands from conversion to other uses, through regulations and incentives to landowners, at CCC (2), and lists as its very first forest land use goal that suitable forest land in the County [be retained] in commercial forest land use, because of general economic benefits to the people of the county derived from forests, including timber production and processing, watershed conservation, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. CCC (1). The following four Comprehensive Plan goal and policy areas will be particularly relevant to this request: a. Designation of Commercial Forest (CF) land b. Removal from Commercial Forest (CF) land c. Residential Development within Commercial Forest (CF) land d. Applicability of Rural Low Mixed (RLM) zoning designation An initial analysis of how these relevant goals and policies apply to the subject property follows: a. Designation of Commercial Forest (CF) Land. The Comprehensive Plan contains several key policies that guide designation of Commercial Forest land from both a county-wide and regional standpoint. General countywide policies related to designation of Commercial Forest lands include: Retain suitable forest land in the County in commercial forest land use, because of general economic benefits to the people of the county derived from forests, including timber production and processing, watershed conservation, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. CCC (1). Clallam County shall conserve forest and mineral resources for productive use by designating resource lands where the principle and preferred land uses will be commercial resource management activities. CCC (7). Lands designated as Commercial Forest shall remain in large parcels and ownership patterns conducive to forestry. CCC (14). Regional policies related to designation of Commercial Forest lands include: Retention of all designated commercial forestlands in the Straits Planning Region is vital to maintenance of the forest industry as the regions leading industry. Given that development potentials of rural and urban lands in the region could accommodate much more than 20 years of population growth, designated commercial forest resource lands should be retained in the original commercial forestland designations and zoning proposed by the 1994 plan throughout the planning period. CCC (5). The Comprehensive Plan establishes eight criteria for designating commercial forest lands under CCC (8). These criteria apply as follows to the subject property: a. The land is primarily devoted to growing trees (includes clearcuts and plantations). At the time of its designation, the property was owned by ITT Rayonier, Inc, and managed for forestry. ITT Rayonier, Inc. sold the property to the current owner on September 7, 2001, together with a neighboring acre parcel. Both these parcels are currently taxed as Designated Forestland. The record therefore reflects that, both at the time of its designation in 1995, and in the period of time since its designation, the subject property has been primarily devoted to growing trees. b. The "private forest land grade" established in RCW Title 84 is 1 through 4 or the site index for Douglas Fir is greater than 83 feet and for Hemlock is greater than 82 feet (50 year rotation base). The soil type found at the subject property is identified as Schnorbush/Casey, Page 2

3 with a mean site index for Douglas fir estimated at 117 feet for a 50-year period, well above the minimum standard for commercial forest land of 83-feet. c. The land does not have access (hookup rights) to municipal sewers. The property does not have access to municipal sewer service. d. The parcel has a minimum parcel size of 80 acres or 1/8 of a standard section subdivision or contiguous parcels under one ownership can be grouped to total 80 acres or 1/8 of a standard section subdivision. From the County s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map in 1982, until April 21, 1992, the subject property was zoned F1 just like the surrounding commercial forest land. Crown Zellerbach owned the subject property as part of large contiguous tracts of forest lands until January 10, 1984, when it sold large contiguous tracts of its land, including the subject property, to John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Clallam County auditor No , Vol. 671, P. 548). On April 21, 1992, the County adopted interim forestry policies and goals and related interim zoning maps. That map shows the properties to the north of the railroad right of way as being rezoned to CFM20. The first paragraph of this ordinance includes the statement that [t]he goals are interim in nature and will be subjected to further review and modification as the new Comprehensive Plan is developed and adopted (Ord. 455, 458, 1992). On November 24, 1992, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company sold large contiguous tracts of its land, including the subject property, to ITT Rayonier, Inc (Clallam County Auditor No , Vol.985, P. 274). On April 8, 1993, ITT Rayonier sold most of these large contiguous tracts of land to DNR (Clallam County Auditor No , Vol. 1000, P. 103), but ITT Rayonier retained a acre strip of land extending over three quarter-quarter sections, which included the subject property. On June 27, 1995, the County adopted the current Comprehensive Plan and Straits Regional Plan and related zoning maps. That map shows the acre strip of land owned by ITT Rayonier and the large tracts of DNR land to the northwest, north, northeast and east, as being zoned with their current designation of Commercial Forest (Ord. 572, 573, 1995). On November 30, 1998, ITT Rayonier sold the easternmost 1.84 acre fragment (the part located within the NW¼SE¼ of Section 33) of its acre strip of land to a private individual (Clallam County