The Old Boy's Ranch - 1/2 mile South of the Sullivan Lake (Orange) Bridge
Photo taken from Reflections Drive looking SE across 125 acre meadow that is largest part of the rezone. 

In rural Pend Oreille County, well-armed against bad land use by regulations drafted with broad, passionate community involvement, residents shouldn't be made to defend against development projects that clearly conflict with the goals and policies within the adopted Comprehensive Plan. That plan's existence should be enough to have stopped three attempts in nine years to rezone the natural resource parcels known as The Old Boy's Ranch. 

But that's not the way things unfold here. 

Here, leadership has adopted an anti-regulation-agenda, setting the tone for county departments and requiring vigilance in community. This results in a fight every few years. 

But in August of last year..

The Utah investor-owners of 435 acres known as The Old Boy’s Ranch have been unable to convince the Pend Oreille County Planning Commissioners or County Prosecuting Attorney (thus Board of County Commissioner) that rezoning all or part of this natural resource parcel meets any lawful threshold for approval. 


The investors had hoped to remove the parcel from Natural Resource protected status; zoning that permits one dwelling per twenty acres. Designating Natural Resource parcels was done to spare break-up of land widely recognized as critical to the future, to food production, cattle ranching, forest practices, hay production, wildlife habitat, clean water and so forth.  

Such a scenic landscape is also, according to the director of the International Selkirk Loop, the precise visual those visiting a rural setting wish to see. Farm animals, wildlife and beautiful scenery help Pend Oreille County in cultivating a tourism economy. 


   So Stop It!        Stop Forwarding Bad Applications. 

County residents have grown weary of a political climate in Newport that results in applications for development that require rezone or amendment to existing regulations.Such efforts put residents in a position they have to defend the landscape. 

Projects like this supported by leadership are disrespectful of the work done in community drafting our goals and policies over the course of years. Those are our laws and no project that falls short should be encouraged. With the right political climate they'd be stopped at the Community Development desk.

Residents want leaders in Newport to know that the regulations in place should be adhered-to.  

It is to the credit of citizens who've remained vigilant, to environmental champion Futurewise, to Mike Peterson of the Spokane branch of The Lands Council (NOT the American Lands Council), and to others that the breaking up of farm and forestland has been denied three times in nine years. 

This, in the face of two of the three County Commissioners who previously stated they believe the project worthy of support.  

One of those two is quite outspoken in her position.

9/20/16 During the Board of County Commissioners public hearing, District 1 Commissioner Karen Skoog again spoke out against the loss of the Utah owners property rights in denying the rezone. She said she lost sleep over anyone being denied the ability to exercise their personal property rights, comparing what hearing attendees were present to defend with her personal disappointment at having to see her neighbor's new home. "Now I have to look at that for the rest of my life". She characterized the threat in District 3, which includes loss of rural character, of ranching, loss of critical elk habitat, threat to Maitlin Creek, etc., as no different than the compromise to her view.  

Perhaps she didn't understand?

After the meeting locals attempted to explain to Commissioner Skoog that the Utah investor-owners could still build, and always could. It would only have required they abide  by the NR-20 zoning. 

Changing the zoning is 'not' a right, and adhering to State and County regulations is not a liberal act, but a lawful one. 

She fails to recognize it was the community she's sworn to serve who collaboratively drafted the regulations she has again hoped to set-aside in favor of the Utah investor-owners. 

As a former VP of a local developer's group for property rights, commissioner Skoog continues to favor development over existing residents; development over natural resources and regulations adopted with public participation and community-support. Commissioner Skoog accepted $1000. from the president of the property rights alliance for her recent campaign (which she won).

About The Old Boy's Ranch.. 

The sprawling ranch is a half mile from the north end of Le Clerc Road, a parcel that includes 305 hillside acres east of that roadway, and to the west, another 125 acres of meadow grass reaching across the valley.

