Hearings Board Rejects Reconsideration

Well, the Hearings Board has rejected my Motion For Reconsideration on the Reconveyance matter.  Big surprise or, as the kids say on Facebook lol... (laugh out loud).

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...