Auditor No , Volume of Surveys at V39 P 98). On September 7, 2001, ITT Rayonier sold the remainder of its acre strip of land to the same buyer, using two separate deeds, one to convey the subject acre property (the part located within the NE¼SW¼ of Section 33) (Clallam County Auditor No ), and another to convey the acre property at its northwest corner (the part located within the NW¼SW¼ of Section 33) (Clallam County Auditor No ). The reason for this detailed accounting of transactions is because it is unclear how exactly the acre strip of land that ITT Rayonier retained in 1993 resulted in three parcels sized 1.82, 12.17, and acres. There are surveys dated July 7, 1983 (V. 9, P. 24), June 19, 1998 (V. 39, P. 98), and Aug 11, 2000 (V. 45, P. 13). The 1983 survey does not refer to any deeds and does not indicate the purpose of the survey. The 1998 survey was done in conjunction with the sale of the property from ITT Rayonier to the individual owner, and refers to the November 24, 1992 Deed (from Hancock to ITT Rayonier) for legal descriptions. The 2000 survey created an easement from SR 112 over the subject property to the acre parcel to the northwest, and refers to both the November 24, 1992 Deed (from Hancock to ITT Rayonier) and the April 8, 1993 Deed (from ITT Rayonier to DNR). These deeds describe some aspects of the extensive tracts of properties being transferred in terms of quarter-quarter sections. To wit, the 1992 deed, which transferred large tracts of properties to ITT Rayonier, included the following legal description regarding section 33, which includes the strip of land: The North half (N½), that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest quarter (pt. NW¼ SW¼) lying Northerly of the southerly boundary of the railroad right-of-way described in Deeds recorded in Vol. 94 of Deeds at page 183, and in Vol 8 of Quit Claim Deeds at Page 1 [containing the acres fragment]; The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest quarter (NE¼ SW¼) [containing the subject property]; the North half of the Southeast Quarter (N½ SE¼) [containing the 1.84 acre fragment];... Page 3

4 This method of description does not constitute a division of property along the referenced quarter-quarter section lines. It appears, however, that these quarter-quarter section lines where used as if they were lot boundaries when ITT Rayonier deeded the individual 1.82, 12.17, and acre fragments to private individuals. Even though prior to July 1, 1993, properties larger than 5 acres could be segregated through the survey-deed method, such segregations were still subject to the applicable zoning designation. After July 1, 1993, properties larger than 5 acres and smaller than 20 acres could be segregated only using the large-lot division process of Title 29 CCC. Between 1982 and 1992, the acre parcel was zoned F1, which was subject to a maximum density of 1 du per 20 acres. From 1982 to 1995, the acre parcel was zoned CFM20, which was subject to a maximum density of 1 du per 19.6 acres. From 1995 on, the acre parcel was zoned CF, which is subject to a maximum density of 1 du per 80 acres. While perhaps the argument could be made (but also countered) that the now-defunct and reverted railroad right of way easement constituted a division between and acre properties, this argument would clearly not apply to the segregation of the 1.84 acre fragment to the east. In fact, no other argument has come to mind to justify the segregation of this 1.84 acre fragment via the survey-deed method in As a result of ITT Rayonier Inc. s segregation of this 1.84 acre fragment, this 1.84 acre fragment no longer qualifies for either enrollment in the Open Space Forestland program (requiring a minimum of five acres) or for Designated forestland tax status (requiring minimum of twenty acres). Based on the above history of transactions, however, it would be improper to use this fact in favor of this rezone. e. The parcel does not meet criteria a) through d) above, but are surrounded on at least three sides by lands meeting the definition of Commercial Forest Resource Lands. The subject parcel meets criteria a., b., and c. above, but even though the parcel was owned by ITT Rayonier on June 27, 1995, and was thus being managed for forestry, and even though the parcel was part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the Commercial Forest zoning district on that date (see CCC ), it was not part of contiguous parcels under one ownership [that] can be grouped to total 80 acres on that date. It therefore did not meet criteria d. as of June 27, 1995, the date of its designation. In such situations, compliance with this criterion must consider the definition of commercial forest resource lands and must apply that definition to the surrounding lands. Both at the time of the subject property s designation and at the current time, land to the northwest, north, northeast, and east of the subject property can be classified as large undeveloped, contiguous tracts of private and state forestlands and thus as constituting lands meeting the above definition of forestland. f. The parcel is not within the city limits of an incorporated city. The subject property is not within any city limits. g. Forest lands are usually found in large contiguous blocks of ownership and are not generally surrounded by residential development (densities do not exceed one dwelling per five acres). This parcel is part of a contiguous corridor of private and state forest lands, and at the time of its designation, was part of a large block of forest land owned by a commercial timber company. While the parcel is bounded to the west by the Joyce UGA (with density of six du per acre), and to the south by RLM zoned lands (with unclustered density at one du per five acres, and clustered density at one du per 2.4 acres), it is bounded to the northwest, north, northeast, and east by CF zoned lands (one du per 80 acres). h. While slope is not a primary criteria for determination of commercial forest, steep slopes in excess of 40% slope should generally be included with commercial forest lands due to their unsuitability for development. The subject property does not have steep slopes. As the criterion indicates, slope is not a primary determinant for designating commercial forestland. In fact, areas that are located on slopes less than 40 percent, other factors being equal, are generally more conductive to commercial forestry due to less environmental constraints. It is added as another criterion, because forestry and open space uses are generally deemed more appropriate than residential and other intensive land uses on such slopes. Based on the above, at the time of its designation, the subject parcel met the basic criteria under CCC (8) and was properly designated as Commercial Forest land. Page 4

5 b. Removal from Commercial Forest (CF) land. The Comprehensive Plan at CCC (2) states that County forest lands are being permanently and irreversibly lost through conversion to other uses such as residential development. The first goal listed under CCC (1) is to Retain suitable forest land in the County in commercial forest land use, because of general economic benefits to the people of the County derived from forests, including timber production and processing, watershed conservation, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. The Countywide Comprehensive Plan Policy CCC (23) states that lands designated as Commercial Forest shall remain in this classification unless a strong case can be made that the zoning could be changed without affecting the commercial viability of the surrounding forest land." [emphasis added] It goes on to state that zone change applications shall meet one of the following criteria: a. An error was made in application of the criteria establishing the zone; or b. The Board of County Commissioners after giving careful consideration to the value of the resource to the community finds that commercial forestry cannot generate a reasonable return on investment when compared to other forested properties and that growth could not be directed to other non-forested rural lands in the same vicinity. CCC (23) [emphasis added]. An analysis of how CCC (23) applies to this request follows. Point One: The first part of Policy CCC (23) indicates Commercial Forest zoning shall not be changed unless it can be shown that a change will not affect the commercial viability of the surrounding forest land. At CCC (4), the Straits Regional Plan points out that One of the larger conflicts with commercial forest operations occurs when residences encroach into areas managed for commercial forestry. This type of encroachment is usually only seen in the eastern part of the Straits Planning Region. Commercial forestry zoning is utilized to limit the number of persons locating in areas of commercial forest operations so that conflict is minimized. Commercial Forest zoning abuts the subject property along the northwest, north, northeast, and east boundaries. These adjacent lands include large undeveloped, contiguous tracts of state forest lands. Under the proposed designation, the subject property could be developed to create a potentially clustered residential development at one du per 2.4 acres, for a total of six dwelling units, which could occur without any regard for nearby forestry operations. This would clearly increase the potential for conflict with, and thus the commercial viability of, the surrounding forest land. See also discussion under criteria 3, below. Point Two. Removal of land from Commercial Forest designation may occur if it can be shown that an error in designation occurred in the application of the criteria for establishing the zone. An initial review of the Comprehensive Plan polices for designating Commercial Forest lands reveals no evidence that the subject property was designated in error. Point Three. Excluding evidence that an error in designation was made, CCC (23)(b) does allow the Board of County Commissioners to find that commercial forestry cannot generate a reasonable return on investment when compared to other forested properties and that growth could not be directed to other non-forested rural lands in the same vicinity. As to the first part of this point three ( reasonable return on investment when compared to other forested properties ), the Comprehensive Plan states at CCC (4) that Owners of land between 20 and 80 acres in size can realize long-term timber production, but would likely require a residential development component in order to achieve economic and practical use of the parcel. Owners of land under 20 acres tend to favor dwelling-related uses and interest in using the land for long-term timber yield is minimized. First, it must be noted that at the time the current owner purchased the acre subject property from Rayonier Inc., he also purchased from Rayonier Inc. the acre Commercial Forest zoned parcel to the northwest. This combined acre parcel has been, and continues to be enrolled in the Designated Forestland tax classification, which results in significant tax reductions due to the properties dedication to long-term timber production. There are other forestland properties located both within and outside of designated Commercial Forest zones that are of the same approximate size or smaller than the subject parcel (including those with existing residences) that are successfully being managed for timber production. Under the subject property s current Commercial Forest zoning designation, potential residential development is limited to one single family dwelling based on a conditional use permit. A rezone to Page 5