At the present time, and for as long as anyone can recall, there have been cows and calves on those meadows. A fitting image in this most rural part of our rural county.

The Wasatch Associate's of Utah have previously demonstrated they wish to remove timber and agriculture/natural resource designation on the entire parcel. 

Residents who've voiced opposition then AND now are ‘NOT’ against the investor’s private property rights. In fact we defend anyone's right of reasonable use of their property, 'so long as it does no harm' to adjoining owners. 

Citizens believe that development of the Old Boy's Ranch should abide by the twenty acre zoning in place. Twenty to twenty-one additional building lots can be created without removing the land from Natural Resource designation. And at 20 acres per household, these parcels could continue to operate as a farm. 

 

Or..

 

The ranch could also be sold as a ranch. A ranch with more active resource management would enhance rural culture rather than endanger it. Mr. Henrie (representing the Wasatch Associates) has been asked to indicate a price for the ranch, but hasn't responded. Citizens have offered to help find a buyer, but a price is needed to proceed. Citizens would like to help find a buyer so that the investors can be satisfied with a profit and the parcel can be farmed rather than broken-up.   

No more inventory of building lots in North Pend Oreille County is needed.  The most recent U.S. Census, and the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) showed North County population in decline, so no housing need prompts this. A quick search on real-estate website Zillow (using lasso feature) reveals no fewer than 99 vacant building lots for sale from Usk-northward. Existing homes for sale number145-162 N. of Usk. 

 

Residents ask, are more building lots or recreational sites needed here?  

If there was a population of families in need of new building sites; if the value in unimproved lot taxation to develop new places to park an RV was of some substance for county income, it might outweigh the harm to rural culture, our way of life, the cattle ranching family’s loss of a grazing lease, winter range elk habitat, wildlife viewing (a recognized tourism-draw), or loss of the historical footprint and visual landscapes on Le Clerc. 

By the first signs of foothill snow annually, only summer calves and breeder cows remain on the parcel. 

   

Having it both ways..

For twenty of the past thirty years the investor-owners enjoyed low property tax afforded those who hold timber and ag-land. The intention of the reduced tax is not a tax shelter for wealth-building, but to support farmers and forestland owners so they’ll actually keep these vital natural resources for future agriculture and forestry. After all, you can’t farm on federal ground. And rural folks need to be able to make their living off the land, particularly in a region with so few jobs. The Utah owner’s investment was at risk (theirs). They banked on the area growing and an increased need of housing, but it didn’t happen. 

Parceling natural resource land to increase investor’s market value should not be put on the backs of a rural way of life, shouldn’t compromise future generations, wildlife habitat, or the home values of retirees. Existing residents are the county’s taxable bird-in-the-hand and our neighbors. We should consider how this impacts them before protecting investor ambitions for higher gains.

The Wasatch Associates volunteered to pay the back taxes and remove the favorable current use taxation for natural resource land in 2014. Was this to imply momentum toward the goal of the rezone; to summon favor? Note: The sum paid was for back taxes of only 1/3 the time of their ownership, a sum of roughly $50,000. 

But the Wasatch Associates were not required to pay-up unless & until obtaining the rezone & the Comprehensive Plan map was changed legally, or until they were to sell. 

And none of those things have yet happened. 

* The land is still classified in Agriculture and Timber, and it still meets the County & State criteria for Natural Resource Land.  And the State of Washington's Department of Commerce, the training body for all planning commission members, wrote Pend Oreille County planners a comment letter strongly suggesting the project be denied. 


  

Photo: Looking east, the Old Boy’s Ranch parcel and Dennis/Fountain family cattle. In the distance, the lower foothills are part of the 435-acre historic ranch. At right, the old farm house.   

