|
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide |
            
        
|
|
|
SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT |
|
Email this page to a friend Related pages | |
|
New committee proposed for Deer Harbor planningposted 3/14/2006 Consultant Michelle Stearns, who worked with county residents to develop the award-winning San Juan Valley Heritage Plan, is willing to work with such a committee. The ad hoc committee has been before the county council several times in the past year asking for completion of the Deer Harbor hamlet plan. The community put up $10,000 to help pay for a consultant. They successfully lobbied the council for a six month moratorium last October. The moratorium runs out April 4. A new one has been proposed and a public hearing is being scheduled. During the first moratorium, Jeff Otis was hired as the consultant. After questions were raised concerning a perceived conflict of interest, the county brought in Stearns to take on the task. She pulled together all the reports from various studies and consultants. The draft was presented at a meeting in Deer Harbor on March 2, 2006. Bob Heningson told the county Councilmembers of the committee member's displeasure with the report at the March 7 meeting. The ad hoc committee members sent a list of points they wanted to make including:
Henrickson said the group's plan has Deer Harbor becoming a residential community. "It doesn't provide for existing businesses," he told the council. "We'll end up with a plan the represents their interests (the ad hoc committee's) and no one elses." Lichter said at the two meetings he attended, the people were unanimously in favor of the committee's positions. Henrickson said he has received calls and emails from people who say they do not agree with the committee. County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said the situation is similar to the process of developing subarea plans for Shaw and Waldron. At the time the county researched whether it was legal to allow votes on subarea plans. It is not legal, Gaylord said. After a discussion, Lichter said he would meet with Henrickson to discuss the process of reformulating the committee to include better representation. Six-month extension sought on Deer Harbor moratoriumposted 03/08/2006
Henigson presented a letter from citizens asking for the extension and outlining their displeasure with the process being used to complete the hamlet plan. A citizen group contributed $10,000 to the county to help cover the cost of a a consultant to speed up the process last fall. The consultant, Jeff Otis, worked on the project for two months before a conflict of interest issue arose. After he dropped off the project, Community Development and Planning Department Director Ron Hendrickson directed consultant Michelle Stearns to work on the project. He set an expedited process in motion to finish up before the moratorium expired. Her draft was presented at a March 2 workshop in Deer Harbor. Henigson said it was "seriously flawed." Henigson wants the planning process done right and believes a six month extenstion is necessary to do so. "We want to prevent the kind of improvident development in the hamlet. We don’t know who is going to be aggrieved by the continuance except perhaps Trend West (the company that bought Deer Harbor Marina)." County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord told the council they can impose another moratorium after adopting findings and facts supporting the decision. He gave them information on what they should consider regarding the issue of "takings." Workshop on Deer Harbor hamlet plan set for March 2posted 2/28/2006 The hamlet is under a six-month moratorium which was requested by residents concerned that development would occur which was not in keeping with the community's wishes. Residents helped pay for a consultant to speed up the process of completing the adoption of the hamlet plan. After the consultant quit, the county decided to move forward with the workshop format. According to the county Community Development and Planning Department at the March 2 meeting, talking points within the draft document will be identified. Comments that build toward a useful final draft will be sought in a workshop format. Additional public workshops will be scheduled on Orcas Island to finalize the Hamlet Plan. The next scheduled workshop will be held on March 27, 2006. Copies of the Preliminary Draft of a Deer Harbor Hamlet Plan are available at San Juan County Community Development and Planning Department and at Orcas, Lopez and San Juan Libraries. The draft plan and maps will also be posted on the County website at www.co.san-juan.wa.us/cdp/default.asp. Property owners want access to Deer Harbor meetingBy Sharon Kivisto posted 11/30/05
Mike Smith of Trend West said, "Trend West is a property owner and wants to participate. How many others in the community want to participate and have been excluded?" Committee member Bob Henigson said, "We are adamantly opposed" to any participation by others before the committee's work product is presented in a a public hearing. A moratorium on all construction in Deer Harbor was imposed by the county Commissioners last month. A discussion regarding exceptions to the moratorium took place at a public hearing Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005 by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Michael Murray said there was an absence of open public meetings and adequate process. " This is a private influence of a government process." He pointed out what he believed were conflicts of interest on the part of the consultant, former county planner Jeff Otis. Otis purchased property in Deer Harbor last week and has privately represented some of the property owners. While the state's Open Public Meetings Act does not cover the ad hoc committee, the Growth Management Act's strict requirements regarding public process do. County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said, "GMA has other requirements - early and continuous public participation." He always advises development of a Public Participation Plan laying out how the committee functions and interacts with the public. "The rule is to allow public participation early, not to develop a whole plan and then say now there will be public participation. My advice to you is to develop a public participation plan and avoid making decisions based on the popular vote of the community." The commissioners ran out of time and decided to continue the public hearing to another meeting. Freeze on development in Deer Harborposted 10/06/05
