01/19/2006: "Hearing Examiner Rules For County on BLM"

ig_Debbi_and_David-1 (22k image) (David McCauley, of Kellsey South, LLC, and Deborah Nash-Strasser preparing to testify before the Hearing Examiner)

Deborah Nash-Strasser has lost her appeal of boundary line modifications (BLM) that benefits the County, and Kellsey South LLC; the previous owner of a portion of the property. Previous Story

Kellsey South LLC owned 37.13 acres just north of Friday Harbor, and sold 27.1 acres to the County for the development of facilities for SJC Public Works. The remaining 10.03 acres of land was retained by Kellsey South LLC. As a part of the sale, an agreement was reached with the County that the existing property lines that split the 37 acres up into approximately 5 acre parcels, would be moved onto the Kellsey property in such a way as to create "six small parcels" that would be owned by Kellsey South.

The land is designated ("zoned") as Rural General Use (RGU), which means it can be used for mixed use, ranging from residential up to commercial and industrial uses.

When The Island Guardian broke the story on this, the surrounding neighborhoods were taken by surprise, because the purchase agreements and contracts were discussed in executive sessions by the County and Kellsey South. Previous Story Many of the neighbors were not at all happy that their residential area, and the small gravel road that serves it, would be subject to possible industrial development, on small parcels located against there larger residential only parcels.

(continued from front page)

The land use designation for the surround area is residential Rural Farm Forest (RFF) and Rural Residential (RR), and this goes to the heart of the appeal, as stated by the Hearing Examiner in his Findings of Facts, that "Deborah Nash-Strasser (appellant) who lives on Lampard Road and is concerned with the change that potential development following the BLM will have on the rural character of the area. She noted that homes along Lampard are nearly all on lots of at least five acres, overlooking farmland and farms", and then quoted her concern "that potential development is likely to cause new traffic burdens on Lampard Road that will affect the access to her property and the access of her neighbors. She pointed out that the road is now a narrow country lane where pedestrian traffic is very common.

But Mrs. Nash-Strasser was not alone in her concerns. A number of local residents, in the Hearing Examiners words, "echoed the assertion that ‘cluster development' would be contrary to the character of the area, compromising views of a bucolic setting and increasing environmental impacts."

The Hearing Examiner did not, however, agree with the arguments, and ruled in favor of the County and Kellsey South.

With respect to the possible impacts on the roads and rural setting of the area by increased private and commercial traffic, he found that "The evidence does not establish that the BLM will ‘affect access' without the consent of affected parties. See SJCC 18.70.030(A)(1)(b). As used in the regulation the prohibited effect involves an impact that poses a significant impediment to access, such as the landlocking of property, not merely the incidental impact caused by a minor increase in traffic."

As to the claim that cluster development is the result of having compressed the lot lines from large lots, into small ones, the Examiner also did not agree, stating "It is arguable that building single-family residences on lots between 1.5 and 2.01 acres does not represent "cluster development" as that term is normally used. Whatever it is called, however, the critical point is that underlying zoning does not disallow it so long as the overall density is not increased" He did acknowledge that " Without doubt, whatever happens to the property in question will change the neighborhood. The neighbors do not want this, but change is affirmatively contemplated by the zoning. If there is a problem it is with the zoning. But the underlying land use designation cannot be changed by challenging this boundary line decision." .

The decision by the Examiner is that the administrative decision to approve the Boundary Line Modification is affirmed. The appeal is denied. If the neighbors what to continue the appeal at the next level, they will have to go to Superior Court, and to do so they will have to file an appeal within 21 days of the Hearing Examiner's decision.