6 RLM would allow the owner to build up to six single family dwellings, and would most likely result in considerable increase in the subject property s market value. It must be noted that the current owner purchased the contiguous ownership of acres in 2001, subject to their current Commercial Forest zoning designation, and, thus, presumably, at a purchase price that recognized the potential for a reasonable return on investment associated with purchasing acres of Commercial Forest zoned property. The applicant s argument that This is not a good site for commercial forestry is thus completely self-imposed. As to the second part of this point three ( growth could not be directed to other non-forested rural lands in the same vicinity ), there are extensive Rural Low Mixed (RLM) lands to the southwest, south, and southeast, and no evidence has been presented that additional rural growth cannot be directed there. See also discussion under criteria 4 below. c. Residential development within Commercial Forest (CF) land. Most Commercial Forest lands are free from residential development, although residential development has occurred in scattered areas. Comprehensive Plan Policy CCC (12) provides guidance in terms of residential and other non-forest land uses within designated Commercial Forest Lands. It states: The primary land use within designated commercial forest land shall be commercial forestry. Other resource industries such as extraction and agriculture shall be permitted within a designated forest resource area when managed to be compatible with forest management. New single family dwellings shall be allowed in commercial forest areas as a conditional or special use when the home is not incompatible with commercial forestry, provided that a single family dwelling on legal lots of record less than 80 acres in area should be allowed within designated commercial forest land, subject to applicable performance standards to ensure compatibility with adjacent commercial forest lands. Residential development shall be recognized as a compatible land use on lands designated as transitional from forestry to rural, provided that measures are taken to ensure that the development is compatible with the adjacent commercial forest land use. CCC (12). The policy at CCC (12) recognizes that residential uses conflict with forestry related uses, but also recognizes the importance of a residential use component for legal lots of record less than 80 acres in size. To implement this policy, the Zoning Zode at CCC , Commercial Forest, lists single family dwellings as an allowed use in Commercial Forest [o]n lots which were not part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the Commercial Forest zoning district, on June 27, 1995, and otherwise lists single family dwellings as a conditional use. Because the property was owned by ITT Rayonier Inc. on June 27, 1995, this property was part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the Commercial Forest zoning district on June 27, 1995, and potential residential development of the subject property is therefore subject to a conditional use permit process which allows for public input and enables the County to place conditions on such uses to ensure their compatibility with nearby forestry operations. In contrast, residential development in RLM zones does not have to comply with forestrycompatible conditions or performance standards. As the subject property is surrounded on several sides by Commercial Forest properties that are actively being managed for forestry, the loss of the County s ability to impose conditions under the proposed rezone will have an increased potential for impacting nearby forestry operations. See also discussion under criteria 3, below. d. Applicability of Rural Low Mixed (RLM) zoning designation. Under the Commercial Forest designation, potential residential development of the subject property is limited to one single family dwelling, subject to conditions designed to minimize conflict with nearby forestry operations. Under the proposed rezone, the owner would be able to build as many as six single family dwellings, none of which would have to comply with either performance standards or conditions designed to minimize conflict with nearby forestry operations. The Straits Regional Plan under the heading Goals and policies to conserve commercial use of forest lands, states as follows: Retention of all designated commercial forestlands in the Straits Planning Region is vital to maintenance of the forest industry as the regions leading industry. Given that development potentials of rural and urban lands in the region could accommodate much more than 20 years of population growth, designated commercial forest resource lands should be retained in the original Page 6

7 commercial forestland designations and zoning proposed by the 1994 plan throughout the planning period. CCC (5) Furthermore, the Straits Regional Plan directs the use of the RLM zoning designation in consideration of the property rights of people who had higher densities prior to the implementation of the Growth Management Act. See CCC (10)(c). Prior to the implementation of the Growth Management Act, this property was owned by commercial forest companies and managed as commercial forestland, clearly not appropriate for RLM zoning. In his supplement to the application, the applicant argues that the rezone request of CF to RLM will be consistent with the urban growth goal as it will further the possibility of creating residential lots and encouraging urban density. He notes that future expansion of the urban growth area will, however, be most likely be to the south, rather than to the east, and so would not affect the subject property (see also CCC (10), quoted