Results of WWGMHB Compliance Hearing January 28, 2009 in Sequim
The Compliance Hearing found that the Laird’s East and West LAMIRDs were non-compliant and scheduled another compliance hearing in 180 days.
This compliance order directed further Clallam County actions to meet compliance.
The WWGMHB compliance order is found at the following : http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/western/decisions/2007/07-2-0018cDryCreekComplianceOrder20090130.pdf
Issues:
1. DCC Objects to Clallam County lack of GMA required definition of existing development as of 1 July 1990 regarding the type, scale, size, use and intensity. Without this definition by the County, a developer could request a development permit for a new saw mill or a Super Wal*Mart at the site of the Wagner Store in Laird LAMIRD East. This would violate the GMA State Law requirement that the new development be similar to the type, scale, size, use and intensity that existed on July 1, 1990. This has not been resolved.
2. The WWGMHB declared that Clallam County Ordinance required changing to remove the “prior to” wording from Ordinance 827 and Resolution 77, 2008. DCC contended that this wording allowed designation of a LAMIRD development on any land in the County, since a pile of logs, stacked at a location and sold to a commercial activity at any time since the mid-1800’s would qualify as a LAMIRD. The GMA law is clear in stating that development of an activity on a LAMIRD must be of the type, scale,size, use and intensity of structured activity existing on July 1, 1990. Prior to is not recognized in the law.
3. The land area of Laird LAMIRD East was reduced by 50 acres by the Hearing Board. The boundaries of the LAMIRD were not properly drawn by the County. Laird East and West issues start at page 16 of the referenced Order.
DCC has filed a new petition for further clarification of issues contained above. It is felt that unless County Ordinances and development regulations fully define requirements of the GMA, there will be two long term problems for land use in Clallam County:
1. Future developments will, without adequate definition of type, scale, size, use and intensity of activities existing on July 1, 1990, slip through the administrative system at Department of Community Development, creating adverse impact upon existing landowners without recourse. The Crown Pacific sawmill development being an excellent example, a Heavy Industrial activity was dropped into the middle of a Rural Conservation Character zoned, low density, residential neighborhood. Existing landowners were just “out of luck.”
2. Clallam County has failed to develop specific development regulations and zoning uses which match surrounding property land uses, the result is chaos and unpredictable property owner issues.
As an example: Failure to maintain 4.8 acre rural character densities , a requirement of the State Legislatures GMA law, has resulted iin Clallam County being directed to rezone land from R2 to R5 or other downzoned categories. The result of this is that many landowners are now upset over reduced development densities on their land. This would not have occurred if the County had followed State GMA law. Current efforts at “fixing” this situation are tremendous and expensive and could have been avoided if Clallam County had adhered to the spirit of GMA law.
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks •