HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanet Welch 9-10-2019Received at Community Development by email 9-10-2019.
I am writing to express my concern that the staff recommendation for approval of MLA19-00013 (the
proposed up-zone of parcel #001-184-004) jeopardizes the integrity of the zoning map, is contrary to the
GMA, and creates a very dangerous precedent for the review of future rezone applications. These
concerns are concisely stated in The Comprehensive Plan Docket of September 4, 2019 where 1.2.4.3
describes the risk of establishing 'precedents with far reaching implications' from rezones such as this
one. In fact, the Docket contains multiple references that caution approvals of up-zone applications.
My experience taking Jefferson County to the Hearings Board over inappropriate up -zoning (which we
won both before the Board and on appeal) gives me confidence that, once again, if the county chooses to
inappropriately up-zone properties, it will fall upon the prosecutor's office to try to defend the action. I
don't want to see the county waste the time of its staff to continue to stand behind this up-zone.
Astonishingly, the lack of rationale for the approval raises questions as to why this amendment even got
this far in the process.
I would hope that citizens would be given accurate information early in the process by which they can
decide whether to initiate the costly and time consuming Comprehensive Plan amendment process. This
seems to have been the case, evidence by the notes from the CAM 18-718 meeting which conclude with
a statement clearly not encouraging the applicant: "we can say that the long-range planning decisions
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners have moved away from up-zoning RR1:10 and RRL:20
parcels to RR1:5 in circumstances such as those presented in your question." (CAM, pg 7)
Some time later, it appears that the applicants were led to believe that a favorable outcome was likely. It
is unkind, at the very least, to lead applicants on a wild goose chase, but it must now be up to the Planning
Commission to assure that the chase comes to the earliest end with a recommendation from the
Commission of denial, followed by similar BOCC action. That would be a far better outcome in the long
run than trying to defend staff findings that are so blatantl y inconsistent with the provisions of GMA
before the Hearings Board. Recommending denial would at least save the applicants lingering
uncertainty from an inevitable Hearings Board appeal by citizens concerned with preserving the integrity
of our zoning map.
For the sake of keeping these comments brief, I focus on only a few of the staff findings on pages 2-2
through 2-17 to point out some of the ways that the staff conclusion supporting a recommendation of
approval would be legally indefensible. I summarize the more controversial aspects of the staff analyses:
2.2.1.2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Consideration that the assumptions upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based may no longer be valid
(pg 2-12)
The staff report alludes to potential invalidity of assumptions, but exactly to the contrary of the rationale-
-arguing that the invalidity is due to historic planning for excess growth. The staff analysis admits that
the need for up-zoning has been negated by the available data: "Population growth has occurred slower
than projected in the past decade." Staff also states that circumstances have not changed in any way that
would warrant the rezone.
Consistency with goals of GMA (pg 2-13)
The response documents the opposite of consistency with GMA: "Review of the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element and Assessor data demonstrates there is adequate rural residential lot supply."
(emphasis added) The staff analysis goes n with a warning: "....Allowing unchecked rural residential up-
Received at Community Development by email 9-10-2019.
zoning and the creation of additional rural residential lots could weaken the County's ability to direct
growth to urban areas."
The potential to create pressure to change land use designations elsewhere (pg 2-15)
The staff analysis says a resounding yes to the potential for 'pressure' while completely failing to
understand the concept of legal precedent: "The change in land use designation could potentially create
pressure to up-zone parcels under similar circumstances in the county. In order to prevent cumulative
pressure to rezone at a County-wide level, staff recommends that this analysis shall not be utilized as
justification to support future rezone applications." The staff, and the Planning Commission, would be
well advised to employ the services of its able prosecutor staff to determine the defensibility of this
statement.
The proposed ...amendment does not materially affect land use that (is) the basis of the Comprehensive
Plan (pg 2-15)
This topic addresses issue of creating precedence for future up-zoning contrary to the goals of GMA, e.g.
the domino effect. Staff wishes away the domino effect with a carefree "Care should be taken to prevent
possible cumulative effect with future actions." Exactly what that 'care' might look like to the
prosecutor's office trying to defend this action is anybody's guess.
Consistency with the GMA (pg 2-16)
By way of response, the staff analysis simply quotes GMA requirements to "reduce the inappropriate
conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development". With nothing more presented
to make their case, the staff response seems to ignore the findings in their own report (some of which are
quoted above) to come to an impossible conclusion: "Given the analysis of this report, it is presumed
that the proposal is consistent with the GMA and other applicable laws and regulations." (emphasis
added)
2.2.1.4 Staff Recommendation (pg 2-17)
After recommending approval, in the staff summary lights the way for endless litigation "While there is
concern that approval may set a precedent which will increase pressure in subsequent years to up-zone
parcels under similar circumstances, the County shall analyze future amendment applications on a case
by case basis." It makes little difference that the staff beseeches the citizenry and their legal council to
not view this action as a precedent, it will be exactly that.
It is certainly true that delineation of the zoning boundaries is not a science and it does sometimes involve
the subjective analysis of individual parcels that could warrant equally legitimately higher or lower
density zoning based on the pattern of surrounding development. In my appeal to the Hearing's Board,
the Prosecutor argued (unsuccessfully) that the land in question should be up-zoned because it was
'surrounded on two sides' by higher density zoning.
This parcel is even more clear cut: it has higher zoning on only a portion of one side. Up -zoning of it
would expand the length and complexity of the zoning boundary between the 1:5 and 1:10 zones, not
reduce it. This rezone request is clearly not one of those parcels where arguments can be made for either
higher or lower zoning. Granting it a higher density zoning has no basis under GMA and would inevitably
create a domino effect.
The staff analysis provides no rationale for approving the rezone while urging caution about the
Received at Community Development by email 9-10-2019.
precedence it sets. The breezy analysis doesn't provide any cover for the reality that this rezone would
be in clear violation of the GMA. Even though the GMA cautions counties to err on the side of caution
unless circumstances indicate otherwise (higher population growth, for example); this analysis is devoid
of citations of this nature. In short, there is simply NO BASIS for the up-zoning of this parcel.
Sincerely,
Janet Welch
178 Baldwin
Nordland, WA