below). However, since this property is not located within the Joyce Urban Growth Area, the Joyce Urban Growth Area policies and goals do not apply. One item contained within the Joyce Urban Growth Area policies and goals at CCC is worth noting, however: (10) The urban growth area for Joyce is larger than can be justified by the population within its boundaries. Joyce does provide regional services for a much larger regional population. Due to the large size of the urban growth area, no additions to this area should be considered within the planning period unless more than eighty (80) percent of the area becomes occupied by commercial, industrial and high density residential development. Should it become necessary to expand the core area, the area to the south of the commercial core should be examined for future growth. More relevant than the Joyce Urban Growth Area policies are the provisions contained in the Comprehensive Plan under the heading Rural Growth, which includes the following: Development (allowed uses and densities) within rural areas should not be counter-productive to the intent of the Growth Management Act which encourages development to locate in urban areas where public facilities and services can be provided in an efficient manner. Each regional or subarea plan shall include strategies that do not encourage development to occur in rural areas to the detriment of urban areas. CCC (3) The County s May, 2007 Urban Growth Area Analysis and 10-Year Review Report indicates that Joyce has seen a population increase of only six persons between 1990 and 2006, and that only one new residential building permit was issued during that time, considerably less even than had been anticipated by both by the County as well as OFM. It is clearly contrary to the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to remove property from the Commercial Forest designation. It is also clearly contrary to the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the reason of increasing residential opportunities outside of urban growth areas, which is the reason offered by the applicant for this request, where sufficient opportunities for additional residential opportunities exist within the boundaries of existing urban growth areas. No evidence has been provided to support any need for additional rural residential development opportunities, either in the Straits Planning Region or near the Joyce urban growth area. Criteria 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Clallam County Zoning Code and with interlocal agreements, transportation, parks and recreation, capital facility, utility, watershed, and other applicable land use and environmental plans and policies adopted by the County. The spirit and intent of the Clallam County Zoning Code is defined under the Purpose statement of CCC (see Appendix B). This section identifies a clear link between the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan in that the Zoning Code is to direct the future growth and development of the County consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ; and implement the goals and policies of the Page 7

8 Comprehensive Plan in a manner which protects private property rights and in the least intrusive manner possible. The stated purpose of the Commercial Forest (CF) zoning district that currently applies to the subject property is to protect large forest parcel from encroachment of uses which threaten effective forest management practices. CCC In comparison, the purpose statement for the proposed Rural Low Mixed is to conserve and enhance the rural character of the eastern portion of the Straits Regional Planning Area by providing for the retention of large rural lot sizes allowing productive woodlots, pasture lands and other rural uses typically requiring more than five (5) acres. The RLM zone preserves open land, sensitive natural areas, and rural community character that would be lost under conventional development while allowing developers to reduce road and utility cost. CCC In addition to varying residential densities, the existing CF zone (one du per 80 acres) and proposed RLM zone (one du per 5 acres, if not clustered, or one du per 2.4 acres, if clustered) also set forth varying allowed, conditional, or prohibited land uses and varying performance standards associated with the various land uses. Appendix B contains the complete text of the CF and RLM zoning districts. Allowed land uses are uses that may be initiated by the land owner without any conditional use review requirement of the County. Both the CF and RLM zoning districts list timber harvesting and residential development as allowed uses. For those properties that were part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the Commercial Forest zoning district, on June 27, 1995, residential development is subject to a conditional use permit. As the subject property was owned by ITT Rayonier on June 27, 1995, potential residential use will be subject to a conditional use permit, which allows for public input and enables the County to place conditions on such uses to ensure their specific compatibility with land use policies, regulations and the character of the surrounding area. Under the proposed RLM zoning, non-clustered residential development of the subject property could extend to two single family dwellings, each with a possible accessory dwelling unit, while clustered residential development of the subject property could extend to six single family dwellings, subject to the superseding minimum standards at CCC In addition, the RLM zone also allows for expanded residential type uses, such as bed and breakfast inns, family daycare providers, home enterprises, and the like. While the increased residential densities and expanded residential-type uses that are allowed