Warm Beach duplex approvals overturned
Published on Thu, Mar 26, 2009 by Beckye RandallRead More Local News
In a finding issued March 18, a Superior Court judge overturned a code interpretation that would have added extra density to the rural areas of Snohomish County.
County Planning Director Craig Ladiser declared in August 2008 that there was a loophole in the county code, allowing for duplexes on substandard lots. These lots are small parcels in parts of the county that have an underlying zoning of one house per 5 acres (R-5), and are typically found on waterfront locations. The interpretation, later opposed by the Snohomish County Council, allowed for 27 duplex applications in Warm Beach to be processed.
Ellen Hiatt Watson, president of the grassroots organization 7-Lakes, and Warm Beach residents Bob Landles and Roger Hill sued in Superior Court to have the decision overturned. Judge Michael Downes agreed that there was no loophole. The codes related to development of substandard lots did not leave room for duplexes.
"There is no loophole," said 7-Lakes president Ellen Hiatt Watson. "Duplexes are not and never have been legally allowed on substandard lots."
County Councilman John Koster explained that the property owners involved would rather build single-family homes, but the codes specifically prohibited such buildings on the lots. Duplexes, on the other hand, were not specifically listed as unacceptable.
Ladiser was called on the carpet by the county council for his failure to elicit adequate public comments on the ruling. Since the decision was made, the Snohomish County Council curtailed the planning director's ability to make code interpretations without holding public hearings.
"It's unfortunate that the director did not make the decision in a manner that included public input. It could have alleviated putting the citizens through such an expensive process, and causing a delay for the property owners in knowing the real potential of their land," said Watson.
"It's hard to balance property owner rights while working for responsible development," Koster noted, "which is why having transparency is important for the process."
"We're not seeking to end all development or keep people from the best use of their property," said Watson. "But we have to have some integrity in our planning so that citizens know the codes will be upheld."
County Planning Director Craig Ladiser declared in August 2008 that there was a loophole in the county code, allowing for duplexes on substandard lots. These lots are small parcels in parts of the county that have an underlying zoning of one house per 5 acres (R-5), and are typically found on waterfront locations. The interpretation, later opposed by the Snohomish County Council, allowed for 27 duplex applications in Warm Beach to be processed.
Ellen Hiatt Watson, president of the grassroots organization 7-Lakes, and Warm Beach residents Bob Landles and Roger Hill sued in Superior Court to have the decision overturned. Judge Michael Downes agreed that there was no loophole. The codes related to development of substandard lots did not leave room for duplexes.
"There is no loophole," said 7-Lakes president Ellen Hiatt Watson. "Duplexes are not and never have been legally allowed on substandard lots."
County Councilman John Koster explained that the property owners involved would rather build single-family homes, but the codes specifically prohibited such buildings on the lots. Duplexes, on the other hand, were not specifically listed as unacceptable.
Ladiser was called on the carpet by the county council for his failure to elicit adequate public comments on the ruling. Since the decision was made, the Snohomish County Council curtailed the planning director's ability to make code interpretations without holding public hearings.
"It's unfortunate that the director did not make the decision in a manner that included public input. It could have alleviated putting the citizens through such an expensive process, and causing a delay for the property owners in knowing the real potential of their land," said Watson.
"It's hard to balance property owner rights while working for responsible development," Koster noted, "which is why having transparency is important for the process."
"We're not seeking to end all development or keep people from the best use of their property," said Watson. "But we have to have some integrity in our planning so that citizens know the codes will be upheld."
blog comments powered by Disqus
