Can we have a reality based zoning map?
Rural landowners have fought for their property rights, including the ability to subdivide and either gift or sell a portion of their property, for 20 years.
The 1994 plan created huge numbers of “nonconforming” lots for rural landowners. The problem – 57 percent of rural residential lots are nonconforming; 77 percent of agriculture lots and 89 percent of forest zoned lots are nonconforming. The zoning map does not reflect reality on the ground.
There are four alternatives.
Alternative 1 keeps the 2007 plan now in effect.
Alternative 2 changes certain rural and urban areas, reducing minimum lot sizes to 20 acres on some forest lands and 10 acres on some agriculture land. It expands Ridgefield’s urban boundary.
Alternative 3 expands urban growth areas requested by Battle Ground, La Center, Ridgefield and Washougal.
Alternative 4 adjusts rural zoning to more closely match ground reality, and adopts the Alt. 3 urban expansions.
The Planning Commission recommends Alternative 3.
Councilor David Madore began digging into numbers and assumptions a year ago. When 57 percent, 77 percent, and 89 percent are nonconforming, the problem is not the property owners, it’s the zoning map. He recently discovered some incorrect or highly unlikely assumptions. They must be fine-tuned for more accurate plans to accommodate growth.
Called into question was that 100 percent or “all” rural lots would be available for construction; 4,398 are currently nonconforming.
Construction has “stalled out” on rural lands. Since 2008, 356 homes were constructed on nonconforming rural lands, only 9 in 2015. Why? State or federal laws regarding wetlands and wildlife, or septic system rules. Large lot sizes are also a factor. It’s unlikely all 4,393 remaining nonconforming lots will be built on. A responsible plan will provide additional lots for development and restore lost property rights to rural landowners.
Adjusting other assumptions yielded stunning reductions in “available and buildable lots.” Revised assumptions reduced available lots by over 50 percent; 4,000 fewer future home sites in Alt. 1 and 6,000 less in the original Alt. 4. Alternative 4 has been revised, reflecting updated assumptions.
I suggest that councilors first metric in choosing a plan is comparing how each of the four alternatives rectifies the problem – fix the 57 percent, fix the 77 percent, and fix the 89 percent not in compliance. Then add enough land in both rural and urban areas to comfortably provide for the 116,000 new county residents the plan projects.
John Ley
Camas
