|
|
|
|
|
HHA Op-Ed
Regarding Proposed 2006 RES Code Changes - August 2006 The Hollywood Hill
Association (HHA), which celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, has about
400 members, all of which are residents or landowners in Rural unincorporated
King County. The HHA has been defending “rural character” since
before GMA, Farmland Preservation Programs and before such clear lines were
drawn between urban and rural. While our community is
large and quite diverse, we recognize that the totality of Rural King County
expands considerably on this diversity. It is in the interest of the
long-term vitality, indeed the very survival, of what we call Rural King
County that we seek to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our land use
codes and zoning while respecting our broad diversity. A cornerstone to such
effective administration lies in wielding as light a regulatory hand as
possible on uses of private property. But, if we are to continue to enjoy a rural
character in parts of our county, we must defend it from densities and
activities that are inconsistent with that character. The HHA finds that,
while the RES proposal’s fundamental intent of loosening restrictions
on small home-based enterprises is commendable, and some of the concepts have
merit, several of the proposed changes go well beyond this goal and are
likely to allow commercial development which would have serious negative
impacts on the rural character of our communities. These proposals would also
reduce requirements for manufacturing and retail business proposals to show
compatibility with pre-existing neighboring uses. The HHA has these
specific recommendations: ·
Slow down and solicit more citizen input on these proposals from
across the county. ·
Keep Conditional Use Permit requirements in place for new commercial
uses. This is an accepted process to keep new uses in sync with the
neighborhood and infrastructure. It also allows for citizens inputs to the
process. ·
Keep square foot limits on interior area useable for
“activities”. If any further increases are deemed appropriate,
they should be tied to lot size. ·
Clarify part time employees and issues of total employees. Consider
referencing total employees to lot size. ·
Maintain limitations on nuisance
activities. ·
Vehicle storage limitations may be relaxed, but the amendment allowing
unlimited vehicle storage should not be adopted. ·
Maintain codes protecting our farmlands from uses that would drive their
prices above agricultural prices. ·
Changes of this magnitude need to be evaluated through a SEPA review.
This is the only opportunity to analyze the environmental effects of such
broad based changes. ·
Effects on traffic and infrastructure need to be more carefully
considered in all cases. Thank you for your
consideration of these points. Michael Tanksley Michael Tanksley |
|
|
|
Proposed
Code Changes Threaten Farms and Rural Neighborhoods
The proposals are
referred to as the “2006 Rural Economic
Strategies” (RES). While the RES’s initial intent of loosening restrictions on
small home-based enterprises is commendable, several of the proposed changes
go well beyond this reasonable goal and are likely to allow large scale
commercial development across This action constitutes a
serious assault on citizens’ ability to defend our property rights from
infringement by activities that degrade our private property and our
communities. The RES
goes on to remove limits on nuisance activities, such as noise and activities
that “cause visual or audible interference with radios, TVs or
electronic equipment off-site.” It removes most restrictions on the
number of employees a home-based business can have. And one amendment would
allow unlimited vehicle storage on rural lots. Keep in mind that these policies
apply to residential neighborhoods as well as farmland. The RES
proposal creates a loophole allowing unlimited square footage if commercial
facilities are located in structures more than 5 years old. It is so vague
that this could apply to everything from backyard garages to greenhouse
complexes. And the time requirement is rolling, which means that someone
might build a structure, call it a barn, wait 5 years and convert it into a
factory, legal under this new code. You can view the full
text of these and other proposed RES changes at: We were led to believe
that the study period for the RES would extend
through the end of this year and that there would be opportunities for
citizen inputs. Instead, there seems to be an attempt to rush this to the
county council for a vote. The process should be
slowed down and more citizen input should be considered. If you wish to comment,
the primary Our council members
contact info can be found at: Michael Tanksley Hollywood Hill Association |
