Guest Opinion: No rational conclusion to CAO debate

By Walter Corbin

After careful consideration of the CAO — the Critical Areas Ordinance — I have come to the conclusion that this has done nothing but polarized people and there will be no rational conclusion.

Each parcel in this county of islands is in some way an ecological sensitive piece of land.  It is just as important to protect the ecological connectivity of the landscape for wildlife habitat as those parcels (which are few) that abut sensitive wetlands. So let us not demonize or discriminate those who find themselves in the later situation.

As was pointed out by a retired scientist at the last meeting on Orcas, the citizens of this county should care enough about their environment and its associated unique ecology to hire a professional planner/manager/commissioner that brings to the County common sense experience that addresses the concerns of all landowners.

So to plan properly we first need the above. Then we must mandate that every parcel can only be developed up to 20% of the area of the parcel, leaving 80% in open space. Next, every developer or property owner would work in consultation with the above commissioner, and would agree to the place or footprint of development on a parcel. If the property owner disagreed with the commissioner to that footprint or the necessary mitigation, then they could appeal to a volunteer hearings board, and show that their footprint of development would better protect the riparian areas, woodlands and wildlife area than that proposed by the commissioner. If that appeal was denied, then the property owner could seek the courts to adjudicate the issue. That can be a relatively inexpensive process if a procedure was set up by our prosecuting attorney so the appellate could represent themselves through the process know as pro per.

The above recommended process (obviously with much more details, as to issues like buffers or setbacks) will clearly standardize present and future planning and development. It’s almost a no-brainer that planning is far less costly then no planning at all. The citizens and the County will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation, wasted hours and ill will.

This is no longer the Wild West and each of us must recognize that good stewardship of our land is essential for the common good and not for special interests.