— from Kyle Carver, Orcas Island —
We’re all ready for a new Exchange. It’s been a vital part of our community moving towards a zero waste goal. But the current relocation plan doesn’t add up. The Exchange should remain where it is. The transfer station is zoned “Rural Industrial” for a reason – you don’t put a recycling center in the middle of an existing neighborhood. Also, why create a situation where people have to make two stops to get rid of their waste? Then a possible third stop if The Exchange refuses to accept an item for various reasons. That was the beauty of the old Exchange, one-stop shopping (and dumping).
We live across from the proposed Exchange site. Our property is one of four 30-acre parcels that have Land Bank easements. We were not looking for Land Bank property, but after careful consideration, we understood the importance of protecting our farmlands. The parcels can never be split up and the fields will always be preserved for agriculture. Allowing a business like The Exchange, that involves so much industry and traffic, sets a bad precedence for this part of the island. This would create the largest commercial impact this area has ever experienced. We already have a place where The Exchange can be rebuilt, and it has successfully operated there for years.
The current San Juan county zoning lists the proposed site as “Agricultural Resource”, allowing one unit per 20-acres. Contrary to the ORS website, the proposed property is not grandfathered. The previous covenant for this property expired in 2001. Relocating The Exchange would change this section of the island forever. The amount of traffic would vastly increase, as well as the noise and light pollution from cars, trucks and the day-to-day workings of the business. This footprint will never get smaller, or quieter. Next door to the site, the Old Trout Inn has been in business for almost 25 years. It’s website entices travelers to “Escape to Tranquility”. It’s hard to believe that over 5,000 community users of The Exchange won’t disrupt this tranquility.
The environmental impact is also a huge concern. The potential for pollutants alone should be enough to prevent this experiment. The proposed site sits directly across the road from three wetland ponds and the confluence of two streams that feed the pond located between The Old Trout Inn and the proposed site. The stream then travels through the West Sound Watershed that feeds the West Sound aquifer. Let’s remember that the old Exchange created a huge amount of pollutants when it burned.
This is a big deal. There are valid concerns about the current condition of the proposed property, but bringing in an island-wide service center with the corresponding traffic is not the answer to cleaning up this site. Over 5,000 local residents will be using this recycling and composting center, not to mention all of the tourist traffic. The Exchange should remain located next to the transfer station, in the established “Rural Industrial” zone. Why relocate something that has worked for years at the risk of changing our island forever? Why stress the flow of traffic for another section of our island? The Exchange is an incredible resource for our community and it already has a great location.
We love The Exchange, in fact maybe a little too much. It’s run by a great group of people that are a part of what keeps this community energetic and viable. We are unconditional supporters of The Exchange (at the transfer station) and we’re excited for it to be re-opened. Let’s keep Crow Valley agricultural and The Exchange in its current location!
Oh dear, our first NIMBY… I don’t think that all 5,000 Islanders will converge on the Exchange at once if that is what you are worried about — and I’m not sure why you think tourists will be going there either — but maybe the new location will give us reason to be careful of the land. Merry
Just because someone sees something that doesn’t make a lick of sense and voices their opinion about it doesn’t make them a nimby. If there are logical and important issues that need to be addressed (and it sounds as though there are several as the author points out) about relocating the Exchange then instead of immediately calling people names maybe you should respond to them. I didn’t see where he stated that “all 5000 islanders will converge on the Exchange at once”. Nice try to misquote him, but… fail.
Carlson tried to get a permit for a Rental Storage facility there years ago and was refused.
There is also a cell Phone Tower permitted there.
The County has stated that there is no existing Grandfathered Commercial use.
Mr. Carver states very valid reasons for considering the quality of life factors and the reasons for keeping it centralized/Zoning at the transfer station as it has been for so many years.
How about we get all the facts straight and leave the personal attacks out of the equation and meanwhile temper the emotional juggernaut behind the drive for a bigger is better proposition.
If you rebuild it, they will come….
The Carlson site is designated Ag Resource which is intended for agricultural uses, not commercial/industrial uses such as the Exchange. The existing use of the Carlson property is legal nonconforming because the use was allowed under regulations that no longer apply. An expansion or change of use, such as the proposed Exchange, must be made conforming to the existing regulations. A correct application of the land use regulations would require a zone change, which is a long and complicated process. The transfer station is designated Rural Industrial which is appropriately zoned to allow the Exchange. Aside from the legal challenges of relocating the Exchange to an Ag Resource designation, it just makes sense that the Exchange be centrally located adjacent to the transfer station in order to coincide with trips to the dump and minimize multiple trips to different locations. Other than the transfer station, the industrial zoned areas in Eastsound would also be appropriately zoned and centrally located.
I thank Mr. Carver for his well thought out letter and hope that the Exchange board rethinks its poorly conceived idea to relocate the Exchange.
Jeff Otis summarizes the pertinent issues very well, has the perspective of someone with twenty five years of experience in dealing with land use designations in SJC, and is a planning professional in the true sense of the word.
The ORS Board would be wise to heed his counsel.
A point of clarification: “The County” has NOT stated that there is no existing Grandfathered Commercial use. “The County has not spoken, and for good reason. It has nothing before it to consider and therefore it has nothing to decide. Statements made by County personnel in response to unknown hypotheticals posed by persons who do not own the land and have no knowledge of future plans have no force in law.
Therefore the County has also NOT stated there is an actual Legally allowable Grandfathered use permitted at this time contrary to what is being stated by ORS.
Exactly. The County has not yet ruled on an application or issued a finding about the parcel, and the comments to the contrary are inaccurate.
I’m with Kyle Carver and Jeff Otis.
Put The Exchange back where it was. That’s the most economical, convenient, and ecological solution to the problem of our “missing Exchange.”