Landowner’s threat shaves nearly 700 acres from Crescent Valley rezone

Last-minute amendment made to Comp Plan amendments

Nate Hulings

of the Gateway

Published: 05:31PM October 21st, 2009

Pressure from a Crescent Valley landowner has forced Pierce County to amend a proposed rezone.

The decision to strike Donald Gaines’ land from a proposed 1,850-acre map amendment to Pierce County’s 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments came at the Oct. 13 County Council meeting. The decision mitigated Gaines from fencing off the property and possibly taking legal action, said County Council member Terry Lee, R-Gig Harbor.

Lee said about 670 acres of Gaines’ property currently is zoned Rural 10. The rezone, proposed by Crescent Valley Alliance and the Pierce County Biodiversity Alliance, would have changed it to a Rural Sensitive Resource zone. More than 300 acres of Gaines’ property already was zoned RSR, Lee said.

The rezone would not have changed the base density for future development, but the RSR designation does mandate developers to use low-impact techniques, including tree and vegetation preservation, Lee said.

Changing from an R10 to RSR zoning also widens buffer width from 35 to 50 feet. CVA member Lucinda Wingard said Lee’s last-minute decision was based solely on recent legal threats.

“I really wanted it made clear this amendment was made simply and purely because a San Diego developer, Donald B. Gaines, threatened a lawsuit against the Crescent Valley Alliance, the County Council, and threatened to fence his whole property and prosecute,” Wingard said.

Excluding individual property owners from large area rezones is not uncommon, Lee said.

The progress of the comprehensive plan amendment also has flip-flopped once. The Peninsula Advisory Commission originally recommended that the Gaines property be taken out of the proposed rezone area. However, the Pierce County Planning Commission said the entire package should go ahead as planned with Gaines’ property in the new zone.

Gaineses voice displeasure

Gaines and his wife, Pamela, sent Wingard a letter in June stating their displeasure with the proposed map amendment. In the letter, the Gaineses explained they had purchased the 1,000 acres in 1998 and an additional 36 acres in 2005, hoping for future development.

“We love this property and are very proud to own it,” they wrote.

They continued by saying no trees had ever been cleared on the property, and when they visit the property, they often see people using it for walking and riding.

“We have never made a big deal out of any of it,” they wrote.

The letter’s tone shifts to the couple’s vehement objection to the proposed rezone, which the Gaineses believe would hinder future development.

“If you force me to hire the best land use attorneys, I will,” they wrote.

“If you force me to fence my property off from people who now enjoy it, I will. If I have to do that, I will have every trespasser arrested and prosecuted. No one will set foot on our property without our consent ever again.”

Those threats were enough for Lee to take notice and amend the comprehensive plan amendment.

Lee also received an e-mail from William Lynn, the Gaineses’ legal representative, the Friday before the council meeting. The e-mail succinctly restated the consequences of keeping the property on the map amendment.

“I was not willing to poke the tiger,” Lee said. “There is very little to be gained, and a lot to be potentially lost.”

Difference of opinion

Lee said the county currently is dealing with a similar case where a property owner has begun clear-cutting his property — defying both the county and law enforcement.

Wingard said it’s not even about the public’s use of the land.

“Terry (Lee) sees it as an issue to keep private land open to public recreation,” she said. “He doesn’t understand that our intention had nothing to do with that at all.

“Our intention was to make the land owners and potential developers know the biodiversity management area needs a stewardship plan, and that was adopted.”

Despite the massive cut in the map amendment, the Crescent Valley Alliance’s text amendment to promote a stewardship plan for the area did pass.

Rezoning the area was about education and not regulation, Wingard said.

“If all you’re trying to do is educate, it’s not worth making Don Gaines an enemy for the community,” Lee said.

Lee also said he wants the CVA to be honest about its intentions.

“I think I’m being misled, and there’s an agenda,” he said. “I don’t want to stand in the way of biodiversity.”

Wingard strongly denies the CVA has any other agenda other than to expand biodiversity education and to work on preservation projects.

tool name