Shoreline use permits and exemptions from shoreline use permits are not included in the moratorium. Because the ordinance was adopted as an emergeny ordinance, the public hearing did not have to be held prior to the adoption. A public hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. Nov. 29, 2005 in the commissioners hearing room in the county Courthouse. The possibility of a moratorium was discussed at the Sept. 27, 2005 meeting. Residents want the county to complete the Deer Harbor hamlet plan. The citizen group, which worked with the county to develop the plan, submitted their work to the county six years ago. A moratorium now would protect the area from development which would not meet the hamlet plans. San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord advised the commissioners on the legal aspects of imposing a moratorium. According to the ordinance, there would be no "takings" of any one's property rights during the moratorium. The ordinance states: it was reported that there are no residents within the district that are planning to apply for any permits to construct single-family residence or other small scale projects that would require the county to adopt provisions for the allowance of such projects. The moratorium should give the residents a chance to work with the county staff and fine tune the hamlet plan. Deer Harbor resident Bob Henigson told the BOCC, the group will have the work done within four months, leaving the commissioners two months to "take a leisurely look" at the result. The plan needs to be reviewed by the county Planning Commission and CTED before final adoptiong. Citizen offers money to speed up planning processposted 09/29/05
Citizens asked for the moratorium at the August 23, 2005 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting. The topic was discussed again September 27. Bob Henigson, a member of the Deer Harbor Citizen Committee, asked for a six month complete moratorium. He believed the final draft could be completed and adopted before the time was up. He understood the county faced other urgent issues concerning the Growth Management Act and suggested a consultant be hired to finish the work. "We think this can be done," Henigson said. "We understand the problem Randy (Prosecutor Randy Gaylord) talked about with respect to allocation of county resources. We'd like the county to hire somebody acceptable to the Deer Harbor community. We’ll figure out a way to fund the expense." He drew laughs when he added, "I think I am in better shape financially than the county. I am prepared to spend a few thousand bucks of my own money." Commissioner Alan Lichter said, "I move we go to a six month full freeze moratorium." Commissioner Bob Myhr abstained from voting on the issue because it was his first day as commissioner and he hadn't researched the issue. He did say the decision regarding who was hired as a consultant had to rest with the CD&P Dept. Commissioner Kevin Ranker was concerned about setting a precedent where people contributed money and then expected to have more oversight regarding the process." He noted Roche Harbor Resort paid for a consultant to work on their Master Plan. The county chose the person. The BOCC ended up directing Gaylord to draft an ordinance. Ranker said the community could contact CD&P Interim Director Matt Zybas about the amount of funding the community could provide. The Commissioners will discuss the issue again in one week. Lichter said, "You've got a week to count your shekels." BOCC pursuing Deer Harbor moratoriumBy Sharon Kivisto posted 08/24/05
The BOCC directed Gaylord to do the necessary research. "I am in favor of something moving forward. A six month period would be appropriate, it would give the community time to rest," Commissioner Kevin Ranker said. "I don't want to get caught up on takings." Deer Harbor resident Terry Neal told the commissioners, the request was for a moratorium on both residential and commercial construction. "Basically to make it fair and across the board. We don't anticipate any large residential development," he said. "We anticipate some large commercial changes in Deer Harbor. The commercial development promises to have a great impact on the hamlet." Commissioner Alan Lichter said he was very sympathetic to the residents' request. He acknowledged the concern people had about the "new admission of Trendwest Corporation into the community." The corporation purchased Deer Harbor Resort. According to the Trend West Web site:
The community fowarded a completed hamlet plan to the county "many years ago", Neal said. Because of the pending construction, the residents felt the moratorium was needed until the hamlet plan was approved by the county. Community Development and Planning Director Matt Zybas said his department would likely be working on the plan in November. Water rights question raised in Deer Harbor projectBy Sharon Kivisto posted 07/26/05
Last week, the Board of County Commissioners upheld the Hearing Examiner's decision requiring the study. San Juan County Planner Julie Thompson told the BOCC, according to Murray, the county did not have jurisdiction to require the study. "We (the planning dept.) are not making a recommendation because we don't have the legal expertise," she said. Murray contested the requirement since he believes he has existing water rights which allow him to take up to 5,000 gallons per day. According to state law, no agency has the jurisdiction to judge competing water rights except in Superior Court, he said. The four houses would use a Class B community well. In the Findings of Fact, Hearing Examiner Wick Dufford noted there had been testimony that the well had not been used in 12 years. A new well was drilled in 2004. Water rights may be determined to be relinquished if not used in five years. More information about water rights is available on the Dept of Ecology Web site. Neighbors expressed concerns about water, sight distances and traffic after Murray applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit. A consultant hired by Kim McClees conducted a preliminary evaluation of the effect of Murray's new well on other wells. According to the hearing examiner's report, the consultant determined "the current required capacity for existing wells in the vicinity is greater than the estimated yield of the aquifer." Many of the wells are on lots where homes have not yet been built, which explains why "significant supply problems do not exist," he said. Besides the lack of jurisdiction, Murray objected to the requirement to conduct an evaluation and study on the grounds the request is too vague. "There are no standards, no criteria, no standard of how the information is to be used. The request is improper, actually unlawful. This is a classic case of over-reaching," he said. Attorney Don Eaton, representing McClees, referenced RCW 58.17.110 about subdivisions. The RCW states: ...county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision ... Eaton said, "The authority of the public interest criteria must be applied to water. The developer must do no harm to existing users. Does the water supply adversely affect neighbors' wells? Murray replied the hearing examiner said the county determined there was adequate water. According to the hearing examiner's report, the county Health Dept. determined the quantity and quality of the new well is adequate to serve the four houses proposed. Murray wouldn't say if he would pursue the case in court. Asked after the hearing, he did say some action would be taken. The neighbors may be surprised to find they do not have the water rights they think they have, he said. |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 ABOUT US | ADVERTISING INFO | CONTACT INFORMATION |
|
|
