On April 15, the San Juan County Hearings Examiner, Phil Obrechts, denied the application for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial use for the Craftsman Corner property on the corner of Lovers Land and Enchanted Forest Road in Eastsound.
Orcas Power and Saw owner Steve Pearson had applied for the permit, and a hearing on the matter was held March 3, 2011. Pearson came before the Eastsound Planning Review Committee to discuss the matter in [intlink id=”9917″ type=”post”]Sept. 2010[/intlink], and the application was discussed at EPRC meetings on [intlink id=”11034″ type=”post”]Jan. 6 [/intlink]and [intlink id=”11174″ type=”post”]Jan. 20[/intlink], 2011.
In the Hearing Examiner’s findings issued last week,Olbrechts laid out the complexities of the “three buildings” referenced in the application:
- In April 2005, a building permit was issue to construct the “First Building.”
- In January 2010, a building permit was issued for the “Second Building,” an addition to the First Building; this “Second Building” is still not complete.
- In November 2010 a building permit application that is still pending was filed for a “Third Building.” That building has not started construction.
The conditional use permit requested would authorize “a commercial business composed of equipment rental and retail,” for the Third Building only, according to the Hearing Examiner’s decision. “The Third Building permit application cannot be approved without approval of the subject conditional use permit application.”
Olbrechts began the hearing with a ruling that he had no authority to address the development regulations. County planning staff recommended that the application be denied. Olbrechts wrote, “The conditional use permit has morphed into a soap box for all alleged past violations.”
Adina Cunningham, attorney, stated that project opposition is based upon issues pertaining to the current permit application. Its approval applies to the entire project site and the “proposed change in use involves all three buildings.”
Issuance of a conditional use permit requires a review of cumulative adverse impacts, Obrechts stated. He reported that “Ms. Cunningham focused upon the Eastsound Swale and noted that federal permits are required for the project due to its impacts upon the swale. [She] asserted that the Applicant cannot claim no significant adverse impacts without complying with federal permitting requirements. …She noted that the County missed some opportunities to apply the code and that now is the time and opportunity to mitigate the impact of not having buffers to a very important wetland, to mitigate the impacts of a road built within a wetland that shouldn’t have been.
“She is not asking that any buildings be torn down. She is asking that the wetland regulations since 2004 should be applied,” Olbrechts wrote in his decision, which can be viewed in its entirety at /sanjuanco.com/Docs/HearingExaminer/Decisions/2011/HEXD_121
Sadie Bailey addressed the hearing on March 3, saying that her primary objections are not regarding the building project itself, but the effects to the wetlands.
Erroll Speed also addressed the hearing, noting the lack of site plan and conditional use review and correcting the report by county staff regarding land use designations of the property, purchase of the property and installation of a well and water use on the property.
Scott Lancaster submitted a letter that cited denial of a previous development project “due to airport and wetland restrictions.” Lancaster also cited a discussion that indicated Pearson knew in 2007 that the Eastsound Sub-area Plan prohibited using the property for retail use, “and questioned whether selling chain saws, lawn mowers and generators was ancillary to renting a back hoe.”
Steve Emmes testified that “No opposition to the project arose until retail was considered, which would compete with the business of some project opponents,”Olbrecht wrote. Emmes also said “that it’s very difficult to know what is required for development since there are so many agencies involved.”
Curt Johnson, speaking on behalf of Pearson, said “that the Applicant had relied upon assurances for County staff and paid consultants that the development is code compliant.”
The Examiner agreed with Pearson that “prior permitting decisions should not be revisited.” He dismissed as irrelevant the failure to acquire provisional/site plan approval for the First and Second Buildings, “since those building permits have been approved. Along the same lines, the extensive evidence presented regarding incomplete applications, absence of inspections, after-the-fact permit approvals and the like are also not relevant to this application.”
However, he denied the conditional use permit for the Third Building, citing “noncompliance with Airport Overlay regulations.”
Pearson may appeal the decision to San Juan County Superior Court or to the Washington State Shorelines Hearing Board.