If the County continues to consider such an enormous project, with the societal, environmental and economic impact so difficult to accurately quantify, citizens should demand an  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)? An EIS would require the owners identify not just what their plans mean to the environment, but how their proposal would impact the region re: emergency services, wildfire urban interface, traffic, hunting, tourism, the watershed, rural culture, road maintenance and far more. The EIS would also mean they’d bring into focus their intention to permit the use of a single riverfront access lot  to funnel new buyers onto the river, even if the lots purchased had no river frontage. The investor-owners aggregated several agriculture & timber parcels with the riverfront 100' wide lot in advance of this application to further ambition to provide water-access rights with the lot to be sold.   

The EIS will bring this and other concerns into better-view.

Photo: March 4, 2014 Old Boy’s Ranch parcel. Here a small sampling of a larger herd, many are pregnant cow elk. They linger safely for days, eating, resting and grazing last season’s grasses under retreating snow. According to the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, rural communities like ours can cultivate Watchable Wildlife tourism opportunities. Statewide those dollars bring 1.7 billion to rural areas annually. The rezone puts that opportunity at risk.

Here's a YouTube Video of a typical morning in mid-March on North Le Clerc adjacent the Old Boy's Ranch. It serves as an example of how well positioned Pend Oreille County is to develop  its own "Watchable Wildlife" tourism.

Note: Turn on your sound and in lower right corner of video activate the 'full screen' function. This video provided by Pend Oreille County resident, filmmaker and photographer Patty White. Note: If your browser stalls, go to YouTube and search "Rural by Nature" and it will come up.

The Surrounding Area Explained.. 

Looking at the satellite image below, a necklace of lots and homes are sited at the edge of the river. This is often the case with waterfront. 
 
The balance of the image is in agriculture or timber, and includes a gravel pit (light color), and nearby 9 acre golf course property. The valley landscape is not impacted by the commercial activity. The gravel pit cannot be seen from Le Clerc, and the rural golf course compliments the agricultural valley views. 

Many neighboring parcels to the N, S, and E contain larger acreages. One is 719 acres and shares a common section line with this project. However looking at the sum of nearby parcels, one must determine if they're a stand-alone or part of a larger piece. For instance, the 719 acre ownership includes a 3 acre parcel. So it's misleading for those assessing parcel sizes in proximity to the subject parcel. 


                  Twenty acre zoning is compatible land use, NOT five acre zoning. 

Below is a previous concept proposed by the Utah investors. It shows wetland mapping and extensive development of lots. Most lots layout mimics disbursed housing, rather than clustered models.

 
Below is a Google satellite image of the vegetated riverfront footprint being considered as water access point. This 100' wide parcel sits adjacent another 125' wide lot that 'could' be folded-in, and that would create 225' of shoreline. The county would require a water access plan that includes parking, sanitation, lighting and calculating the anticipated number of users. 

While there were several tax parcels comprising the whole before application for the rezone in 2013-14, the Wasatch Associates aggregated all of these into a single tax ID for the purpose of connecting the total acreage to the 100' wide river lot. Those in opposition were impressed by the cleverness of this action, and what it implied for land-use. 

If this type of use is permitted,  it will be difficult to deny keyhole use elsewhere. Waterfront lots on any lake or river frontage could be turned into a portal to bring secondary lot owners and guests to equally small lots between neighbors.

The precedent of permitting keyhole lot development of this scale will be a template hoped-for by other developers on other water bodies within the county. Secondary lots located well-off a waterway become far more valuable with the addition of water access/keyhole lot privileges.

With so many lakes and so much river frontage in Pend Oreille County, this is a good time for neighbors throughout the region to take notice. 

To better understand this type of development, click on 'Keyhole' here.

So What's Next? 

Given the September 20, 2016 vote to deny the rezone application, there's reason to imagine the Wasatch Associates will go back to the drawing board. Perhaps now they'll be willing to name a price so that locals can seek out potential partners to purchase this important piece of Pend Oreille County. 

Check with the County Community Development personnel for more information, and to be added to any list forming for notifications. (number at bottom)



_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                           

Questions? Phone the County Planning Department at: 509.447.4821