under the RLM zoning are more likely to conflict with nearby forestry operations, they are not subject to any performance standards or conditions designed to minimize such conflicts. The loss of the County s ability to impose such performance standards is of particular note in this situation as the subject property is surrounded on a number of sides by Commercial Forest zoned properties that are actively being managed for forestry. See also discussion under criteria 3, below. Table 1 Comparison of Conditional and Permitted-Outright Uses in the CF and RLM zoning districts: Allowed Land Uses Commercial Forest (CF) Allowed Land Uses Rural Low Mixed (RLM) Conditional Uses Commercial Forest (CF) Conditional Uses Rural Low Mixed (RLM) Agricultural Activities Agricultural Activities Asphalt Plants Child Daycare Center Communication Relay Bed & Breakfast Inns Commercial Horse Churches Facilities Facilities Industrial Land Uses 1 Cemeteries Family daycare providers Commercial Greenhouses Mineral Extraction Family daycare providers Home based Industries Commercial horse facility Primitive Home enterprises Home Enterprises Home-based Campgrounds Single Family Dwellings (1 DU per 80 acres) 2 Timber Harvesting Noncommercial horse arenas Planned unit development Outdoor Oriented Recreational Facilities Outdoor Shooting Ranges industries Mineral Extraction Outdoor Oriented Recreational Activity Page 8

9 Allowed Land Uses Commercial Forest (CF) Timber Labor Camps Allowed Land Uses Rural Low Mixed (RLM) Rural character conservation developments Single-family dwellings (1 DU per 5 acres OR 1 DU per 2.4 acres, if clustered) Timber harvesting Conditional Uses Commercial Forest (CF) Research facilities RV Parks Conditional Uses Rural Low Mixed (RLM) Primitive Campgrounds Research facilities requiring a rural location Single Family Veterinarian Dwellings Clinics/Kennels Wood manufacturing 1 Only those industrial uses which meet the standards identified under CCC (8). 2 Single Family Dwellings are permitted outright ONLY on lots which were not part of an ownership of more than 640 acres located in the CF zoning district, on June 27, Criteria 3. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The property is taxed as Designated Forestland and is currently undeveloped. Full build-out under the proposed amendment could extend to six residential dwelling units. Electricity, water, refuse service, and telephone services are apparently present to the edge of the subject property. The subject property does not have access to municipal sewer service. The CF designation was implemented pursuant to the GMA to designate, preserve and enhance commercial forest resource lands in Clallam County. The Comprehensive Plan identifies many values that come from commercial forest lands - values that are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, which will be diminished under the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendment were granted, further division and development of the property under the resulting designation would be conditioned on the proposed projects meeting all application regulations, including the County s Critical Areas code, Subdivisions Code, and Environmental Health Regulations, which should adequately protect most aspects of the public health, safety and welfare, except for fire protection, as follows: The current owner acquired the property with a Bargain and Sale Deed which states that the property is subject to easements, reservations and encumbrances of record. These easements, reservations and encumbrances have not yet been fully identified, but appear to include State Route 112 which traverses the subject property in its southwest corner. As a result of the SEPA notice, the County received a comment from the Washington State Department of Transportation, which is attached hereto as Appendix C, which imposes a number of requirements on the applicant, including the submission of an Application for Access Connection, obtaining prior approval prior to any land clearing activities, and the submission of a storm water drainage plan. The Clallam County Critical Areas map depicts a large Class II wetland to the southwest of the subject property that extends onto the southwest corner of the subject property, which is the portion of the parcel that is located on the south side of SR 112. The Clallam County Critical Areas Ordinance requires protection standards for any development or land disturbing activities within 200 feet of regulated wetlands (CCC ). On July 31, 2007, an AP article reported that the U.S. Forest Service officials are scrambling for more money to fight fires and calling on state and local governments to enact tougher land-development regulations as a result of homeowners coveting scenic views and pine-tinged air hav[ing] blurred the line between wilderness and civilization and increase[ing] the risk to lives and property from forest fires. The article, which is attached as Appendix D, states that the fire risk is particularly acute in Washington state, where developments are pushing deeper into the forests, resulting in increasing numbers of people living in areas that, due to droughty conditions for quite some time, are fireprone. The article Page 9

