The ink is barely dry on the Clark County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update, and already multiple groups are signaling concerns about the 20-year zoning plan.
The Clark County council approved the contents of its growth plan last week and officially adopted the plan by ordinance on Tuesday. The plan allows for subdivision of forest, agriculture and rural lots, expands the urban growth areas of some cities and raises some school impact fees.
But the ongoing political drama over the plan is unlikely to end because anyone can file challenges to the plan with the Growth Management Hearings Board. It’s a standard part of the growth plan update process; Clark County Community Planning Director Oliver Orjiako said the 2007 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan Update was in litigation until 2014.
Councilor David Madore has indicated support for challenges to the plan. Last week, the Republican councilor made a last effort to see Alternative 4, the controversial zoning plan he proposed, restored to the plan after it was removed by the county council earlier this year.
Madore said the comprehensive plan did not satisfy the requirements of the Growth Management Act.
“I believe the citizens will win their rights back in court,” he said.
Clark County Citizens United, a rural land group which worked with Madore to develop Alternative 4, has hinted on its Facebook page and in public meetings that it would challenge the comprehensive plan. President Susan Rasmussen did not return a request for comment by The Columbian. She did criticize the plan while commenting at Tuesday’s meeting.
“It isn’t appropriate to further restrict rural land owners’ options,” Rasmussen said.
Groups opposed to Alternative 4 also have expressed concerns, such as the environmental group Friends of Clark County. Sydney Reisbick, president of that organization, said Friends of Clark County applauded the councilors for “recognizing the damage that would have been done to the rural area by the Alternative 4 land divisions.”
However, the divisions of forest, agriculture and rural properties still allowed in the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan update are problematic, she said. Commodity growers raising grains, hay or orchards need larger parcels, she said. She also noted concerns that property taxes may increase as a result of subdivided lots.
“We urge the county to stay the effective date of any land division policies or ordinances until after review by the growth board has been completed to prevent the irreversible vesting of those land divisions prior to review,” she said in a statement.
From the time a challenge to the plan is filed with the Western Washington Growth Hearings Board, the board has 180 days to give a final decision, according to its website.
For more details on the appeals process, visit www.gmhb.wa.gov.
