It's hardly a secret that Whatcom County Council members Laurie Caskey Schreiber and Carl Weimer have giant targets painted on their backs by angry local property rights activists (Citizens Alliance for Property Rights -- a BIAWC and Realtor supported group) who claim shorelines buffers and critical areas buffers enacted by the Whatcom County Council are limiting a property owner's ability to use their land.
But is it really the county council's fault?
The Shorelines Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) are statutes adopted by the Washington State Legislature. The Department of Ecology and Commerce Department are empowered by the Washington State Legislature to draft and adopt rules based on the legislative intent of the two acts.
Summary: The Departments of Ecology and Commerce are in the process of issuing new guidance and policies on how local governments can deal with critical areas in the shorelines.
Recently, two state Republican lawmakers drafted a letter asking the AGO to issue an opinion to determine if the department's proposed guidance for local governments to take additional actions to protect critical areas goes beyond what is required by state law. This action, Representative Jan Angel (R-26th) Port Orchard, asserts, is adding tremendous costs to citizens and local governments.
Angel believes that current and proposed departmental guidance is contrary to legal authority, and she has written the AGO in order to determine if her understanding of the issue is incorrect or, if these agencies are acting in defiance of legal authority.
Background: The shorelines issue centers around which jurisdiction takes precedence in setting shoreline rules and buffers: the state's Shorelines Management Act or the Growth Management Act (GMA). GMA governs "critical areas" which the Department of Ecology contends should cover some shorelines with generally more restrictive rules. Both laws have been in conflict and the subject of litigation involving Kitsap County's shoreline buffer zones. However, Angel says the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the Shoreline Management Act is the governing jurisdiction for the state's shorelines.
Now, she says, without legislative authority, the Department of Ecology has issued "interim guidance" and is developing new policies on how governments can deal with critical areas within the shorelines.
"The Department of Ecology wants to come in and add more guidelines that would result in conflicting policies beyond those outlined in the state's Shorelines Management Act. This will really muddy up things and result in more litigation involving state agencies, local governments and shoreline property owners," said Angel, who serves as ranking Republican on the House Local Government and Housing Committee. "This is a waste of taxpayers' money. The state Supreme Court made it clear last year that the Shoreline Management Act takes precedence. The Department of Ecology needs to adhere to that ruling, which is the prevailing law."
Angel says the Department of Ecology's new policies would have the critical area ordinances (CAOs) apply as the prevailing law, which in Kitsap County seeks to increase shoreline buffers by as much as 150 feet or more.
"Ecology keeps giving direction that I believe is in question. We're asking it to cease and desist, as well as the Department of Commerce which oversees the Growth Management Act and implementation of the CAOs," said Angel. "Rather than wasting time, resources and taxpayers' dollars, the Department of Ecology needs to accept the high court's ruling that the state's shorelines, including those in Pierce and Kitsap counties, are governed by the Shoreline Management Act."
In addition to letters to the departments of Ecology and Commerce, Angel has sent a letter to state Attorney General Rob McKenna asking whether the agencies are "acting in defiance of legal authority" by issuing the new guidance and policies.
All three letters are also co-signed by Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, who serves as House Republican deputy leader. Copies were also supplied to the governor's office.
Angel says whatever rules are applied will have widespread effects to those who live, work and own property along Pierce and Kitsap counties' hundreds of miles of shorelines.
"When we get into the question of shoreline buffers, it affects home ownership, personal and commercial property, and development rights. It puts property owners in huge limbo. These laws could affect whether they could expand an existing home or build a new home," said Angel. "The Shorelines Management Act recognizes the importance of allowing people to work and play along Washington's shorelines. It gives the ability under certain criteria for restaurants, businesses, marinas and docks to be built along with other limited development within those areas. CAOs, on the other hand, are generally more restrictive and may prohibit such activities.
"Ecology is going too far by giving opinions, which I don't believe it has the legal right to do. I think we need to let the shoreline master program control the shorelines, without new guidance from the departments, until the Legislature provides further direction on the issue," Angel concluded.
It's nice to know that Representatives Angel and Kretz, (Kretz is the Republican Deputy Leader) have taken the time to request clarification.
Hopefully, the local property rights activists can settle down until we can get an answer to Angel's question from the AGO.
Supporting documents:
Letter to Department of Ecology: http://hrc.leg.wa.gov/Angel/newsroom/EcologyCAOLetter.pdf
Letter to Department of Commerce: http://hrc.leg.wa.gov/Angel/newsroom/Commerce-CAOLetter.pdf
Letter to Attorney General Rob McKenna:
http://hrc.leg.wa.gov/Angel/newsroom/AG-CAOLetter.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment