GROWTH MANAGEMENT STORY

Related Pages

List of stories about Growth Management Act in San Juan County

Send this story to a friend

Enter their
e-mail address:

Bell and Wood property reclassified

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 05/08/02
With a verbal blast at the "so-called friends of this and that and the Duchess of Shaw" County Commissioner John Evans urged the other two commissioners to join him in refusing to follow the hearings board instructions. Evans objected to amending the maps showing the designation of the Wood property on Lopez and the Bell property on San Juan Island.

According to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board the county erred when it redesignated the properties from forest 20 to rural farm forest. The change allowed one unit per 5 acres rather than the previously allowed one unit per 20 acres. County Planning Director Laura Arnold told the board it was necessary to amend the maps to take the properties out of limbo.

Commissioner Rhea Miller agreed with the Forest 20 designation. "This has been the designation I thought appropriate under the Growth Management Act," she said at the May 7, 2002 public hearing.

Property owner Scott Bell said, "I am curious where is everybody? Where's the opposition? Where's the Friends of the San Juans and their ilk. It seems a foregone conclusion what will happen....They went back to their caves."

Commissioner Darcie Nielsen disagreed with the ruling. She said, "I want to say I'm really sorry. I know it was really agonizing. People will be shocked if you decide to do what the forest act allows and log. Under this option you don't have a lot of options. I hope you don't log, but understand if you decide to." She urged the property owners to pursue other options. "You do have good argument to have it zoned conservancy. ...I do think there are options left for you. I am sorry but I feel like my hands are tied."

Evans said, "I have no intention of voting for this. it is wrong. The hearings board is wrong. It is wrong to be dictated to by three who have no one they are accountable to. They are strongly influenced by radical environmental community. I have no compunction to vote to support what they tell us to do. For a bunch of so called friends of this and that, or The Duchess of Shaw to say they know best. " He praised the Bell family and the owners of the Wood property for their stewardship of their land.

Miller objected to Evans remarks. "I find your comments offensive. i am sorry we have to come down on people we disagree with, " she said.

She made the motion to amend the maps, Nielsen seconded. The motion passed two to one with Evans voting against it.

County appeals one of three overturned de-designations

posted 04/03/02
San Juan County "once again" violated the direct provisions of Goal 8 of the Growth management Act when it changed the designations for three parcels from Forest Resource Land to rural residential according to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The BOCC will appeal the March 28, 2002 ruling regarding one of the three parcels.

The hearings board ruled the 186-acre Bell property and the 350-acre northern portion of the Sandwith property on San Juan Island and the 60-acre Woods property on Lopez Island were improperly de-designated. An appeal is being filed in San Juan County Superior Court regarding the Sandwith property.

In its ruling the hearings board wrote:

The gravamen of the County's action on these de-designations came about from our FDO (final decision and order) on July 21, 1999, which determined the allowance of 5-acre minimums in agricultural resource land (ARL) designations and 10-acre minimum lot sizes in forest resource land (FRL) designations substantially interfered with fulfillment of Goal 8 of the Act. San Juan County candidly acknowledged that as to the three contested properties, the major thrust for re-evaluation was the desire to keep the 5-acre and 10-acre minimum lot size in effect. The County contended that the property owners inadvertently failed to contest the 1998 resource land designations since it "did not make any difference" to them because of minimum lot size allowances. That contention however, cannot be the basis of sustaining the County's actions. We can only imagine the County's cries of outrage if a petitioner attempted now to challenge some of the decisions that were made in the original 1998 adoption of the CP and DRs. The time for challenging the original designations has long since passed and the County may not circumvent those rules to establish "inadvertance" as a criterion.

The hearings board noted the Sept. 21, 2000 staff report to the BOCC recommended no change to the designations of the three properties.

A 1984 contract between the county and the Sandwiths was cited as the reason for the change in that property's designation. The hearings board stated:

What the effect of the contract is today under the conditions set forth in this recored is wholly beyond the scope of authority which the Legislature has granted to us. Those questions will need to be answered in a different forum.

