Hearing Examiner Denies North Shore Site Plans
It’s been a long time since we’ve talked about the North Shore Golf Course and the potential of it turning into 366 single family houses and 494 townhomes. Well, something has happened! The folks at SaveNETacoma.org announced that the Hearing Examiner has denied the preliminary plat and and site plans submitted by the developer. Now it goes to the City Council.
Read the Hearing Examiner’s:
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS.
Link to SaveNETacoma.org
Via The News Tribune
Filed under: General
1 comments
C captiveyak January 9, 2010
I’ve read quite a few Hearing Examiner’s reports since moving to Washington. This is perhaps the most well-reasoned and thoroughly deft that I’ve come across.
Unless there is a change to the character of the community, it can be said with certainty that this Plat will not stand another chance, in any form whatsoever. There is a chance that a judicial decision could overturn this one in the future, but it is relatively unlikely.
The golf course owners are left with few alternatives. I’m not sure what the current pay structure is at that course, but adopting some kind of Country Club system in order to fund improvements would probably be the best option. If the surrounding community wants the golf course to stay, they should not object to investing in its viability. Another option would be to vacate the course and convey it to the Homeowners Association, which is done in many plats for landscape and open space tracts. Of course, they’d be losing tremendous amounts of money. Another option might be for the City to make the Course a Public Park, and maintain it themselves. To save money, they could whittle it down to a nine-hole course with a $6 entry fee; the remaining acreage could be converted to off-leash dog park or play areas (since the examiner noted that athletic facilities are not needed in the area).
The benefit of investing in a Country Club style improvement scheme would be that the owners could increase the course’s attractiveness to potential purchasers. I’m not sure if this fee strategy was built into the original real estate transactions for lot sales the way it is these days, and it might be hard or impossible to do so retroactively — but just the same, if the golf course is to remain in golf course form, homeowners should not be averse (in principle) to paying some small annual fee for the privilege or bordering it.
The issue is really not a question of public good. The decision makes not attempt to weigh the value of open space against development. Instead, it addresses the fundamental issue:
“This is because the effect of approving the proposed plat would be
to alter the primary condition of approval for the surrounding plats. The approval of the plats was a part of the master planning process. Keeping the golf course as open space was a condition of approval for the plats, as well as of the PRD rezone.”
As a surveyor, I always keep in mind that “you cannot sell what you do not own.” While simplistic in nature, this mantra has serious land use implications. This case is a very solid example.
I heartily applaud the examiner’s decision as a protection of the fundamental principles of land ownership.