Planning commission debates draft open-space ordinance; acreage minimum, public-access and tax rules draw scrutiny

Planning staff returned a revised draft of an open-space ordinance to the Clallam County Planning Commission for detailed review, prompting extended discussion over parcel-size eligibility, public access, lot-combination benefits, fees and tax implications.

The ordinance draft reworks administrative language and adds a required protection plan for applicants seeking reductions tied to rare or unique plant communities; it also reorganizes the public-benefit rating table and proposes increasing the application fee to reduce marginal applications.

Staff said they “added language in the general requirements to inform applicants regarding potential of the penalties that was asked by the assessor’s office,” adjusted administrative terms at the assessor’s request, and “added requirements for a protection plan to be submitted if requesting a reduction for rare or unique plant communities.” The draft would exclude certain lands and set a general ineligibility for parcels or portions of parcels less than 4 acres unless they fall into specified exceptions (for example, properties that provide public access). Staff said the change was intended to balance public benefit against county staff workload and utility of small parcels for public use.

Commissioners debated whether to remove the word “urban” from an exception that would allow smaller parcels to qualify if they provided public access; several commissioners said simply listing “properties that provide public access” would reduce ambiguity. Commissioners also discussed whether industrial and commercial parcels should be excluded from eligibility, and staff suggested that an exception for properties that provide public access could apply across the listed categories.

The draft raises the application fee from an earlier level of about $300–$350 to $900; staff said the change was intended to help “weed some of those smaller cases out where there's only marginal benefit” and to recoup staff time. The ordinance would also allow lot combinations to receive reduced development rights and up to a 90% tax reduction in some circumstances; commissioners debated how much of the valuation reduction comes from the lot-combination process itself versus the open-space tax reduction and cautioned against “double dipping.”

The commission discussed a proposed eligibility category for parcels that have a common property line (200 feet) adjacent to conservation easements of 20 acres or larger; members said adjacency to larger conserved tracts can substantially increase habitat and ecological value. Commissioners also asked staff to clarify whether conservation easements or required stormwater ponds should be eligible and suggested limiting public-benefit credits for land that is already required to be set aside for development mitigation.

Other substantive items discussed included signage minimums and durability standards for open-space signs; possible inventorying of public-benefit lands on the county website; liability language for landowners that open property to the public; and whether properties that charge fees for access should be ineligible. Commissioners suggested adding a rule making lands that charge access fees ineligible for public-benefit tax reductions, arguing that charging fees would undermine the public nature of the benefit.

Staff and commissioners agreed more drafting work remains. Staff noted there are currently about 900 properties in the county’s classifications that will need review and that assessor-related penalty language derives from state code; commissioners asked staff to verify how back-tax penalties apply when an owner withdraws from a program that previously shifted some tax burden to other taxpayers. The commission did not take a final vote; staff proposed scheduling a public hearing after further edits, targeting February or March.