EatonvilleNews

Town Spanked Again, This Time by Hearings Board
Ordinance 2006-6 Deemed Invalid: - "Defects, Discrepancies, Ambiguities, Flaws and Inconsistencies" by Town Found - Safety of Pilots and General Public Disregarded...

by Dixie A. Walter
December 22, 2006 December 22, 2006

    For the second time in about five weeks, the town council, planners and attorneys have been proven incorrect by two state bodies after hearing two separate issues. The first, in mid-November, was the *State Court of Appeals overturning the dismissal of a Superior Court trial regarding the alleged illegal sale of Van Eaton Park. This suit was brought by Steve Van Cleve, citizen, commercial pilot, former chair of planning commission and former council member.
      The latest is a decision, regarding the airport and Ordinance 2006-6, by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board stating in their **synopsis that the town's "...adoption of its general aviation development regulations was ***clearly erroneous. The adopted regulations were internally inconsistent, did not comply with its own Plan policies and did not comply with RCW 36.704A.1310(1), RCW 36.70A.510 and RCW 36.70.547.
      "Further, the Town's disregard for aviation safety, as expressed in Ordinance 2006-6, caused the Board to enter a determination of invalidity.
       The hearings board also points out that the petitioners, WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) - Aviation Division and the FAA commented on the Town's proposed development regulations, noting serious incompatibility and height encroachment concerns that endangered aviation and posed safety concerns to the general public...Nonetheless, the Town completely ignored the concerns voiced by Petitioners and the agencies charged with aviation safety and adopted the proposed regulations without amendment or revisions."

A Little Background

Ordinance 2006-6, a lengthy document, was approved by a vote of four to one by the Eatonville Town Council February 27, 2006, Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted "No" on the ordinance.

Excerpt from Council February 27 Agenda...

A. Ordinance 2006-6 amending the Eatonville Municipal Code by establishing development regulations at and adjacent to the Eatonville Airport - Swanson Field - creating new sections 18.04.185 and .187 of the municipal code, and repealing existing section 18.04.185 and Ordinance 94-06 §2, 1994 (Second reading) (This was a public hearing although it was not stated as such on the preliminary or final agendas. After lengthy discussion the council voted to pass this ordinance with Councilmember Allison voting "No.")

The Petitioners

      Stephen Pruitt, a planning commissioner at the time, and Steven Van Cleve, acting pro se [without an attorney] petitioned the hearings board March 23, 2006 for a review "challenging the Town of Eatonville's adoption of Ordinance 2006-6 amending the Town's development regulations related to the Town of Eatonville Airport - Swanson Field. The Town had been working on such regulations for an extended period of time.
      "In April 2006, the Board held a prehearing conference...in June 2006, the parties requested and were granted a 90-day settlement extension to provide time for them to resolve their dispute. The Board received one status report, indicating although two meetings had been held, the disagreement had not been resolved.
      "On November 6, 2006, the Board held a HOM (Hearing of the Merits meeting)..." Pruitt, Van Cleve, Mayor Tom Smallwood and Town Planning Consultant Mart Kask (author of the ordinance) attend the HOM, as did Town Attorney Bob Mack and Attorney Edward G. Hudson who also represented the Town.
       The "burden of proof" was on the petitioners to "demonstrate that the actions taken by the Town of Eatonville are not in compliance with the goals and requirements of the GMA (Growth Management Act) RCW 36.70A.320(2)."

Read More "Town Spanked"

For the Entire Decision Please see Hearings Board Decision



	*Town* Spanked Again, This Time by Hearings Board Ordinance 2006-6 Deemed Invalid: - "Defects, Discrepancies, Ambiguities, Flaws and Inconsistencies" by Town Found - Safety of Pilots and General Public Disregarded... by Dixie A. Walter December 22, 2006 December 22, 2006 For the second time in about five weeks, the town council, planners and attorneys have been proven incorrect by two state bodies after hearing two separate issues. The first, in mid-November, was the State Court of Appeals overturning the dismissal of a Superior Court trial regarding the alleged illegal sale of Van Eaton Park. This suit was brought by Steve Van Cleve, citizen, commercial pilot, former chair of planning commission and former council member. The latest is a decision, regarding the airport and Ordinance 2006-6, by the Central Puget Sound Growth* Management Hearings Board stating in their synopsis that the town's "...adoption of its general aviation development regulations was clearly erroneous. The adopted regulations were internally inconsistent, did not comply* with its own Plan policies and did not comply with RCW 36.704A.1310(1), RCW 36.70A.510 and RCW 36.70.547. "Further, the Town's disregard for aviation safety, as expressed in Ordinance 2006-6, caused the Board to enter a determination of invalidity. The hearings board also points out that the petitioners, WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) - Aviation Division and the FAA commented on the Town's proposed development regulations, noting serious incompatibility and height encroachment concerns that endangered aviation and posed safety concerns to the general public...Nonetheless, the Town completely ignored the concerns voiced by Petitioners and the agencies charged with aviation safety and adopted the proposed regulations without amendment or revisions." *A Little Background* Ordinance 2006-6, a lengthy document, was approved by a vote of four to one by the Eatonville Town Council February 27, 2006, Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted "No" on the ordinance. Excerpt from Council February 27 Agenda... A. Ordinance 2006-6 amending the Eatonville Municipal Code by establishing development regulations at and adjacent to the Eatonville Airport - Swanson Field - creating new sections 18.04.185 and .187 of the municipal code, and repealing existing section 18.04.185 and Ordinance 94-06 §2, 1994 (Second reading) (This was a public hearing although it was not stated as such on the preliminary or final agendas. After lengthy discussion the council voted to pass this ordinance with Councilmember Allison voting "No.") The Petitioners *Stephen Pruitt, a planning commissioner at the time, and Steven Van Cleve, acting pro se* [without an attorney] petitioned the hearings board March 23, 2006 for a review "challenging the Town of Eatonville's adoption of Ordinance 2006-6 amending the Town's development regulations related to the Town of Eatonville Airport - Swanson Field. The Town had been working on such regulations for an extended period of time. "In April 2006, the Board held a prehearing conference...in June 2006, the parties requested and were granted a 90-day settlement extension to provide time for them to resolve their dispute. The Board received one status report, indicating although two meetings had been held, the disagreement had not been resolved. "On November 6, 2006, the Board held a HOM (Hearing of the Merits meeting)..." Pruitt, Van Cleve, Mayor Tom Smallwood and Town Planning Consultant Mart Kask (author of the ordinance) attend the HOM, as did Town Attorney Bob Mack and Attorney Edward G. Hudson who also represented the Town. The "burden of proof" was on the petitioners to "demonstrate that the actions taken by the Town of Eatonville are not in compliance with the goals and requirements of the GMA (Growth Management Act) RCW 36.70A.320(2)." Read More "Town Spanked" For the Entire Decision Please see Hearings Board Decision** Back to Top Back to Front Page		Now is the time





	© 2002 Eatonvillenews.net We Care!