APRIL 21, 1997

 woodinville.com : your home town on the world wide web

Opinion

Hypocritical finagling of policies

county hypocrisy Re: 1997 Amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan (Proposed amendments to RL-302, RL-304, and RL -308): This is the most hypocritical finagling of policies to enable specific athletic fields on specific Sammamish Valley properties that is imaginable.
   As stated on page A-6, "The properties most likely to be affected in the near future are the Brown and Kaplan ownerships at the northern apex of the Sammamish APD." While the Kaplan property has already been negotiated for, no contracts have been made with the Browns, nor would such contract be successful, because the Browns do not wish to sell and the Browns are most offended by being included in the machinations.
   This all started with the "technical changes" proposed for Transmittal II of the 1995 Amendments packet, wherein rural-zoned land was removed from all APDs except those in the Sammamish Valley (without, may I remind you, any replacement land being provided, even though the Woodinville Fire District was told replacement must be made were they to build on their three acres of rural-zoned land in the Sammamish APD).
   The entire basis for including rural lands in the Sammamish Valley Agricultural Production District--without any notice whatever to the affected landowners who were consistently told they were part of the rural buffer to the ag lands--was an unnoticed Northshore Plan APD map. That map showed the SVAPD as including not only the Brown/Kaplan property, but also the Molbak property in the southeast part of the map.
   Now, inexplicably and inconsistently, Molbak's has disappeared from the current map (and again without replacement), while rural-zoned Brown and other small rural-zoned landowners right next to the commercial heart of downtown Woodinville are left in.
   The following should be done:
  1. Remove all rural-zoned land from APDS--without replacement.
  2. Since APD lands for which development rights have been purchased are covered by deed restrictions forbidding athletic fields (unless the public votes otherwise), and since there is a desire for athletic fields in river valleys, then differentiate between the two types of ag zoning--those with and those without developments rights--and then propose amendments allowing athletic fields only on APD lands that retain development rights.
Maxine Keesling, Woodinville