This is an Esp bill that is carrying over several provisions that were in Tutveldt's SB 209. The revision to the 5-day element review (requiring an appointment) looks good but the rest we should oppose. These include: Changing the "agriculture" criterion to impacts of "proposed subdivisions" on "surrounding agricultural operations". This will preclude requiring mitigation to preserve agricultural soils. Requires any federal, state, or local governmental agency (this could include Public Works, Parks, etc.) to back up any comments with a "scientific, peer-reviewed report" to support those comments. So the governing body can't rely on the expertise of a department or agency alone for their comments and recommendations. Requires that a subdivider who prevails in an appeal in district court receives an award for "reasonable costs" and attorneys fees. Revision that says mitigation offered by the subdivider cannot be considered new information. If that mitigation is offered after the Planning Board hearing this would not allow agencies and the public to review the mitigation if it substantially changes the subdivision.
I suggested a change for the ag section to increase the number of criteria to "... the impact on agricultural soil, surrounding agricultural operations, agricultural water user facilities,....." but they didn't accept that suggestion.
Removes from consideration any impacts to agriculture resulting from removal of the subdivision property from production. This would probably render irrelevant any information about soil types and productivity of the subdivision land. Would make it much easier to subdivide productive agricultural lands.
The requirement for peer-reviewed reports would significantly reduce the ability of staff or other government agencies (FWP, etc.) to make any meaningful comments on subdivision proposals.
The attorney fee provision would increase incidence of litigation.
HB542: With the amendments, at least the attorneys fees provision goes away. The change from peer reviewed report to peer reviewed information might be slightly better, but is vague to the point of still ensuring reduced ability of staff to provide expert comment on subdivisions, and for litigation over what exactly is "peer reviewed information". The bill still eliminates loss of agricultural use of the subdivision land from consideration as an impact of the subdivision, making it much easier to develop ag land.
Willis Curdy from the target range area visited today concerned about the agriculture provisions of the bill. He asked for the County's support in opposing the bill in the Senate.
Denise Alexander wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis is an Esp bill that is carrying over several provisions that were in Tutveldt's SB 209. The revision to the 5-day element review (requiring an appointment) looks good but the rest we should oppose. These include:
Changing the "agriculture" criterion to impacts of "proposed subdivisions" on "surrounding agricultural operations". This will preclude requiring mitigation to preserve agricultural soils.
Requires any federal, state, or local governmental agency (this could include Public Works, Parks, etc.) to back up any comments with a "scientific, peer-reviewed report" to support those comments. So the governing body can't rely on the expertise of a department or agency alone for their comments and recommendations.
Requires that a subdivider who prevails in an appeal in district court receives an award for "reasonable costs" and attorneys fees.
Revision that says mitigation offered by the subdivider cannot be considered new information. If that mitigation is offered after the Planning Board hearing this would not allow agencies and the public to review the mitigation if it substantially changes the subdivision.
I suggested a change for the ag section to increase the number of criteria to "... the impact on agricultural soil, surrounding agricultural operations, agricultural water user facilities,....." but they didn't accept that suggestion.
Denise
Removes from consideration any impacts to agriculture resulting from removal of the subdivision property from production. This would probably render irrelevant any information about soil types and productivity of the subdivision land. Would make it much easier to subdivide productive agricultural lands.
ReplyDeleteThe requirement for peer-reviewed reports would significantly reduce the ability of staff or other government agencies (FWP, etc.) to make any meaningful comments on subdivision proposals.
The attorney fee provision would increase incidence of litigation.
James McCubbin wrote:
ReplyDeleteHB542:
With the amendments, at least the attorneys fees provision goes away.
The change from peer reviewed report to peer reviewed information might be slightly better, but is vague to the point of still ensuring reduced ability of staff to provide expert comment on subdivisions, and for litigation over what exactly is "peer reviewed information".
The bill still eliminates loss of agricultural use of the subdivision land from consideration as an impact of the subdivision, making it much easier to develop ag land.
Willis Curdy from the target range area visited today concerned about the agriculture provisions of the bill. He asked for the County's support in opposing the bill in the Senate.
ReplyDelete