Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment 9-4-2019 Hiatt on MLA19-013P, T;l L A kCS-1 N vs. . .................... . ... . .... so F,%;!i- lm N %rl W9 i 20119 Ar c3 Cl IL IL U c3 ull ML 13 c\l E A 03 j3 0 ct) E c*Q in x, Z ell -A� :2,V -r K I m or -o rm 'o 0 r .... .... .. ....... .... Z. cl W.! - 41 � .. r, ,i ,! �� ��' � ._ s '� t�+ ....A�..�...�,...�.n�_�,....._,,.,�.�.,..,�.._._.._. Wilke re-zone/sub-division application (MLAI9-00013) Page by page rebuttal, with commentary and additional informat p By: Amy Hiatt, 234 Sand Road, Port Townsend V) nnDate: 05-25-2019 (Page numbers correspond to the on-line .pdf version of the application.) 11NI SEP - 4 2019 Page 2, Wastewater -Sewage Disposal: Inspection reports were done for both septic systems at the time of sale in 2017. Deficiencies were noted on both reports. Since then, about 10 cubic yards of soil have been dumped along the south side the driveway, covering at least part of the active drain field for the ADU. The drain field for the house should be considered non -conforming. Surface water flows within about 20 feet of it at times when the valley is flooded. During these flood episodes, which have been occurring about every 5 years and which last for months, the pond overflows. The flow path, a Type Ns stream, runs southward across the grass swale, past the active drain field and directly over the designated reserve area. (The most recent flood event happened in the winter of 2017-2018, at which time the property owners dug a deep trench through the swale in an attempt to lower the pond level. After protests from the downstream neighbors, the trench was partially refilled. All of this work was done without any kind of permit.) Page 8, Item 9: It is irrelevant that the applicant has no plans for development. The proposed use of the site is sub- division into two parcels. This confers the right to develop a second primary dwelling with ADU and any other appurtenances allowed in a RR1:5 district. Page 10, Item 12: The response is not sufficient. Aside from false statements and nonsense, no explanation is given as to why a re -zone from RR1:10 to RR1:5 might be justified. Reading between the lines, the real motive is the potential profit from being able to sell the property as two parcels instead of just one. The property was acquired by the Wilkes in September of 2017. After living there for about a year, the whole family moved to California, giving no indication to their neighbors that they have any plans to return. At present, the primary residence is vacant and the ADU is being. used as a short- term rental advertised on Airbnb.com. (There is, incidentally, no record of a permit being issued for this use.) Page 12, SEPA Checklist, A. Background, Item 7: Even though the Wilkes claim they have no plans for further development, this SEPA review must be conducted under the assumption that, after sub -division, the two newly -created parcels will be subject to the full build -out allowed under current regulations. Page 13, SE'PA CheckUst, A. Background, Item 11: The zoning of the subject property is consistent with other parcels in its vicinity. The sum of the boundary lines is as follows: 1.,150.80' + 667.72: + 350.00' + 310.00' = 143.1 P + 700.80' + 249,26' _ 3,261.69'. Just 20% of this perimeter (667.72') is shared with any parcel zoned RR1:5. The remaining 80% of the perimeter is contiguous with other parcels in the RR1:10/RR1:20 zones. These zones cover most of the length of the valley from Loftus Road southward to Discovery Bay. The fact that there are four non -conforming 5-acre parcels within the RR 1:10 zone to the east of the property does not justi�y subdividing the subject property. As it is, two of those four parcels have the same owner and are developed and used as if they were combined. Throughout the County, there are mane parcels of 5 acres (or even less) within RR1:10 and RR1:20 zones. These parcels, created before the Growth Management Act and the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, should be considered isolated exceptions to the desired pattern of development, not reasons for departing from it even more. Page 14, SEPA Checklist,, 3. Environmental. Elements, 1. Earth: 1. e. & g.: Further comments to follow. Page 15, SEPA Checklist, B. Environmental Elements, 3. Water: 3. a. 1): The property is crossed by the only drainage outlet for a watershed area of nearly a thousand acres. This drainage course, including the inlet, outlet, and the large wetland (seasonal pond) it feeds, covers about one third of the parcel. The outlet from the wetland is mapped as a Type Ns (seasonal non -fish -bearing) stream. The wetland would most likely be rated as Category III with high habitat value. Until there is a formal delineation, the required buffer from the apparent boundary is 140 feet plus a 10 foot setback for buildings. 3. a. 2): At the western end of the property there are approximately 2 acres of forested upland. This area is only accessible from the rest of the property by crossing the wetland. The creation of a second parcel as proposed in Exhibit C. would very likely increase pressure to develop this area for more active use. Even with mitigation measures, construction of a driveway and installation of utilities cannot be done without permanent and significant adverse impact to the wetland and the natural drainage. 3. a. 4): Further comments to follow. Page 29, Exhibit A: This drawing is not complete. The easement for the Larry Scott Trail is not shown. Also not shown is a 15 foot wide ingress/egress and utilities easement along the south boundary of the 5-acre parcel just to the north of the subject property. This easement serves the 10-acre parcel that is also to the north of the subject property. Per UDC 18.30.050, Table 6-1, a 20 foot building setback is required on each side of this type of easement. A small shed was erected recently within the setback and should be relocated. The drawing also contains several errors. The 20-acre parcel to the west of the subject property is developed, with one "SFR." There are two 10-acre parcels to the south, both developed. The 37- acre parcel to the north-east is owned by the.County and contains the Larry Scott Trail. Page 30, Exhibit E: In his letter, the project consultant has made a statement which is either an extremely careless misreading of background materials provided by DCD or a conscious attempt to mislead reviewers of the application. Despite the possibility that, during preliminary meetings, DCD staff may have encouraged completion of the application, there is no way a recommendation for approval of the proposal would have been issued solely in response to information provided at a Customer Assistance Meeting. Such an egregious claim should cast doubt on the reliability of any other statements made in the application. Page 32, Exhibit C: Missing from this drawing is the ingress/egress and utilities easement along the south boundary of the 5-acre parcel to the north of the subject property. The easement requires a 20-foot building setback. Missing also is the easement for the Larry Scott Trail. The sub -division regulations require widening the Sand Road easement from 30 feet to 60 feet. The drawing provides no indication as to how this is to be done. Will the entire 60-foot easement lie within the boundaries of the property? Or will half of it overlap the easement for South Edwards Road? Pages 33 through 41, Exhibit D: The application is for a site -specific Comprehensive Plan amendment and, therefore, the answers to the questions in this section should address local and water -shed based conditions and impacts as well as those that have effects county -wide. Item (a): In the neighborhoods accessed by Crutcher Road, Sand Road, and South Edwards Road, growth and development have been slow but steady over the past couple of decades. There is no indication that this particular area is experiencing any pressure to grow faster than other parts of the county. The area covers 307 acres broken into 44 parcels. Although parcel sizes range from about 1 acre to 20 acres, the average size is 7 acres. Fourteen of the 44 parcels (32%) are either completely undeveloped or contain only a minor outbuilding. Eight of those 14 "vacant" parcels are adjacent to a developed parcel under the same ownership. In several cases, the adjacent parcels are being used to pasture horses or other livestock because the developed parcel (1 - 5 acres) is not large enough to accommodate that type of rural activity. Item (b): Whether or not the county has the capacity to provide adequate services to the Wilke property if it were sub -divided and developed, such activity would have a negative impact on the resources and resilience of the Sand Road neighborhood, particularly in terms of road maintenance and storm water management. Item (c): Re -zoning and sub -division of the Wilke property will have no effect on the supply of developable land in the UGAs. The property is not near a UGA, and it is located in an area which, given the observations noted in Item (a) above, appears to have an insufficient supply of parcels larger than 5 acres. Item (d): See Item (a) above. Item (e): As demonstrated by letters of opposition, the proposed amendment does not reflect the widely held values of County residents living closest to the subject property. Item. (f): See Items (a) and (e) above. If anything, proposals to down -zone a property, or consolidate two or more parcels, would be more reflective of actual land use in the local area. Item (g): The answer is revealing, and it is not difficult to conclude that the only reason the Wilkes would go to the effort and expense of re -zoning and sub -dividing the property is because they think it can be sold for more money as two parcels instead of one. Item. (1): If Sand Road meets transportation concurrency requirements, why would up -grades be required as noted in Items 0) and (m)? Item (k): The proposed re -zone and sub -division is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. it would have significant local effect in terms of the goals and policies for rural land -use and environmental protection. Further comments to _follow. Item (1): Wetlands and other critical areas are protected under the Critical Areas Ordinance (UDC 18.22) whether or not they have been formally analyzed and delineated. Sub -division of the Wilke property, particularly in the proposed configuration, would likely increase pressure to cross the wetland with a driveway. The first principle of wetland protection is avoidance of virtually unmitigatable impacts such as this. Item (m): Sand Road is privately owned. None of the properties it serves are subject to a road maintenance agreement. For decades, the narrow gravel driving surface has been successfully maintained by the neighborhood residents through voluntary contributions of money and labor. Even if the Wilkes were to pay for the work, widening and re -surfacing the road would create significant and lasting uncompensated burdens on the rest of neighborhood - in terms of money, safety, environmental impacts, and aesthetics. A bigger road is more expensive to maintain. A wider, smoother surface means that people will inevitably drive much faster than they do now, thus increasing noise, dust, and the risk of injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse -riders. Long term environmental and aesthetic effects would include an increase in impervious surface area and removal of the densely forested buffer strip which now separates Sand Road from South Edwards Road and the Larry Scott Trail. Item (n): The Wilke property is not physically suitable for sub -division into two 5-acre parcels. Although access and utilities are already in place for the existing residence and ADU, the buildable area of the property is so constrained that any further development would be incompatible with surrounding land -uses, the rural character of the neighborhood, and the need to protect the wetland and frequently -flooded area which occupy roughly one-third of the existing 10-acre parcel. The surrounding land -uses are low -density rural residential and public open -space and recreation. The landscape of the neighborhood is a mosaic of upland pastures and orchards, open and forested wetlands, and dense second and third growth forest. Several parcels in the vicinity are classified as open -space timber land. Timber harvest is still a significant source of income for some property owners. Even though there are several 5-acre parcels in the vicinity of the Wilke property, the average size of parcels accessed by Sand Road is 8 acres. With the exception of the Wilke ADU, all of the houses in the neighborhood are set far back from the road. As evidence that most property owners in the neighborhood place high value on privacy and elbow room, buildings are widely spaced and screened by dense vegetation. The buildable area of the Wilke property is severely constrained because of the amount of land taken up by critical areas, buffers, and setbacks. Assuming it is not feasible to access the 2-acre forested upland on the west end of the property, the area available for development is less than 2 acres. This area already contains the existing buildings, driveways, well and two septic systems with reserve areas. If the property were to be subdivided as proposed in Exhibit C, the buildable area on the lot containing the ADU would be only 22,000 square feet (0.50 acres). This area would be even smaller (18,000 s.f.) if the easement for Sand Road were widened by an additional 30 feet as required by the sub -division standards. Item (o): The answer is yes. Approval of this up -zone proposal would create a very damaging precedent which is certainly not in the long-term best interest of the county as a whole. If the standards for acceptance are to be set so low, henceforth practically any property owner with enough money to hire a consultant and pay the application fee could file a similar proposal with a reasonable expectation of success. If successful, such a proposal, for which the only motive is financial gain, would thwart the purpose of the GMA and threaten the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Site -specific re -zones should only be approved on the basis of ample evidence that circumstances have changed sufficiently since the zoning map was originally drawn, or up -dated, to render the current designation unsuitable, unfair, or invalid. Relevant circumstances include changes in public opinion, changes in surrounding land -use, or environmental changes affecting the property. Most residents of the neighborhood are opposed to the Wilkes' proposal. This should be clear enough evidence that public opinion remains in favor of maintaining the RR1:10 and RR1:20 districts in the valley. A quick survey of county records shows that, since the original adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the only changes in land -use or zoning anywhere in the area have been the county's acquisition of the 40-acre parcel to the east of Sand Road for use as public open space along the route of the Larry Scott Trail, and the re -zoning of one parcel on South Edwards Road from RR1:10 to AL1:20. A few sub -divisions have occurred in conformance with the underlying zoning, but many owners of multiple adjacent non -conforming parcels have continued to use their land as if it were a single larger property. Over the past two decades, the most significant environmental change affecting the Wilke property has been an observed increase in the volume, frequency, and duration of flooding. It should be noted that the flooding extends well beyond the wetland area and throughout the valley, affecting multiple properties, upstream as well as downstream. This trend is attributable to more intense rain events across the region and greater amounts of run-off from various logging, land clearing, ditching, and construction activities in the watershed. If anything, a change such as this bolsters the validity of the original decision to create RR1:10 and RR1:20 zoning districts in the valley bottom. Item (r): The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals of the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan, primarily because it would allow sub -division and further development of a parcel of land one-third of which is wetland and/or frequently -flooded area. The RR1:10 zoning districts were established, in part, to protect critical areas by limiting the density of development. Lower density zoning in vulnerable areas such as the Quimper Valley is the best tool we have for complying with the Federal no -net -loss of wetlands policy, and Washington State policies for management of storm water and protection of water quality. Page 42, Exhibit E, Existing Conditions Site Map: Several important existing conditions are not depicted on this map. Attached is a copy with an overlay of the following additional features of the property: ■ the ingress/egress and utilities easement adjacent to the north property line, with the 20-foot building setback extending onto the property; ■ the 140-foot assumed buffer for the wetland, with the 10-foot building setback; • various outbuildings and other impervious surfaces including driveways; • the drainage courses running into the wetland and the 'lope Ns stream running out of it; • the observed extent of frequent and persistent flooding beyond the assumed boundary of the wetland. Additional considerations: • Documentation of flood levels • History of remediation necessary to cope with the flooding ■ Alternative sub -division • Impervious surfaces, storm water management and low -impact development Rural Character: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.030 (14), rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a County in the rural element of its Comprehensive Plam a. In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; b. That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural -based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; c. That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities; d. That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; e. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development; f. That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and g. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and surface water recharge -and discharge areas. May 8, 2019 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Greetings, SEP - 4 2019 D The enclosed letter is in reference to the site -specific re -zone proposal (MLA19-00013) which is on the final docket for this year's Comprehensive Plan amendments. The letter is being sent to the applicants in the hope they might be persuaded to withdraw their application once they know why so many of their close neighbors are opposed to their plan to sub -divide. If the application stays on the docket, we will of course be addressing you directly with further comments as you prepare to make your decision. Thank you very much for your consideration of this preliminary public input. Sincerely, Amy Hi tt 234 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 priatt@olympus.net L April 30, 2019 Sarah and Andrew Wilke 2023 East Sims Way, No. 322 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sarah and Andy, We V — d3s , nn I n As your neighbors in the Sand Road and South Edwards Road community, we wish you to know that we strongly oppose your application for a site -specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. For your property to be re -zoned from RR1:10 to RR1:5, solely for the purpose of sub -dividing and selling, is contrary to the goals and policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those pertaining to the management of growth on rural lands and the protection of critical areas. As stated in the Unified Development Code Chapter 18.15.015 (1) (b), the purpose of RR1:10 zoning districts is to "preserve open space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small-scale agricultural (sic) and forestry, and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character indigenous to Jefferson County." - In the case of your parcel, no exceptional circumstances have arisen to suggest that the current RR1:10 zoning designation has become in any way unfair or invalid. The pace of growth and pattern of development in the vicinity have remained consistent with the zoning districts established in the Comprehensive Plan since it was first adopted. There have been no significant changes to the surrounding built environment and land uses, or the natural landscape, that would justify singling out your particular parcel as one on which the right should be established to double the density of future development. Approval of an application such as yours may not have a significant impact on growth management county -wide but, locally, it would set a very unwelcome precedent for up -zoning other near -by parcels in the RR1:10 and RR1:20 districts. Moreover, given the location and the geographical features of your parcel, the current zoning designation is entirely appropriate. The RR1:10 districts were created specifically to limit development on lands that, because they contain critical areas, do not have the capability to support the same density as RR1:5 parcels. Your land is crossed by the only drainage outlet for a watershed area of nearly a thousand acres. That drainage course, including the inlet, outlet and the large wetland (seasonal pond) it feeds, covers about one-third of your 10-acre parcel. The wetland would most likely be rated as Category III with high habitat value, in which case, in the absence of a formal delineation, the required buffer, plus the. building setback, is 150 feet. The wetland not only pravides significant wildlife habitat, it scarves to attenuate the flow of storm water which frequently inundates large areas of the valley both upstream and downstream. Management of this storm water has been a difficult issue in the neighborhood for many -years. The problem is likely to become even more severe in the future, given predicted changes in rainfall patterns and the gradual -build -out of the large number of previously platted, but as yet undeveloped, parcels in the watershed. ne reality is that your parcel, which at present contains a residence, an ADU, one well, two septic systems, several out -buildings, driveways, parking areas, an extensive garden, and an orchard, is already fully developed to the extent of, if not exceeding, the capability of the land within its boundaries. This existing development is in keeping, generally, with the rural character of the neighborhood: However, after subtraction of the areas covered by road easements, building setbacks, buffers, critical areas, and the land that has no road access because it is on the other side of the pond, the actual (feasible) buildable area of your 10-acre parcel is only about 2:5 acres. Two acres is generally considered the minimum suitable area for development of one residential home -site in a rural setting. The creation of a new parcel by re -zoning and subdivision confers the right to add another primary dwelling, another accessary dwelling, and all of their associated appurtenances, to an area that is already barely large enough for one home -site. The result of such build -out would inevitably have significant adverse impacts on the wetland, the drainage course, the rural character of the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the local residents. We hope you will give careful consideration to our concerns and that this letter might help persuade you to withdraw your application. Sincerely, Name(s) Address Parcel Number(s) & Amy Hiatt 234 Sand Road 001-184-006, 001-184-021 Judy R dolph 80 Sand Road _ 001-184-020 Ed &tue Edwards 157 South Edwards Road 001-184-007,001-175-013, 001-202-017 O'tL�'M bLA"-1k Carol Cahill 591 Sand Road O- 4JUdyfFr/ench"-Scott 500 Sand Road 001-184-041 001-184-026 awl, l",016 Cc: e Jefferson County: Department of Community Development; Planning Commission; Board of County Commissioners • Bruce MacLearnsberry, MacLearnsberry, Inc.