Photos
The county has not updated its critical-areas ordinance since 1994 and is proposing changes including increased buffer distances and protections for prairie habitat.
Resident Eve Johnson said at the forum, held by the county Planning Commission at the county courthouse, that the current protections aren’t strong enough and that the county must use precaution to make sure the land is preserved.
“We are really temporary stewards of the land …” she said.
People who spoke disagreed about adequate buffer distances and how strong regulations need to be.
Robert Schilt of Rainier said the county is accepting socialist ideologies and “draconian regulations.”
Tobin Faucheux, who owns 5 acres of property in Tenino, said revised buffers – distances from which construction is allowed – would “effectively make the property of no value to build a house, as far as I can tell.”
“I think it’s a misguided approach,” he said.
Kenneth Neal, a geologist from Olympia, said he had many concerns about the draft proposal but focused his time on questioning the county’s model for determining landslide-hazard areas.
Wolf Haven and the Thurston County League of Women Voters were among the groups that sent representatives to speak in favor of the ordinance.
Speakers from the Olympia Master Builders and Thurston County Realtors shared concerns, with the latter asking for a more adaptive management approach that takes into account individual properties, rather than blanket regulations.
The Olympia Master Builders hired a scientist to review the wetland section of the ordinance. According to a news release from the group issued Friday, the ordinance has “far reaching effects for property owners … especially with the buffers expanding in most areas making more homes non-conforming and more private property off limits to the owners.”
The proposal has some flexibility built in, but the county needs to do more instead of “just increasing buffers across the board,” said OMB’s executive officer, Laura Worf, in a release.
Buffers would increase near streams, marine shorelines and bluffs, and landslide-hazard areas. Wetland buffers would remain the same (50-300 feet) but would be calculated differently, according to the county.
Saturday’s hearing was more casual than previous ones. The Planning Commission allowed residents to testify during a five-hour window; at a meeting held in July by the county commissioners about the interim prairie ordinance, 90 people testified over a period of three hours.
That prairie ordinance, which identifies and protects prairie and white oak habitat, is included in the draft critical-areas ordinance. Some prairie protections have angered residents who say the ordinance has affected development while protecting the Mazama pocket gopher.
The state considers the gopher a threatened species, and it is under consideration for federal listing. Property owners who want to develop land that is shown to have gophers may be required to spend thousands of dollars on a habitat-management plan, though getting to that stage is rare.
STOP Thurston County, a group formed by the Freedom Foundation to question the proposed updates, didn’t have as large a presence Saturday compared with July’s meeting, when it bused in residents from South Thurston County. Glen Morgan, program director for STOP, said the group decided to keep its response more casual because many people would be spending the day shopping and preparing for Christmas.
Morgan testified Saturday and reiterated STOP’s issues with the interim prairie ordinance and what he called “glaring and embarrassing flaws.” Several who spoke Saturday questioned the science used by the county.
“My primary concern about the CAO revolves around the complete failure of Thurston County staff to consider the property rights of average people affected by this ordinance,” Morgan said.
LOTT Clear Water Alliance’s plan to infiltrate highly treated wastewater into the region’s groundwater supplies also generated considerable discussion Saturday. The draft would allow the practice but require stricter treatment, including reverse osmosis and nanofiltration, a plan LOTT opposes.
“Our primary recommendation is to not impose advanced treatment across the board at this time,” said Karla Fowler, LOTT community relations and environmental policy director. “Instead, let’s take the time to do the local science to determine what’s really needed.”
Several people questioned LOTT’s plan, including Mark Kelly of Lacey, who called the proposed method “dangerous to public health.”
“You can’t easily reverse contaminating our water supply,” he said.
Nate Hulings: 360-754-5476
nhulings@theolympian.com
www.theolympian.com/outsideoly
