FRONT PAGE

Smoke and sparks fly at public planning hearing

by Meg Olson

Last month county planning commissioners spent four hours on the Point for a public hearing on zoning changes. They left having largely approved staff recommended changes and provided the community with an opportunity to vent frustration at county services.

Most of the proposed zoning changes reviewed at the July 10 hearing, intended to implement the goals of the 2001 updated Point Roberts subarea plan, drew little public comment. Many of the plans goals were already written into county zoning rules in March 2002 and planner Amy Peterson said further changes would be likely. “This is by no means the last time you’ll be looking at the Point Roberts subarea plan,” she said. Proposed changes included new language for tree retention and protecting archaeological resources, some changes to the new transitional zoning approved last March, allowing horse racing facilities as a conditional use and buffering requirements between an airpark, allowed next to the airstrip under changes approved in March, and adjacent homes.

Forest Trees are Dangerous Weeds
Most comments from the floor came from speakers whose primary concern appeared to be unfettering property owners to do what they’d like with their land. The loudest outcry was opposing existing tree retention rules and any changes other than scrapping them.“I find it offensive,” said Margaret Moras of tree retention requirements. “It takes away the rights of a property owner to choose.”

“I find it ludicrous in the extreme to police trees,” added Heather McPhee.

Some speakers went further, declaring opposition to the trees themselves. “We were told to leave so many cedar trees which are weed trees. Plants don’t like them. Birds don’t like them,” Ann Christi said of her own experience with current tree retention rules. “You’re afraid to buy a piece of land with trees because you can’t get enough sun to grow a garden.”

Syd Wallace said Point Roberts needed an ordinance to encourage gardens, and gardens and forest don’t go together. “You can’t grow anything under them. You’ll see some beautiful tree canopies in Point Roberts but they aren’t forest trees,” he said. “This ordinance says no to gardens. We’re trying to micromanage the use of our land and discourage all originality.”

Hank Peltier said clearing a lot around a few big trees made them unstable. “The more trees you leave on these small lots the more chance you’ll have someone killed,” he said. Planning commissioner Geoff Menzies suggested the language being proposed, under which residential development would need to leave at least 30 percent of the trees on half-acre parcels, could allow trees to be clustered and retain stability. He also pointed out language was included to allow removal of hazard trees.

Only Michael Rosser stood up for the tree retention language. “Point Roberts has a tree retention ordinance now because people want it. Every planning document that’s been done, with public support, has said that recreation is our best road to economic health,” he said. “We appreciate trees need to be removed for some valid reasons and when you want to make a tree retention ordinance you need to balance those things.” Rosser suggested owners of smaller lots be allowed to clear all the trees, but larger parcels be held more accountable. “We’ve had a tree retention ordinance for a long time and as far as I know it has yet to save a tree. A tree retention ordinance needs to be fair, effective and enforceable.”

All the Chinese in Richmond…
A series of speakers voiced support for the possibility of a horse racing facility. “It’s increasingly apparent Point Roberts needs economic stimulus and this is one instance to provide the stimulus we need,” said David Gellatly. Petersen said the inclusion of “horse racing tracks” as a conditional use was not a goal of the subarea plan but the change would clarify existing language on allowable private sports facilities and had local support. James Ough, representing the group proposing to build such a facility in Point Roberts, said they were looking at siting the facility around the marina but that the proposal would wait for its spot in the zoning code to be entrenched. “I think you need to take things step by step and the first thing is to find out if the community is interested, and they have told me they are,” he said, holding up a sheaf of support letters.

One member of the audience was opposed to the project. “Has there been any consideration about access and egress?” asked Bill Kerr. “We have a hard enough time crossing the border without all the Chinese in Richmond coming to gamble out here.” County planner Sylvia Goodwin said approving the code change was not approving the project. “It would be under a conditional use permit which would look at all of those issues,” she said.

General Malaise
A good part of the testimony didn’t have anything to do with the issues being covered at the hearing, but had to do with general dissatisfaction with county government, starting with the hearing itself. Christi complained she had only picked up the proposed changes at the meeting and wanted more time to consider them. “A lot of the wording is very vague and I don’t have a real understanding of what’s going on,” she said. “It’s unfair for you to hold the meeting without giving people time to study the material,” Bruno Moras agreed. “You’re rubber stamping.”

Moras had received his copy several days earlier after putting in a request to the county planning department, he said. “Anyone could have requested a copy,” Goodwin said.

The traditional complaints about enforcement were next. “The county does not enforce the current code adequately,” said Bruno Moras. “We went through the RV issue for over a year and they’re still not screened,” agreed Christi. Rosser agreedwith them about the lack of enforcement. “If we could get someone once a month for Point Roberts to make sure what people say they’re doing, they do,” he suggested. Planning commission chairman David Pros said they needed to make their pleas to a different podium. “The world of enforcement is not something we can do anything about,” he said.

Some speakers were just plain mad. “It is very disappointing to have such a nice place be so anti-commercial. I can’t even buy a decent t-shirt or souvenir to take home to my friends,” said Fred Sottinger.

Out of the maze of motions
At the close of the public session planning commissioner Danna Beech made a motion to accept staff recommendations and add airport related commercial activities around the airstrip but scrap the tree retention provisions. “I didn’t hear anything about other issues,” she said. “People have pie in the sky ideas about trees in general but in reality a neighbor was killed recently by a danger tree.”

Ron Roosma seconded the motion but David Hunter intervened with a motion to modify Beech’s motion and put tree retention back in. “This tree retention issue is not new. It was before us months ago and it went before county council, now it’s back again,” he said. “I believe there should be a balance between private property and community issues.” Geoff Menzies agreed that more than the night’s testimony should weigh in. “This is codifying the subarea plan and we have to respect the testimony that went before,” he said.

After some tinkering amendments to exempt lots smaller than one-half acre from retaining trees the voting began. Hunter’s motion to change Beech’s motion passed 5 to 1 one with Beech abstaining. Beech’s modified motion then passed by the same count.

Following Roosma’s concerns that the motion that had passed didn’t address his concerns about archaelogical rules, the commissioners then agreed to reconsider the ordinance. Roosma’s amendment that the county statues reflect existing state laws was tacked onto the now thrice made motion, which passed, again.

“This is not the last word on anything but it’s part of the process,” Pros said.

The zoning changes recommended by the planning commission will now go before Whatcom County Council for review and final approval.

BACK TO TOP