EPRC Reviews Emergent Development Dilemmas

First in a two-part series

The rights of two Eastsound property owners to develop their property came before the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) at the monthly meeting on Sept. 2.

Orcas Rental and Saw owner Steve Pearson discussed the violation notice he’d received from the County Planning Department regarding “Craftsmen Corner LLC.”  According to the notice, Pearson’s use of this property, located on the corner of Enchanted Village Road and Lovers Lane, as a retail and garden store, is in violation of the county development and use laws for service-light industrial zones.

In the second case, residential property owners Don and Marian Gerard, represented by Francine Shaw for attorney Stephanie O’Day, are now seeking to build a third residence on their north shore property. The Gerards are claiming the same rights to accessory dwelling units as those accorded to similarly zoned property in the Aeroview and Grasylvania neighborhoods.

Orcas Power and Saw ( Craftsmen Corner LLC)

The August 3, 2010 notice sent by the County Development and Planning Department says that Orcas Power and Saw‘s use as a facility for equipment rental, prior to its Aug. 2009 application for a building permit was allowable. However, the addition to an “existing commercial building,” permitted last year, does not allow for the business’ “current use… as a home and garden retail store.”

Pearson told the EPRC  that the County has required him to either define the retail use as incidental or get a building permit review.

Because Craftsmen Corner’s total use area exceeds 10,000 square feet, Pearson says the County has encouraged him to “go ahead with a substantial storage option,” requiring the construction of an addition 1,300 square foot storage facility, “rather than spend all that money on attorneys so they can define the grey area of incidental use,” he told the EPRC.

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

The County’s Uniform Development Code (UDC) is interpreted by the head of the County Planning Department, Rene Beliveau, according to Senior County Planner Colin Maycock, who was in attendance at the EPTC meeting.

The EPRC discussed the continuing confusion in applying for, issuance of, and compliance with building permits.

EPRC Member Patty Miller said, “We keep getting real examples [of the permitting problem]. I appreciate why you don’t want to wait in your position; but I hate to see it get dropped and never get resolved if it doesn’t make sense.”

EPRC Member Cyde Duke agreed, “If there’s one thing we could do well for the community and the council and the people on the island, it’s bring this thing to rest so there’s a clear interpretation.”

In addition, Miller said, “The County been extremely inconsistent about how it communicates with the EPRC. We used to get packages with permit information; but we haven’t seen one in 6 or 8 months.

“When was the last time uses within zones was reviewed?” Miller continued. “It seems so dysfunctional, in that community changed so radically in last 15 years, but yet we haven’t looked at regulations to see if they’re staying in alignment.”

Homes for Islanders advocate John Campbell said that change of use is not tracked by the county; his point was clarified by Miller that the only use tracking, outside of a request for a new building permit, is by the public health department, as in the case for use by a restaurant.

OPAL Director Lisa Byers, former Chair of the EPRC, pointed out the previously EPRC was part of a pre-permit process, and that “there was a lot of value contributed by people who had memory of previous interpretations. It was a good service to prospective development.”

EPRC Chair Gulliver Rankin suggested that Beliveau be contact to see if the county is willing to set up pre-permit review.

Miller said, “If we as a community want these things, we as a community need to roll up our sleeves. Ninety percent of what’s being done for Eastsound is being done by Eastsound, rather than looking to [the county] for community development.”

(An article about the Gerard property will be posted Sept. 13.)