Keep in mind, the Board did not listen to argument and rule on whether the County was out of compliance with the law... the Board simply dodged jurisdiction on a matter dear to the hearts of at least some board members and, thus, as I would paraphrase the Board's clear intent, "Too hot to handle."
Here's an example of the issues I brought up in the Motion for Reconsideration:
Issue #5
The way the Board’s citation of
Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.43.150 is handled is very disturbing to anyone
depending on the judiciary for interpretation of the law. On this
issue alone the Board should reverse itself and accept jurisdiction.
On page 8, line 27 the Board cites County Code 20.43.154, a
conditional use, with emphasis on the quote, “Operation of dispersed, primitive recreational facilities…” The
Board’s quote stops at that point.
In full, 20.43.154 reads, “.154 Operation
of dispersed, primitive recreational facilities including tent campgrounds,
game reserves, developed trailheads with parking for more than 30 vehicles, but
excluding uses such as community
centers, riding academies, off-road vehicle parks, parks, marinas, camping clubs, institutional camps and recreational
vehicle and travel trailer parks.” (Emphasis added)
How can a Board with any concern
for rational legal analysis find that “Operation of dispersed, primitive
recreational facilities,” is a determinative phrase demonstrating that (page 9, line 9 and 10)County
Code allows “park uses within commercial forestry districts,” while a plain
reading of the phrase in the exact same section and following, “excluding uses
such as…”… “…parks…” does not exclude parks?
On page 9, lines 9 and 10 the Board comments that “The Board finds
a challenge to the land uses allowed in the Commercial Forestry District would
be untimely as the County’s development regulations were adopted and not
appealed years ago. What part of the
plain language reading of the law excluding parks from the CF zone is
petitioner missing? Had the Board
allowed briefing the Board would have learned that nearly every other zone
contained in Whatcom County Code, including the Airport zone, provides for
trails, trailheads and other park like facilities. Only the CF zone explicitly excludes
“parks.” That exclusion was indeed
adopted and not appealed years ago and that exclusion was included because of
the special place Resource lands have in law.
And the Board doesn’t have jurisdiction?
Is this the kind of partial quote and twisted logic the Board
wants future participants in the growth management process to view as
precedent? Is this the kind of
argumentation the Board wants to see in future PFR’s?
I'll have more on this in the future but, for now, the Reconveyance Challenge is dead and gone. I could take the thing to Superior Court but that would cost me at least a couple of thousand dollars in fees and (because I would have to pay the Hearings Board to make multiple copies of the hundreds of pages of documentation submitted in the case), copying costs. I see more benefit to be had in other approaches.
For now, I'm signing off...
