County fights “one size fits all” rural zoning.

The following story is important for shoreline homeowners because “one size fits all” has been the land use planning mantra of planners, activist groups and the Department of Ecology. However, the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act call for custom-tailored approaches to fit local conditions.

by Rob Ollikainen, Peninsula Daily News

Clallam County (the northernmost county on the Olympic Peninsula) has won a key battle in its long war over zoning.

The Western Washington Growth Management Act Hearings Board on Tuesday found the county’s rural zoning is valid and compliant with the Growth Management Act. Moreover, the board found the county’s amended limited areas of more intensive rural development, or LAMRIDs, are compliant.

“My office successfully argued to the growth board that Seattle special interest group Futurewise’s and local group Dry Creek Coalition’s ‘one size fits all’ approach to rural zoning failed to acknowledge the unique, local circumstances in rural Clallam County and ignored this county’s right to control its own future,” Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly said in a statement.

“This is an unprecedented win for private property owners in Washington state, where county after county in recent years has instead chosen to abandon the battlefield over rural lands and settle for one-dwelling-for-five-acres.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Rumor control: Do planners want your home to fall into Puget Sound?

by Ken Sethney, Chair, Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners

It is often said that COBI Planners — or Dept. of Ecology bureaucrats — or some evil, shadow government masterminds — want all shoreline properties to erode and all “nonconforming” homes to fall into the water.

That’s why they want to declare your home to be “nonconforming”. That’s why they don’t want you to build or repair a bulkhead. That’s why they don’t want you to build a dock, or plant a lawn or have garden with anything in it but “native plants”. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Sounds a bit paranoid, doesn’t it?

That’s what we thought until we received a copy of a presentation on nonconforming uses and structures delivered to local planners and consultants by Betty Renkor, Senior Shorelines Planner, Department of Ecology.

Homeowner scores win in bulkhead battle.

from Brian T. Hodges, Managing Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

The Washington Court of Appeals this week handed a major victory to a Lummi Island homeowner, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys, who has been blocked by county officials from protecting her home from shoreline erosion.

Vacating rulings by a trial court and by officials with Whatcom County, the Court of Appeals ordered that Victoria Luhrs be allowed to go back to trial court and demonstrate her contention that she needs a rock revetment to protect her home. If she can show this need, the appellate court held, then the county must permit her to build it immediately.

Hazardous trees are a dilemma for all concerned.

Our shoreline neighbor Don Flora offers his comments regarding the hazards posed by trees. Dr. Flora was formerly employed by the United States Forest Service, where he headed watershed studies research, including stream biology, riparian ecology and related subjects.

All trees will fall.

The Question is when and in what direction.

• The tree will fall in the direction it leans.
• If not there, toward the side with branches.
• If not there, the way the wind blows.
• If not there, downhill.

Planners must avoid unconstitutional taking of private property.

The Department of Ecology has a webpage that outlines the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) development process. One of the many links helps local planners avoid unconstitutional takings of private property with guidance from the Attorney General’s Office. Quoting the DOE web page…

[The AG's] Advisory Memorandum was developed to provide state agencies and local governments with a tool to assist them in the process of evaluating whether proposed regulatory or administrative actions may result in an unconstitutional taking of private property or raise substantive due process concerns.

The failure to fully consider these constitutional limits may result in regulatory activity that has the effect of appropriating private property even though that outcome may not have been intended. If a court concludes that private property has been “taken” by regulatory activity, it will order the payment of just compensation equal to the fair market value of the property that has been taken, together with costs and attorney fees. In other cases, a government regulation may be invalidated if it is found to violate constitutional substantive due process rights.

Shoreline moratorium lawsuit to be filed.

The following is an April 22 memo to the mayor and city council from Gary Tripp, Director, Bainbridge Defense Fund:

Bainbridge Defense Fund (a Washington non-profit) is assisting six plaintiffs, who will file a class action suit in Superior Court of the State of Washington against the City of Bainbridge Island for monetary damages arising from the Shoreline Moratorium Ordinances Nos. 2001-45, 2002-29, 2003-13, and 2003-34.

The plaintiffs will claim the Shoreline Moratorium prevented all waterfront property owners from constructing, or even submitting an application to construct over-water structures such as docks or piers or single-family protective bulkheads, access stairs, or other normal appurtenances, even exempt structures.

Bainbridge Island’s illegal taxes.

All of Bainbridge’s Open Space and NVZ (native vegetation zone) requirements are illegal taxes.
Opinion submitted by Gary Tripp, shoreline homeowner.

On March 3, the state Supreme Court rejected the appeal in the CAPR v King County case. King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance, required rural property owners to keep native vegetation on 50 to 65 percent of their land. The Court of Appeals said: saying the GMA “made me do it” is not an excuse for an illegal tax, saying the threatened Chinook and the ESA “made me do it” is not an excuse, and all open space requirements are illegal taxes unless they are for direct mitigation of use.

Before the City of Bainbridge Island can require individual property owners to provide open space, buffers or NVZ (native vegetation zones), the City must first show there is a deficiency.