No duplexes in Warm Beach

Washington Court of Appeals upheld Snohomish County Superior Court’s interpretation of Snohomish County code and their decision to prohibit 27 duplexes from being built on substandard lots in Warm Beach, near the community park on 94th Street.

The decision was filed last Monday, and closed a two-year civil battle. Community organizations Warm Beach Stewards and 7- Lakes argued the code didn’t allow duplexes, and property owners Brock Baker, Ralph Johnson, William Stoops and Daniel Wickstrom argued duplexes were allowed.

The ruling is quite clear: “The fact that duplexes are a permitted use on legal nonconforming lots in the R-5 zone does not modify the dimensional requirements to which lots must conform in order to be eligible for development. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on declaratory judgment that duplexes are not allowed in the R-5 (Rural 5 Acre) zone on lots smaller than 200,000 square feet (five acres).”

Leon Sams, chairman of Warm Beach Stewards, said he was extremely pleased with the court’s decision. He gave credit to Bob Landles, whom he said spent over a month working with attorneys on the appeals case.

“We’re not trying to stop building or take away property rights,” he continued, “but planning and development services didn’t follow codes adopted by county council and the voters.”

Because of this, Sams said, “Planning and development services has a history of causing property owners grief, and they’re causing developers grief, too.”

“They’re not doing the job taxpayers are paying them to do,” he concluded.

The “shenanigans,” Sams said, began in April 2008, when the property owners submitted building permit applications for 27 duplexes to Snohomish County.

The property was platted a hundred years ago, Sams said, and divided into “vacation” lots 30 feet wide. It eventually ended up in the hands of the four property owners, who combined the lots and applied for the duplex permits.

FROM PAGE A1

In Sams’ mind, the code was clear — no duplexes on substandard lots.

Baker and the others backed their requests by referring to a section of amended code that allows for the development of single-family dwellings on substandard lots (less than 200,000 square feet) in an R-5 zone, under certain conditions. The amendment doesn’t mention allowances for duplexes on substandard lots. When combined with the fact that there isn’t anything implicitly wrong with building a duplex in an R-5 zone, Baker interpreted the code to mean he was free of restrictions, which only applied to single-family dwellings.

The Snohomish County planning director at the time, Craig Ladiser, agreed with Baker’s interpretation and allowed the permits to be reviewed, claiming, Sams said, “there was a loop-hole in county building codes big enough to drive a semitruck through.”

Ellen Hiatt Watson, with 7-Lakes, disagreed.

According to court documents, Watson filed suit against Snohomish County in July 2008, asking the court to rule the planning department’s interpretation of the code was “erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious.”

According to code, “the intent and function of the R-5 zone is to maintain rural character in areas that lack urban services.”

Watson and 7-Lakes didn’t feel that 27 duplexes maintained rural character. Neither did Sams and Warm Beach Stewards, and they joined the fight.

In April 2009, the court ruled the code clearly stated “duplexes are not allowed on lots smaller than 200,000 square feet.”

Baker and the others appealed, claiming the code at least created an ambiguity, referring again to the “loophole.”

Last week, Sams and his group at last claimed a victory with the appeals court ruling.

“The fact that duplexes are a permitted use in the R-5 zone does not modify the requirement that a lot must be at least 200,000 square feet in order to have a duplex on it,” the ruling confirmed. “The code is not ambiguous. The only reasonable interpretation is that it prohibits development of duplexes on substandard lots.”

Tom Rowe, division manager of Snohomish County’s planning and development services, said “We’re pleased the decision removes any ambiguity in the code.”

Sams is happy with the outcome, too, but he said this case is merely “further evidence that the Snohomish County planning department has created mayhem for common citizens in our county by approving illegal projects.”

Once they are approved, he continued, “The burden of proof and costs is carried by groups like Warm Beach Stewards and 7-Lakes. Our two groups have spent thousands of dollars doing the job the planning department is hired to do.”

Staff Reporter Jeremiah O’Hagan: 629-8066 ext. 125 or ohagan@scnews. com.