The county will not file an appeal of the Wood and Bell decisions. County Deputy Civil Prosecutor Alan Marriner said the individual property owners could choose to file an appeal.

Redesignations increase density for six properties

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 11/12/01
The public hearing on amendments and changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Code (UDC) and Official Maps will resume at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 13 in the commissioners' hearing room. Last week the commissioners dealt with site specific redesignations. A majority of the commissioners approved redesignations which resulted in an increase in the density for six properties.

In a Nov. 30, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board ruling redesignations affecting 1,000 acres of resource land were declared invalid. In its ruling the board said.

"The County bypassed its previously adopted process, provided virtually no public participation opportunities, and made the redesignations without any supporting evidence in the record. The County further adopted a new policy to review all resource lands designations over the next three years. It is contrary to the GMA to redesignate some 3 percent of the County's total resource lands piecemeal through a remand process that was not required by the Final Decision and Order (FDO) to address any resource land designation issues.

After the ruling, the planning department reviewed parcels designated as resource land. Recommendations for redesignations were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The BOCC held a public hearing Nov. 6, 2001 and agreed to redesignate six properties.

All three commissioners agreed to change the Lawrence property from Forest 20 to Agricultural 10 and the 61-acre Eagle Lake Div. IV property from Forest 20 to Rural Farm Forest (RFF) 5. (The number refers to the number of dwelling units allowed per acre.)

Commissioner Rhea Miller did not agree with Commissioners Darcie Nielsen and John Evans' decision to change the Bell property from Forest 20 to RFF 10. "I do not concur. This is not a matter of redesignation, it is a matter of density," she said. She preferred to wait until the county looked at overall density, noting this parcel was "particularly vulnerable for litigation."

Evans said, "No matter what the BOCC does someone will sue. The board had promised and committed and we should stand by it. ".

Evans and Nielsen agreed to change the two Bond parcels from Forest 20 to Ag 10. Miller said changing one of the Bond's parcels was justified but not the other.

All three commissioners agreed to redesignate the northern 200 acres of the Sandwith property from Forest 20 to Rural Residential 5. The change was based on a previous legal agreement between the county and the Sandwith family. Miller agreed with the change on the basis of the legal contract not on the merits of the redesignation.

Friends of the San Juan Director Stephanie Buffum said, "We oppose this redesignation because it is based on a private contract rather than on the scientific data on which resource lands are to be evaluated."

The Wood property on Lopez Island was changed from Forest 20 to RFF 10. Miller applauded the low impact the four families who live there have had on the property but could not support the change. She said the change was not a matter of redesignation but a matter of density.

Referring to the county Land Bank's upcoming projects which the BOCC had reviewed earlier in the day, Nielsen said, "The density is reduced proportionally through the Land Bank. The net impact of potential increased density is not happening."

The property owners had asked for the above mentioned redesignations. Other properties -- on Aleck Bay and Griffin Bay -- were also reviewed by the planning department. No changes were made in the designations of those properties.

Other property owners living in San Juan Valley had opposed downzoning of their land to fit the state's definition of resource land. Under the Comp Plan an overlay district will be created. The property owners would have 12 months (with a possible 6-month extension if necessary) to develop a San Juan Valley Heritage Plan which would allow for a variety of densities. The amendments under consideration take out wording which set a target of an average of one unit per 15 acres. If an agreement cannot be reached in the time allowed, the density reverts to those listed on the official maps.

Changes to the UDC are also to be discussed. Permit Center Director recommended against a suggestion to make conditional use permits (CUP) expire in 15 years. He also did not favor making CUPs non-transferrable to the new property owner. "I can't see the county telling someone to rip out a hotel," he said.

At last week's hearing, citizens commented on the need for more communication with the public. Referring to recommended changes to the allowable setbacks for waterfront properties (regarding cases where neighboring houses are closer than current regulations) Sam Buck said, "This needs more exposure to the people or else it's stealing from the blind."

More information is available on the county's Web site