10 goes on to state that homes in or near forested areas, which are the responsibility of state and local governments, are a major source of the problems because as Firefighting is generally a collaborative effort, [] the unit closest to the fire respond[s] first, regardless of jurisdiction. Money spent protecting these areas is money not used to keep the forest healthy, which helps prevent wildfires from starting, federal officials said. Under the proposed rezone, the number of residences on the subject property could extend to six, and these residences could be constructed without conditions or performance standards designed to at least reduce the fire dangers associated with nearby forests, as discussed above. The proposed amendment, therefore, will potentially be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Criteria 4. The proposed amendment is necessary due to changed conditions or circumstances from the time the property was given its present designation which warrants consideration of a different land use [and zoning] designation. Since the time of original designation as Commercial Forest, conditions on the subject property have changed only to the extent that it was sold on September 7, 2001 by ITT Rayonier to the current owner, who, on the same day, also bought from ITT Rayonier the acre parcel to the northwest of the subject property. ITT Rayonier had already sold the 1.84 acre parcel to the east to another private individual. These changes in ownership, however, did not change the management of these parcels for long-term forestry as evidenced by the fact that, except for the 1.84 acre parcel to the east, both the acre parcel to the northwest and the subject parcel are enrolled in the Designated Forestland tax program. Conditions have not changed on the properties to the southwest, south and southeast of the subject parcel. Conditions have not changed on the large tract of state forestlands to the northwest, north, northeast, and east of the subject property. Conditions have no changed in the UGA to the west. In addition, there has been no evidence provided that there has been population growth in excess of what can be accommodated in current rural and urban lands. The County s May, 2007 Urban Growth Area Analysis and 10-Year Review Report concluded that Clallam County has experienced population growth that has been accommodated by the Comprehensive Plan without requiring major amendments. This Report indicated that the Joyce population increased by only six persons between 1990 and 2006, and that only one new residential building permit was issued during that time, which was considerably less than had been anticipated. Population growth, therefore, does not warrant consideration of a different designation for this property. See There has thus been no change in conditions or circumstances except for a change in the subject property s ownership from a commercial timber company to a private individual, who purchased the subject property in 2001 subject to its current Commercial Forest zoning designation, and subject to its Designated Forestland tax designation. Presumably, the current owner purchased the property at a price that recognized the limitations associated with such commercial zoning designation, both in the uses that would be allowed as well as the potential for revenue associated with purchasing a acre parcel for forestry (consisting of both the subject property and the neighboring acre parcel). Under the current Commercial Forest zoning designation, potential residential development of the subject property is limited to one dwelling unit. Under the proposed rezone, however, the owner could develop the subject property with as many as six dwelling units, which would greatly increase the market value of the property. The applicant has provided no evidence of conditions or circumstances outside of his control that have changed to such an extent as to warrant consideration of a different land use and zoning designation. Criteria 5. The proposed amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the adequacy of public facilities and services including, but not limited to transportation, sewer, water, storm water, utilities, and parks required to meet urban or rural needs, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing and planned services. Approval of the rezone would increase the potential of residential development from one single family dwelling to as many as six single family dwellings. In either case, any approval of any subsequent land Page 10

11 use application would be subject to review under applicable land use and environmental health regulations, including the availability and adequacy of public facilities and services. As a result of the SEPA notice, the County received comment from Washington State Department of Transportation, which is attached hereto as Appendix C, which indicates that any development of the property will be conditioned on meeting certain requirements as a result of the subject property s location adjacent to SR 112. According to the application, electricity, water, refuse service, and telephone are located to the edge of the property. In the supplement to his application, the applicant states that the Fire Department has expressed a desire to locate a fire hydrant on the property, and also argues that the rezone is necessary to ensure that the bus stop that is apparently now located near the property does not become obsolete, needing to be removed or relocated. If the proposed amendment were granted, further division and development of the property under the resulting designation would be conditioned on the proposed projects meeting all application regulations, including the County s Critical Areas code, Subdivisions Code, and Environmental Health Regulations. Under the proposed rezone, however, the number of residences could increase to six, and these residences could be constructed without performance standards or conditions designed to at least reduce the fire dangers associated with nearby forestry operations, as discussed under criteria 3 above. The proposed amendment therefore may result in a probable significant adverse impact to the adequacy of public fire protection services. Criteria 6. The cumulative effects of all proposed amendments have been assessed and determined to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Clallam