Discrepancies in regulations, review and permitting noted

A large gathering of 21 public members and county staff, in addition to the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) heard at length of the failures in the County’s permitting process at the committee’s regular meeting on Jan. 6 last week. The focus was on the Craftsman Corner development, Steve Pearson’s Power and Saw equipment rental store, at the corner of Lovers Lane and Enchanted Forest Road.

The information on Craftsman Corner was sent to the EPRC on Dec. 3, with a due date of Dec. 27 for their review comments. EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin said there is “still a problem” with getting timely communications from County officials.”

EPRC members Bob Connell and Peg Manning were unable to attend the Jan. 6 meeting. EPRC member Terri Williams left the meeting at the  request of Errol Speed, who said that her involvement in the matter created a conflict of interest in the discussion. (Earlier, Williams had recused herself from the matter, and asked if anyone had an objection to her remaining in the room for the discussion).

Craftsman Corner is zoned “service light industrial,” is a category 2 wetland, and is in the airport overlay district: therefore it comes under County Development and Planning, Port of Orcas and Department of Ecology considerations.

In reviewing the project, Rankin noted that the original letter from the County Planning Department, in May 2005, was “a picture-perfect response from the building department to any applicant.”

The current argument about Craftsman Corner arises from the 2009 construction of an additional building on the site and its use as a retail store. In September 2010, [intlink id=”9917″ type=”post”]Pearson came to the EPRC[/intlink], informing them that in order to receive approval for the addition, he was adding 10,000 sq. ft. of building so that he may be granted a conditional use permit. (The Conditional Use permit application is scheduled to go before the Hearings Examiner on Feb. 3.)

When asked to present his case at the Jan. 6 meeting, Pearson referred to his September presentation. Prior to that, County Planners wrote that the 2009 building addition to an “existing commercial building,”  was not an allowable business use; that the original permit does not allow for the business’ “current use… as a home and garden retail store.”

Pearson told the EPRC in September that the County has encouraged him to “go ahead with a substantial storage option,” requiring the construction of an additional storage facility, “rather than spend all that money on attorneys so they can define the grey area of incidental use.”

Pearson also commented on the requirements for outside storage and display, “I’m willing to screen whatever needs to be screened: how do you define that?”

At the January 6 meeting, Errol Speed gave a 40-minute presentation that was critical of the Craftsman project and the County and EPRC process in reviewing and granting permits.

Speed’s remarks included various aspects of the project, including:

  • Aesthetics
  • Parking
  • Offstreet loading
  • Traffic safety
  • Propane tank storage and screening
  • Accessory buildings
  • Wetland setbacks
  • Stormwater
  • Rental equipment washdown
  • Border zoning

Phase 2 of Craftsman Corner (the 2009 building) currently does not have a permitted use.

Among other criticisms, Speed noted that the EPRC had “apparently missed the deadline on the SEPA plan of Dec. 22…. That’s your responsibility to look over the environmental criteria.”

Speed said that the county’s review of the SEPA checklist requested no added information, and “didn’t correct anything; that’s a problem for me. The process is apparently broken. By making a determination of non-significance (DNS) quickly, the administrator didn’t allow the EPRC adequate time to review and submit recommendations.”

Following Speed’s statement, EPRC member Fred Klein asked, “What would you like to see as a preferred outcome of this?”

Speed answered, “I challenge anyone here — as far as the factual basis in which I presented my information – who sees anything incorrect, to come to me. I’d like to see something appropriate to service light industrial “boundary” zone; to protect patterns of use in the  zone; something that meets the requirements of the code, especially as it [the Craftsman Corner development] faces village residential.

“This [project]is five years down the road.”

EPRC member Clyde Duke spoke of “the challenge of timing we have before us; [the EPRC] has not formally reviewed the project. We have to learn from mistakes; moving forward, it comes back to the structure of how the county and ourselves deal with things in a realistic time frame.

“The County has already sent out information; it’s hard for them to go back; how do you make it work after the fact?”

Speed suggested, “Remove the portable buildings.”

Sadie Bailey, who lives in the Lavender Hollow apartment buildings nearby, said, “The more I learn today, the more incredulous I am.” Bailey mentioned her concerns with the buildings’ screening and visibility … “I’d like someone to review that.”

Bailey said that she had called Rene Believeau (Planning Department head) last July, who reportedly answered her concerns by saying that any noncompliant use would “go away if it doesn’t meet code.”

Bailey asked, “Why do you let building continue if it’s not meeting code? Where do the people who live in and love Eastsound count? If your purpose is to advise the planning department and planning commission and county council… I think the permit process is appalling.”

Scott Lancaster, owner of Ace Hardware asked the EPRC  what would happen with information Speed gave the committee, and was told that the matter would be continued at an additional EPRC meeting this month, scheduled for Jan. 20.

Lancaster also spoke to the environmental impacts of traffic and parking, as well as height and use issues: “There is no indication of what the actual use will end up being. I believe that should be a problem for all of us.

“The whole idea of the UGA [Urban Growth Area] is a concentrated area within the village where growth and commerce is supposed to be. There’s a definite plan as to why light industrial and residential should be on the outskirts.

“The County has made serious errors in the course of the last five years in what they’ve allowed Steve [Pearson] to do.”

Pearson will have the opportunity to respond to the comments at the Jan. 20 meeting.

Paul Kamin, Eastsound Water Users Association General Manager was asked how his office, across the street from Craftsman Corner has been impacted by the development, and responded, “Steve’s been a bonus to us as far as delivering services, as for the architecture, I appreciate his  efforts to design a building. I personally don’t have a lot of issues, and I haven’t heard from neighbors that they do.”

EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin said that, in going through the code compliance officer’s questions and how Craftsman Corner impacts others, that the Fire Marshal, while stating that the propane tank was “not within his purview as a fire issue,” also said that he “doesn’t see the storage tank as a significant risk.”

The airport district had requested that the propane tank be buried, Rankin said.

The EPRC will put together a list of questions to send to Planning Department before they advise the Hearing Examiner as to questions that have arisen. The Craftsman Corner matter is scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on Feb. 3.

**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**