4/17/12 SHELTON MEETINGS IN REVIEW

TOM'S TALES OF TUESDAY

Submitted to Shelton Blob by Tom Davis Mason County Progressive

April 17, 2012

9:00 AM: Regular session of Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)

While last week was slim pickings at the regularly scheduled meeting of the BOCC, this week’s agenda held a plethora of issues: no less than 12 action items and 4 public hearings. And while several are worthy of reporting, it is on public hearing Item 9.3 that I wish to focus.

But first, under the category of “Wow, did he really say that?”

During the public comment segment, a rogue shellfish grower went to town on our beloved Commissioners, accusing them of being unwilling to seriously address ongoing water pollution problems in Hood Canal, which, he said, jeopardize his very livelihood. It would be imprudent of me to identify Mr. Scott Grout, owner of Gold Coast Oyster LLC by name, because his assertions were tantamount to an indictment of Mason County’s approach to some of our pollution problems.

It has long been asserted that the County’s approach to air and water pollution has been superficial, though when it comes to hemorrhaging grant money, generating reports and holding meetings, few are more aggressive.

Unfortunately, at the very end of what was a very informative rant, Mr. Grout chose to surrender his righteous indignation to a bit more visceral and irrelevant personal accusations than may have been necessary to make his point, and then stormed out of the chambers. Way to kill a roll, Scott.

Okay, back to Item 9.3: Public hearing to consider amendments to Title 8, Section 8.52 and Title 17, Section 17.05, regarding Long Term Commercial Forest.

The purpose of this little item was to bring the County Resource Policy and Zoning ordinance into compliance with recent revisions to its Comprehensive Plan. And it is to these amendments I am most stringently opposed. Here’s what it looks like, up close and personal:

ATTACHMENT A
111-4 RESOURCE LANDS
Long Commercial Forest Lands
[new policy]

RE-105 Land that is designated as Long Term Commercial Forest may be redesignated to non-resource land, provided that the Board, in the same resolution that effects such re-designation, also designates as Long Term Commercial Forest an equivalent or greater number of acres that meets the criteria in subsections A- E, so that the overall acreage and quality of Long Term Commercial Forest land in the County is not diminished:

A. The land to be newly designated must have an equivalent or greater Douglas Fir Site Index, as calculated using a weighted average, as the land that is redesignated.

B. The land to be newly designated must be assessed as open space or forest land pursuant to Chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW.

C. The land to be newly designated must be contiguous with an existing Long Term Commercial Forest in Mason County, or contiguous with land in an adjoining county that is similarly designated as forest resource land under the Growth Management Act, so that no area of forest resource land is created that is smaller than 5,000 contiguous acres in size.

D. The Long Term Commercial Forest from which land is re-designated must remain at least 5,000 acres in size after there-designation.

E. The areas proposed for designation and re-designation must each be a minimum of 100 acres in size.

In-Holding Lands
(new subsection under Policy RE200)

D. Once designated, In-holding lands shall remain In-holding lands even if they no longer meet the criteria in subsection A due to the re-designation of adjoining Long Term Commercial Forest lands pursuant to policy RE-105. Any subsequent re-designation from In-holding to non-resource land shall require the owner to demonstrate that the In-holding designation is no longer needed to mitigate potential incompatible land uses with the remaining, adjoining long-term commercial forest lands.

With the apparent exception of RE-200 (D), the language was lifted, verbatim, from a letter dated June 20, 2011, sent from Eric Schallon, Manager, Land Management and Business Development, Green Diamond Resource Company, to Barbara Atkins, Director Mason County Dept. of Community Development. In other words, Green Diamond wrote the precise policy language that was to be incorporated into the Mason County Comprehensive Plan.

I was present on December 13, 2011 when County Commissioners unanimously passed Ordinance No. 92-11 (adopting the revisions), without so much as a hint of curiosity about what impacts such policy might have on the economic and environmental future of our community. I should have said something, but confess to being caught completely unaware at the time, happily day-dreaming about a hot pastrami sandwich I had at Max’s New York Deli, back in 1972. I now regret this gastronomic distraction. But in my defense, it was a really good sandwich.

Cut to a little history:

June 11, 2011: Green Diamond submits Comp. Plan amendments to Mason County Department of Community Development (DCD).

Sept. 19th, 2011; 6:00 PM: DCD holds a public hearing but lacks a quorum, so the hearing is continued to Oct. 17th.

Oct. 17th, 2011; 6:00 PM: The seven members Planning Advisory Commission vote to recommend amendments to the BOCC. The vote was 5 yeas to 0 nays (check the math).

Dec. 13th, 2011; 9:30 AM: At a BOCC public hearing the DCD recommends approval of the amendments. Mr. Eric Schallon of Green Diamond is the lone testifier. Commissioner Sheldon says he thinks the new policy is “far-reaching” and that it will “benefit citizens” (hold on a second while I slip into a pair of waders).

Cut to supporting documentation of item 3.9 on the BOCC agenda:
(New language in bold – PAC revisions in red)

(c) Redesignation. Lands designated long term commercial forest may be redesignated to non-resource land pursuant to policy RE-105 of the Comprehensive Plan, and non-resource lands may be designated long term commercial forest pursuant to policy RE-105 of the Comprehensive Plan even if they do not meet the criteria in subsection (a) of this section, provided that they do meet the criteria of policy RE-105.

TITLE 8, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, SECTION 8.52 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 8.52.070 – INHOLDING LANDS
(New language in bold – PAC revisions in red)

(b) Designation

(3) As stated in policy RE-200 of the Comprehensive Plan, inholding lands shall remain inholding lands even if they no longer meet the classification criteria in subsection (a) of this section due to the redesignation of some portion of the long term commercial forest land which had previously caused the subject property to meet the criteria for classification as inholding land.

TITLE 17, ZONING, SECTION 17.05 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
17.05.080 – REZONE CRITERIA
(New language in bold – no PAC revisions)

(c) Initial Zoning after Redesignation of Resource Land. Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a decision to initially zone land when it is redesignated from long-term commercial forest pursuant to policy RE-105 of the Comprehensive Plan. The board of commissioners shall determine the initial zoning for such redesignated land by applying the planning policies in Chapter III of the Comprehensive Plan.

Strip away the officious language and here’s what we get:

Green Diamond (and other) land designated as long term forest lands (natural resource land) can now be swapped for non-resource land (with a little help from their friends, of course). And land once designated as in-holding land (typically smaller parcels surrounded by large tracts of designated timber land) retains its in-holding status, even after it no longer meets the criteria for in-holding land, so long as it was once designated as in-holding land. All of which leads me to believe that, for some in our County, a rose is still a rose, even when it becomes a dead skunk.

Adding insult to injury, all this was done under the umbrella of allowing Mason County greater “flexibility” to re-designate timber lands that may be more suitable for other purposes. (Whoa! The stuff is coming right over the top of my waders!)

What this means is that the boundaries of long term timber lands is a thing of the past. As a result of the newly amended Comprehensive Plan and companion Resource and Zoning changes, Green Diamond has achieved what up till now only God and nature had been able to perform: real estate mobility. And so it came to pass that timber lands can now hop-scotch around the County, future development and economic diversity be damned.

____________________

2:00 PM: Port of Shelton Commission Meeting

The milk of human kindness has settled over Port meetings, with Chair Dick Taylor encouraging public input into the decision-making process. This is a far cry from the atmosphere fostered by past chair, Commissioner Jay Hupp, when the spectre of public involvement hung like a boil on the neck of management.

Be that as it may, the times are changing and I, for one, am more than willing to change with them. On this day, the Port enjoyed a warm and fuzzy place in my heart, at least up to the point when Hupp decided to talk about a great new biomass business model that was developed to assess the industry’s future possibilities.

Needless to say, upon hearing the “B” word uttered in so favorable terms, the hearts of every environmentalist in the County started to thump outside their chests. I don’t know why Jay thought it a good idea to share this information with the attending public. What I do know, is that dealing with Jay Hupp is a lot like playing poker with an iguana: you know he wants to win or he wouldn’t be sitting at the table, but that’s all you’ll ever know.

As always, there’s more news to report in our County, such as the happenings at the City Commission meeting, and more. But for now, enough is enough, and there’s a frosty glass up at the Martini Bar with my name on it.

Later…

Graphic: mediabistro.com