Opinion

Brown property should be removed from agricultural district

candidates I was wrong about the Sammamish Valley Agriculture Production District (SVAPD) when I said Bus and Ida May Brown's rural-zoned property was not included within its boundaries. However, the Browns' unpublicized inclusion is an example of King County's erratic and capricious adoption of land use controls, despite state law calling for complete disclosure and maximum public input in all regulatory adoptions.
    There was never a word spoken during the Northshore Community Plan adoption nor the 1994 Complan adoption that rural-zoned land would be included in the SVAPD.
    The Browns', as well as others' rural land, was described as a "rural buffer" to the ag lands. The ag lands zoning was for minimum 10-acre lots; there was no overlay zone to indicate that 2 1/2-acre rural-zoned land would be included; nor were there P-Suffic conditions to alert to the inclusion.
    The Resource Lands map showing the SVAPD specifically noted that the rural-zoned lands were "not part resource area zoning," and the introductory text noted that the mapped lands comprised the "designated Agricultural Production District."
    The current move to keep Browns in the SVAPD that they did not know they were part of, while proposing to remove other rural-zoned land from the SVAPD, is unequal treatment of landowners.
    What the county should be doing is completely removing all rural-zoned land from the SVAPD, including the Browns.
    As Chuck Kleeberg, former director of the county's Department of Development and Environmental Services, wrote in a 1994 SEIS commentary, "It should be made explicit that Resource lands comprise a designation of their own, independent of Rural lands."

Maxine Keesling, Woodinville