Planning commission continues hearing on proposed Clallam County open-space ordinance changes

The Clallam County Planning Commission on a continued public hearing considered proposed changes to the county's open-space tax classification, reviewing staff parcel analyses and draft code language while debating whether to restore a 'development-pressure' test and how audits of existing parcels should proceed.

The discussion matters because the draft would remove many small parcels from the program and re-focus the tax benefit on land that demonstrably provides public or ecological benefit. That would shift property-tax reductions now received by individual landowners to the general taxpayer where the county determines public benefit is not present.

County planner Anela presented a spreadsheet analysis of parcels currently enrolled in the open-space classification, telling commissioners the review identified roughly 75 parcels of 4 acres or less that the proposed changes would make ineligible. Anela said staff also broke out reductions by percent and lot-size: most enrolled parcels receive a 40% reduction or less, while parcels with conservation easements can receive a 90% reduction. She showed parcel examples along Lake Sutherland and the Dungeness River to illustrate where critical-area protections already limit development and where the open-space benefit overlapped existing regulatory restrictions.

Anela read the draft audit provision into the record, saying, "An audit of the existing parcels enrolled in the program at the time of adoption of this ordinance will be conducted to determine eligibility under the new qualifications. Properties found to no longer qualify will not be imposed additional taxes, interest, and or penalties if they request to withdraw from the program within 30 days of their new notice of value." Several commissioners and members of the public asked staff to lengthen that 30-day window; a public commenter, John McKay of Sequim, asked whether the 90-day period some commissioners advocated would apply after a multi-year audit schedule and sought clarification about how the audit timeline would be implemented.

Public commenter David Mattern, who identified himself as a volunteer with the North Olympic Land Trust, urged the commission to recognize that conservation easements are not a simple fix: "Establishing a conservation easement is not easy, it's not inexpensive, and it's certainly not a guarantee," Mattern said, adding that land trusts and the federal tax rules governing easements impose vetting and resource requirements.

Commissioners focused much of the policy debate on two points: whether the draft should restore a development-pressure metric that would allow large, already-combined parcels to qualify even if they have not recently been subdivided, and whether lot-combination rules are appropriately scoped. Under the draft, lot combinations that extinguish development rights receive an 80% benefit; conservation easements receive the larger 90% reduction. Several commissioners said those existing provisions are appropriate for parcels that combine contiguous lots, while others pressed for a formula or threshold tied to local zoning density to treat large, single parcels that could be subdivided similarly to combined parcels.

Commissioner Warner summarized the difficulty of reducing an inherently subjective public-benefit judgment to measurable criteria, saying it is "hard to find" objective tests that the public will accept while protecting the program's intended benefits.

Other issues raised during the hearing included: - Whether small shoreline or riverbank parcels that are less than the draft size threshold nonetheless provide public benefit if owners grant public access (staff said public access remains an eligibility path). - Examples staff used to explain eligibility findings (market-value segments and parcel-level critical-area overlays) and the distinction between market valuation and tax shift. - The administrative schedule: staff said the county anticipates auditing parcels on a multiyear schedule rather than all at once and that the audit would not trigger retroactive taxes for owners who request removal within the notice window.

Votes at a glance: earlier in the meeting the commission voted to approve the April 2 meeting minutes (motion: "Move to approve"; second not specified; recorded as unanimous voice vote) and, at the end of the open-space discussion, the commission voted to continue the public hearing until the planning commission's second meeting in May (motion moved and seconded; recorded voice vote: all present said "aye"). The roll call at the meeting listed six commissioners present; the motions passed on unanimous voice votes of commissioners present.

The commission directed staff to prepare revisions that would attempt to address development-pressure language, lot-combination formulae and the audit procedure; staff said it will bring a revised draft and clean code text to the commission for the continued hearing. No final ordinance was adopted at this meeting; the public hearing remains open and will continue at the next planning commission meeting in May.