Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant asks Skagit County to urge planning staff to drop objection to motion to intervene in Overlook Crest shoreline hearing
Summary
An appellant asked commissioners to have county planning staff withdraw their objection to her motion to intervene in a pre-decision hearing on Overlook Crest shoreline permits, saying recent procedural-rule changes now require a motion to intervene and that appellants have an expert witness addressing stormwater impacts on Big Lake.
Jen Edelstein told the Board of County Commissioners during public comment on Feb. 3 that she and other appellants in the Overlook Crest shoreline permit matter have filed motions to intervene in an upcoming pre-decision hearing before Hearing Examiner Majumdar and asked the board to have planning staff withdraw its objection to those motions.
Under the new rules the hearing examiner adopted Dec. 16, Edelstein said, parties who previously could participate as a matter of right are now required to file a motion to intervene. "Because of your adoption of mister Muzumdar's rules of procedure in mid December, I am now required to file a motion to intervene rather than to simply participate as a party like the applicant and the planning department do," she said.
Edelstein said the applicant has taken no position and that planning staff have objected to the appellants' motions on the ground that appellants are "not aggrieved" and that staff will adequately represent public interests. She asked the commissioners to review the objection and to ask staff either to provide a clear legal reason for opposing intervention or to withdraw the objection so appellants can proceed. "Please help us get a chance to effectively make our case at the next hearing," she said, noting appellants have an expert witness in stormwater matters.
A commissioner responded that staff will be asked to watch the recording and to respond to Edelstein.
Edelstein raised concerns that planning staff recommended approval without fully considering the new stormwater discharge's impact on Big Lake. She asked the board to require staff to explain and, if appropriate, to support the appellants' motion to intervene so the appellants can participate in scheduling, discovery and other pre-hearing procedures.
The hearing schedule, the hearing examiner’s written rules adopted Dec. 16 and planning staff’s written objection were discussed during the public comment; no board action on the matter was recorded during the Feb. 3 meeting.
