Neighboring property owners urged the hearing examiner to enforce a private agreement that prevents logging and protects mature native trees along the proposed subdivision's boundary. They expressed concern that a proposed public stub road meant for cross-circulation would destroy these specifically protected trees. Additionally, open space was briefly mentioned in the context of making mathematical acreage deductions to qualify the site for compact lot development.
Forests_green_space
Clark County Land Use Hearings · Apr 23, 2026 · 57:32–57:48 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: open space logging
What was said
56:29 114th street. And, uh, good evening examiner. My name is Jim Hamlic co-owner of tax lot 35 adjacent parcels immediately East of this proposed development. I have submitted a written testimony and I am a party of record. Our family owns tax lot 35 assessors file number three two four eight one eight eight and adjacent parcels directly East of the proposed development. Those parcels appear on the plat map submitted with this application. Their Eastern boundary was established in part through the same boundary line adjustment recorded February, 2025 that created the parcel configuration. The applicant is now trying to use to claim compact lot eligibility before this application was filed beach development signed a written agreement with our family purchase and sale it agreement addendum dated October 1st,
57:27 2024 paragraph 11 of that addendum contains an express guarantee by beach that there will be no logging on Taylor parcel on any lots of Jason our property paragraph six of that same addendum contains additional protection for trees and vegetation along the boundary shared between the Taylor parcel and our property. This is not a big promise. It is signed written contractual guarantee made by each development in direct contemplation of this subdivision. If this project is approved, those trees, which beach promised us would be protected are at risk, both from construction and from the road stub aimed at our property. We're asking this examiner to require beach to place that agreement in the record and to condition any approval on a finding that the paragraph 11 tree guarantee is binding it all successors,
58:23 including anyone who buys a lot in this subdivision. Finally, we believe that the SIPA analysis did not add free consider the environmental impact of the significant trees along our shared boundary. We reserve the right to challenge the DNS on that basis with inadequate applicable appeal period, please deny this application. If you approve it required the PSA addendum tree going to be,
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 57:32–57:48 open space, logging
before this application was filed beach development signed a written agreement with our family purchase and sale it agreement addendum dated October 1st, 2024 paragraph 11 of that addendum contains an express guarantee by beach that there will be no logging on Taylor parcel on any lots of Jason our property paragraph six of that same addendum contains additional protection for trees and vegetation along the boundary shared between the Taylor parcel and our property. This is not a big promise. It