County Comprehensive Plan. In taking action on an application for rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Board of County Commissioners makes policy decisions that not only directly impact the subject property owners, but directly and indirectly impact other property owners, both in the immediate area and throughout the County. Zoning designations control what uses are permitted or prohibited on a particular piece of property. While an applicant may have a specific use in mind that he or she is able to achieve through a change in zoning, the applicant is nevertheless under no obligation to limit land use activities to that original plan. The applicant would in fact be eligible for any of the land uses listed as Allowed in the underlying zoning district. For this reason, the applicant s stated intent on their application must not be the sole or primary criteria for a zoning change, and an evaluation of a rezone application must consider all possible uses allowed under the proposed zoning district. Additionally, a decision on a rezone must be evaluated with respect to its application to other similarly situated properties. If the facts of a particular application approved by the Board of County Commissioners are present in a subsequent application, then the subsequent application should also be approved to be fair. For this reason, decisions on applications for rezone must be considered in a much larger context than only the subject property or the expressed land use intent indicated by the applicant. An evaluation of the cumulative effects of a decision to approve or deny a particular application must consider whether the rationale for the decision would be sustainable and consistent with adopted policies and standards if applied to similarly situated properties across the County. Even changes in zoning that result in relatively small conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan may cumulatively impact land use policy objectives if allowed to proliferate across the County. Therefore, any decision on a rezone application must be made cognizant of this potential. The decision to amend the Clallam County Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Zoning Map must be evaluated with respect to its application to other similarly situated properties. Otherwise, application of the supporting rationale for approving this rezone request could be broadly applied in other situations with unknown and possibly significant consequences to the commercial forest base of Clallam County: For instance, similar to the subject property, there are other areas of the County currently zoned Commercial Forest (CF) that contain contiguous ownerships of less than 80 acres (i.e., the preferred minimum contiguous forestland tract). As discussed above, such lands can still meet the designation criteria of commercial forestlands under CCC (8). Page 11

12 If the rezone were granted, it would enable the landowner to develop the property at a much higher residential density and without any conditions, thus greatly increasing the market value of the property, and thus most likely resulting in a considerable profit to the owner. Approving the rezone would most likely encourage the owner to seek a rezone of his neighboring acre parcel, which not only has the same history and conditions as the current parcel, but would have the additional arguments of precedent as well as that it would no longer qualify under the Designated Forestland tax designation, which requires a minimum of 20 acres, and which is currently achieved in combination with the subject property. It must again be noted that the original Commercial Forest zoning designation of the subject property was not in error, and that there has been no change in the subject property s conditions or circumstances that warrants consideration of a change in the current zoning designation. To grant this request would not only result in commercial forestry on this parcel being permanently and irreversibly lost through conversion (CCC (2)), but would result in [d]evelopment (allowed uses and densities) within rural areas which is counter-productive to the intent of the Growth Management Act which encourages development to locate in urban areas (CCC (3)), and would result in additional residences encroach[ing] into areas managed for commercial forestry (CCC (4)), increasing the numbers of people living in fire-prone areas, all clearly contrary to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. But perhaps even more significant than losing this particular acre parcel, granting this request would set the stage for facilitating extensive additional conversions of Commercial Forest, by encouraging commercial timber companies to fragment their Commercial Forest land for the purpose of selling such fragments to private owners who will speculatively purchase these fragments with the intent of submitting rezone requests based on similar arguments as the current request, for the sole purpose of achieving increased residential densities and potentially substantially increased returns on investment. Based on the above analysis, Planning Division staff believes that Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application REZ is not supported by existing policies and recommends denial of the request. Appendix A: Basemap Appendix B: Text of Zoning Code CCC , Commercial Forest (CF) CCC , Rural Low (RLM) Text of Comprehensive Plan CCC , Forest land issues CCC , Forest land goals Text of Straits Regional Plan CCC , Forest land use issues CCC , Goals and policies to conserve commercial use of forest land conservation Policies Appendix C: Comments received Washington State Department of Transportation Appendix D: AP Article entitled Homes, fire zones merging Page 12