Two new Clark County councilors will step into office in the middle of controversy over one of the county’s most important ongoing policy issues: the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update.
After years of preliminary work, the deadline is fast approaching for Clark County to submit its updated zoning and land-use plan to the state. The final plan, which dictates where and how the county will accommodate a growing population, must be accepted by the state Department of Commerce by June 30, 2016.
But this year’s work has been mired in controversy. Some rural landowners are demanding the right to subdivide their property as they could prior to the approval of the state’s Growth Management Act in 1990. Others say unfettered growth in rural areas will have disastrous impacts on the environment and agriculture. GOP Councilor David Madore’s proposal, Alternative 4, would allow owners of rural, agriculture and forest lots to reduce their parcel sizes further than currently allowed.
The county council will vote on Tuesday whether to accept a land-use plan that focuses its growth in Clark County’s urban cores or allows for more growth in rural areas by permitting smaller forest, rural and agriculture lots–for example, converting all agriculture lots zoned for a minimum parcel size of 20 acres to minimum parcels of five and 10 acres.
Next year, the council will have to adopt the final components of the comprehensive plan, including an outline of how the county plans to pay for its proposed growth.
The planning commission rejected all zoning proposals that allow for smaller parcels at its Sept. 17 meeting, but that is merely a recommendation. The final decision lies with the county council. Madore, at least, still appears intent on pursuing Alternative 4 or some version of it. He reportedly is working behind closed doors to develop his own version of the final land use plan.
Here’s what Clark County chair candidates Mike Dalesandro, a Democrat, and Marc Boldt, who is running with no party preference; and District 2 candidates Julie Olson, a Republican, and Chuck Green, a Democrat, have to say about the growth plan. State Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, a write-in candidate for county chair, did not return a request for comment.
Mike Dalesandro
Dalesandro supported the planning commission’s recommendation to reject Madore’s Alternative 4 and components of Alternative 2, which would reduce lot sizes.
Dalesandro urged the council to follow the planning commission’s suggestions.
“They’re appointed to look at this information and provide a certain level of expertise,” he said.
He likes a suggestion by the commission to weigh whether those who have owned land since before Clark County’s first comprehensive plan in 1994 should somehow be compensated for restrictions on the use of their property.
“Maybe we should be looking at that on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
However, if the council chooses to move forward with Alternative 4 next week, and that decision does not align with the views of the new council after new members are elected, Dalesandro said he would be willing to revisit the issue next year and “find the best way we can to put the brakes on it.”
“Once we do this, there’s no going back,” he said. “That’s what I’m fearful of.”
Marc Boldt
The county needs to ask for an extension to submit its Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update, then rewrite its alternatives, Boldt said.
Boldt was most concerned about how Alternative 4 came to exist in the first place, criticizing Madore, who appeared to work almost exclusively with Clark County Citizens United, a land-use group claiming to represent thousands of rural citizens.
“The process itself will go to the (state) hearing board,” said Boldt, a former county commissioner and state representative.
Boldt also dismissed claims by some rural property owners that they had their rights stolen with the creation of the 1994 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. He said people have never been able to develop their land however they want to.
“It’s called ‘growth management,’ ” Boldt said. “We have always had restrictions on property.”
Julie Olson
Local land-use attorneys Steve Horenstein and John Karpinski, who typically stand on opposite sides of issues, have both criticized Alternative 4, saying it violates the Growth Management Act.
Those warnings have stuck with Olson, who fears Clark County may face potential litigation and could lose state funding if Alternative 4 is approved.
“It will cost the county, and it will cost the taxpayers,” Olson said.
However, Olson said Clark County should be working with landowners to accommodate those who feel they were harmed by the implementation of the Growth Management Act.
“If there are options available, we need to look at them,” she said.
Chuck Green
Green has repeatedly urged the council to adopt no changes to the county’s zoning and wait until after the new councilors are seated.
He also believes, however, that the council appears poised to adopt Alternative 4.
But the new council could come up with some creative solutions to preserve rural Clark County, he said.
“There are ways you could work with rural character and still give people the ability to develop,” he said.
For example, Green proposed the idea of “hamlets” as a possible zoning option. A hamlet would cluster four or five lots centered around one street, and would require landowners to develop their houses close to the street, preserving large swaths of land for agriculture or forestry while still allowing for subdivision.
However, such a policy would have be considered on a case-by-case basis, Green said. The ideal thing would be for the county to wait and do further study on rural Clark County.
