FRONT PAGE

Tree, archaeological rules to be reviewed

by Meg Olson

Almost 200 people signed a petition that has spurred county council to look at revising, or eliminating, tree retention rules for Point Roberts.

“I think it’s something we need to revisit now that we’ve seen these concerns,” said county council member Barbara Brenner.

At the December 9 meeting of county council, Brian Calder submitted the petition, asking the county to “rescind the discriminatory regulation relating to tree canopy retention and areas of special archaeological significance.” Calder asked council why the Point had more restrictive tree retention laws than other rural areas in the county. “Point Roberts is not being treated fairly,” he said. Speakers that followed him all asking for the regulations to be scrapped include local realtor Jerry White and his mother Ruby White, Ann Christi, builder Neil Harvey, realtor Heather McPhee and Fritz Mueller.

County council adopted the current tree retention and archaeological rules in October, when they accepted the recommendation of the planning commission to largely approve staff recommendations for new tree retention and archaeological rules for Point Roberts. “I was under the impression everyone was in support of it. I hadn’t heard differently,” Brenner said.

The county planning commission had heard differently, at a July 10 public hearing on the new rules at which most of the audience voiced loud disapproval of the new rules as a further infringement on the rights of the property owners. “Cedar trees are weed trees,” Christi said at that meeting. “I find it ludicrous in the extreme to police trees,” added McPhee. Dana Beech was the only planning commissioner to support scrapping tree retention rules. Other commissioners agreed planning commissioner Geoff Menzies that one public hearing didn’t necessarily reflect the totality of community opinion and several planning documents, themselves the fruit of public processes, showed support for tree retention rules. “We have to respect the testimony that went before,” he said.

From the 1990 Point Roberts Comprehensive plan to the recent 2000 plan every planning document developed at community meetings, including the character plan and the Point Roberts Strategic Economic Development Plan include reference to tree retention as a community priority. The current outcry against the rules was equaled in 1997 by an outcry decrying their lack of enforcement, when a series of clearcuts and subsequent erosion sparked public outrage.

While Point Roberts was once the only place in the county with tree retention rules, both the Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom watersheds now have tree retention regulations.

Point Roberts has never had specific rules for potential archaeological sites, and they do not exist for other areas in the county. “My understanding was that this was the same as state law but some people are saying these rules go beyond state law and I want to get to the bottom of this,” Brenner said. She specifically wants to look at the perceived inequity whereby potential buyers aren’t able to ask county planners if a property is in an archaeologically sensitive area. They only find out when they apply for a permit, somewhat like playing Russian roulette with a dose of costly additional permitting and investigation of the site.

On March 9 Brenner expects the county’s planning and development committee will review the new tree retention and archaeological regulations and may bring recommendations for changes to county council. “I don’t see why we can’t just go back to the old rules,” she said.

“I support tree retention and I don’t want to eliminate it but I want to make it more useable. I think it’s making property owners unsure of what they can do with their land,” Brenner concluded.

A wee history of a decade of tree squabbles

1979: The first Point Roberts Plan has no mention of tree retention.

1988: The Point Roberts Heron preservation society starts pushing the county to develop tighter controls on tree removal after an application to log the heronry is submitted to the state. The application was turned down on the grounds the area was environmentally sensitive.

January 1990: County council approves a new Point Roberts subarea comprehensive plan. It’s goals include protecting “environmentally sensitive areas,” “unique vegetative stands,” and “cultural archaeological and cultural sites.” It also includes a goal “to maintain existing natural vegetation cover to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize runoff and prevent erosion of steep slopes.”

May 1990: The comprehensive plan is put into action through the inclusion of a new section in the county code: WCC20.72.262: Areas of special significance and tree retention. It directs that “Permitted development at Point Roberts should take into account its unique forest habitat,” specifically by retaining tree over eight inches in caliper “to the maximum extent feasible.”

April 26, 1994: County council adopts the Point Roberts Character Plan directing developers to “preserve existing stands of healthy trees.” December 1995: David Syre, head of Trillium, buys the heronry land to preserve the trees in which the birds nest. The following year the state will purchase an additional 14 acres of buffer forest.

December 18, 1996: Erickson Logging begins clearing 20 acres on APA Road at Paul’s Road owned by Henry Suderman, a Texas resident. Suderman had obtained a permit from the state stating his intention to convert the property to another use within three years. The property has not been developed or reforested.

January 1, 1997: Two mudslides, one at the end of Paul’s Road and one on Bayview Drive, claim five cabins and leave 15 others seriously damaged.

January 31 1997: Erickson Logging is issued a stop work order by the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for violating the conditions of their permit. The order states the operator had caused excessive rutting which led to sediment-laden runoff flooding an adjacent property across APA road and running down Paul’s Road.

February 1997: Erickson Logging equipment vandalized at the APA Road site, with damage estimated at $100,000. The sheriff’s investigation did not find a culprit.

June 28 1997: Over 100 people attend the annual general meeting of the taxpayers association to press county and state regulators to press for tighter regulations for tree removal on the Point.

September 30 1997: County Council’s Public Works and Capital Project Committee holds their meeting on the Point, which becomes a rancorous community debate on tree retention.

August 1998: The county denies an application by Nielsen Brothers to clear 20 acres on Benson Road after the Character Plan Advisory Committee rejects the company’s development proposal ­ a four lot subdivision ­ based on the project not meeting the criteria of “maximum tree retention.”

November 12, 1998: Ruling on an appeal from Neilsen Brothers, Hearing Examiner pro-tem Patrick Gallery directs the county to revisit the denial without relying on Character Plan review. He further suggests in his decision that the company could log the site without the restrictions imposed by WCC 20.72.652” the special tree retention requirements for the Point, by withdrawing the development application. It was the last time the county asked that committee to review a timber harvest. Following this proposal county land use division staff will also maintain the tree retention language in county code applies only to Lily Point.

December 16, 1998: Nielsen Brothers is granted a permit to clear the property for conversion to a single family home and pasture. The property remains undeveloped.

March 25, 1999: At a planning commission zoning review the taxpayers association proposes changes to beef up the tree retention requirements in county code to combat “indiscriminate logging,” while resident Frank Lucci suggests scrapping the rules altogether. Planning commissioners turn down both options but recommend a comprehensive plan review for the Point.

July 1999: Fire Chief Mike Campbell declares the property logged by Neilsen Brothers a fire hazard due to slash piles close to the property perimeter near the park and the school.

August 1999: The Point Roberts Strategic Economic Plan, drafted under the guidance of a 20-member steering committee including representatives from local businesses and resident groups, lists “natural beauty” as one of the Point’s top five assets. At a public meeting during the drafting of the plan tree retention is cited as a top source of concern, half the respondents opposed to it and half supporting it.

December 2001: County council approves a new subarea plan, based on a year-long review during which consultants worked with a local steering committee and held three public workshops. It lists tree retention and and preserving the Point’s natural beauty as a primary goal of the plan.

March 2002, October, 2003: County council adopts changes to Title 20 zoning regulations in response to the goals of the subarea plan. The changes extend tree retention requirement to all development, including single-family homes, and clarify that the rules do not only apply to the Lily Point area.

BACK TO TOP