ONE INCH, ONE MIL

Public Hearing, Wednesday June 25, 2008 7PM:

In Ruston "they call the wind cabala". After the argument for the lost view was diminished by the lower grade (21 feet) resulting in an improved view with the house on lot 12 a bizarre argument against the proposal was floated; the additional house would block the wind, the evening breeze off the bay would go elsewhere. Where is elsewhere was not divulged.

Let us remember two years ago a presentation was made to the town with a VIEW CORRIDOR and was voted down 3-2. Bradley Huson was chairman of the Planning Commission which approved the plan.The three NO VIEW votes were: Wayne Stebner, Bob Everding and Mary Joyce. One vote on the other side we would have a view corridor and people living on Stack Hill today.

It started with the town Special Legal Counsel clearing the playing field with questions and answers with the town council:

1- Do you own or have any interest in the development? All no.

2- Do you stand to lose/gain any financial benefit in the development? All no.

3- Can you be fair in an objective manner? All yes.

4- Have you had any ex parte communications with applicant. All yes, responding liason, conversations, e-mails and photos from Commercial street resident.

5- Will your ability to vote impartially be impaired? All no.

6- Any public disclosure at this time? All no. No mention of any secret meetings in violation of Open Meetings Act.

Then followed the Point Ruston attorney Bill Lind explaining the legal requirements of the developer and the town. The town's authority is limited by: dedications, reasonableness, impact mitigating, open space must be lawful and reasonable, expenditure related to development, manufacturing to houses improved views, town must not burden but benefit development and development causes infill under Growth Management Act. Very well presented and enlightening.

Gary Petersen presented Preliminary Plat for Point Ruston, request to amend development plan not final plat. Amendment was to split lot 12 into two lots with setbacks consistent with Ruston zoning code. Elevation Stack Hill 134' North side, 138' south side, 136' view corridor to 115' lowered grade, roof elevation was lowered from 166' to 145' improving view and public benefit, proportionality and reducing financial loss. Removal of smelter stack on lot 12 caused assessor to change from no view to limited view.

Council time consisted of legalese from Dan which began to numb my brain and I recall none of it. Brad wanted to impress with his prior Planning Commission information and launched into an attack on the preliminary plat on special features he wants changed. I wrote down three:

1- Something about principle structure type.

2- Interior streets being less than rest of town,

3- All houses to cover only 38 percent of total space.

Man alive, here we go again back to 2006, a do over. Claimed Stack Hill development was "just another part of Ruston!" But to Brad's credit when Wayne opted for another study session Brad said two and a half years were enough and he would put the amended preliminary plat on the agenda for July 7th regular council meeting for an up or down vote. Let's be positive I know what you are thinking, here we go again, see final paragraph.

Public comments against the preliminary plat amendment tended to be on the emotional side, reduced view loss of breeze. For comments emphasized Stack Hill brought hope. Views were actually improved with lower grade and stack removal. One comment directed at Bradley and the council emphasized that Stack Hill was not just another part of Ruston but an upscale development and all roads were internal to the development and not through roads. Move forward.

Now the grade has been lowered 21 feet and with the view with house is better than before. Win, win or? The town is on precarious legal grounds here; a $500,000 lot plus legal fees if they don't get it right. On one side two or three home owners who say they need their one inch view. On the other side the rest of us who will foot the one million dollar bill for the lawsuit.

In my opinion the view is improved and the view corridor would be an unreasonable taking of property which the courts have come down hard on. A lawsuit would be devastating to the town. Common sense, remember the Ballet lawsuit vs. the Commencement where the odds of the town winning were zero and none but they spent $70,000 dollars proving the odds were zero and none. They don't always listen to logic and reason.

Believe me the breeze will always be with us and the funneling may improve it also. GIVE AN INCH OR GIVE A MIL?