EPRC Examines Gerards Efforts to Add 3^rd Residence

Second in the series [intlink id=”9917″ type=”post”]EPRC Reviews Emergent Development Dilemmas[/intlink]

The rights of residential property owners Don and Marian Gerard, represented by Francine Shaw for attorney Stephanie O’Day, to build a third residence on their Orcas’ North Shore property, came before the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) at its monthly meeting on Sept. 2.

“Asking for help and guidance from the EPRC,” Shaw explained that her clients are challenging the County’s rejection of their application to amend the Orcas Island Airport Overlay District on two fronts:

• appealing the County’s decision to deny  an amendment to the Airport Overlay District Zone to Superior Court and
• claiming the same rights to accessory dwelling units as similarly-zoned property in the Aeroview and Grasylvania neighborhoods observe.

The Gerards have sought to redesignate their property, located 300 feet northwest of runway 16 of the Port of Orcas airstrip, so that they can build one more residence. (Currently, the Gerards have two residences on their property, which is within zone 5 of the airport overlay district.) The owners would like to gift the lot and house upon their passing to their children.

Shaw said that the redesignation has been encumbered by development regulation layers:

• Eastsound Sub-area plan
• Airport overlay zone
• Critical Areas Ordinance
• Shoreline regulations

Their application to the county for a change in their subarea plan zoning was denied on a 4-2 vote. They have appealed to Superior Court to consider if there was an error in the application of county law. “We believe the [County] Comprehensive Plan has not been studied enough to deny the use of the property,” Shaw told the EPRC.

At the same time, the Gerards are applying for a land division, proposing a “potential text amendment,” to allow the same uses that are established in the Grasylvania and Aeroview subdivisions, that will allow a third residence to be built as an accessory dwelling unit. “By doing this you’re not creating unequal treatment in the code,” Shaw told the EPRC.

In discussion of the matter, the EPRC observed that the airport overlay district zone 5 prohibits new residential use, and the Aeroview and Grasylvania subdivisions were developed before the airport overlay zone was delineated.

EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin noted that the committee had taken the stand last June, when the issue was brought before the EPRC, that development should be “consistent with the airport overlay zoning.”

However, Shaw said that the suggested wording as an amendment to the Uniform Development Code (UDC) would equalize the Gerard property development plan within existing allowances. (Accessory Dwelling Units are allowed in Grasylvania and Aeroview).

If the Gerard property could be divided into three lots, with the third lot for a commercial use, then an accessory dwelling unit would be allowed, and the goal of adding one more residence to the Gerard property would be accomplished. In addition, allowing a commercial use, such as a hangar or a kayak rental facility, would add value to the property, would add value to property as a hangar, kayak rental, Shaw said.

EPRC member Fred Klein  said that in considering the restrictions on development in airport overlay zones, “in addition to flight safety issues… the primary basis for state law about protection of essential public facilities is the threats to small airports due to encroachment of residences and commercial uses… that [affects] the limits to noise and activity of airport.

“The State has said these are essential public facilities and need to be protected from encroachment by land usage regulations.  What you’re proposing would seem to create the kind of development that the airport overlay is specifically designed to discourage.”

Shaw responded, “There would only be one more residence… there’s no way more residences could be built around that airport; there are already two residences on the property; it’s already developed.“When you look at the specifics of the proposal and the way the code’s written, [to deny the text change] would suggest unequal treatment.”

EPRC Member Patty Miller said that, although “Grasylvania and Aeroview have been called out to allow accessory single family dwelling units…it’s immediately non-conforming in the existing language.”

Martha Farish, Eastsound property owner asked, “What are the interests of the public that need to be protected, and what are the interests of landowners? There ought to be a meeting of the minds.”

Miller suggested that the Gerards “Make the request more specific… for example, in reference to an airport hangar that would allow an accessory dwelling unit, in line with similarly zoned parcel areas.”

After further discussion of review of the Eastsound Sub-area Plan, the County UDC and the schedule for review by the County, Rankin advised that the EPRC would review the Gerard and Craftsmen Corner development projects on the agenda at a later date, “in terms of finding one comprehensive update to the Eastsound Sub-area plan that incorporates all inconsistencies to the Sub-areaPlan.”