CITY REBUFFS PORT CONTENTIONS

Attorney Kathleen Haggard (center) advising City to proceed
with rezoning at 4/18/11 City of Shelton Commission Meeting

CITY LAWYER IMPRESSES

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price Mason County Progressive

For years the City of Shelton has been working to rezone 160 acres near the Port of Shelton from commercial/industrial to neighborhood/residential, pursuant to the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

During that time, the Port of Shelton has exercised its right to resist that rezone. The Port's objection to the rezone has come down to a question of noise. The City hired experts to address the concerns of the Port. The City's experts investigated the Port of Shelton concerns, and confirmed to the City that the problem(s), as set forth the by the Port, do not exist
.
The City, at it's regular meeting on April 18, 2011, stood ready to vote on the rezone, identified as Ordinance No.1784-0411. In a last ditch effort to delay the process, yet another of the Port of Shelton's attorneys weighed in.

One Eric S. Laschever, of Stoel Rives, LLP, Seattle, Washington, sent a letter to City of Shelton Attorney Kathleen Haggard requesting that the City request an extension of the time established by the Growth Management Hearings Board in it's Final Decision and Order dated October 27, 2010. The deadline the Growth Management Hearings Board established was April 25, 2011, and was for "Compliance due on identified areas of noncompliance", to-wit: The noise question.

As noted above, the noise question was addressed by the experts hired by the City, which experts provided testimony at a recent public hearing in connection with the proposed rezone. The gist of the letter from the Port's attorney was that "consultation" had not occurred between the Port and the City. This is a recurring theme in complaints of the Port, that the City has not engaged in consultation with the Port. Not only is this statement untrue, the Growth Management Hearings Board itself noted at page 33 of 41, in their Final Decision and Order, the following:

"Public participation and consultation occurred. The Board cannot conclude the City 'disregarded' concerns expressed as alleged by the Petitioner." (Port of Shelton being the Petitioner.)

The Board further noted, at page 39:

"The Board concluded the City provided various opportunities for public participation, FORMALLY CONSULTED WITH THE AIRPORT COMMUNITY, and considered the comments/information received when it engaged in the final decision-making process; thus non-compliance was not found." (Emphasis mine.)

Notwithstanding these pretty clear statements by the Growth Management Hearings Board, on Monday April 18, the Port's attorney requested the City itself ask for an extension of the deadline of April 25, 2011, established by the Board, so that the Port and City might engage in consultation; which consultation the Port continues to allege has not occurred.

City Attorney Kathleen Haggard, quite rightly and most articulately, advised the City of Shelton to proceed. The City Attorney said it better, but put simply, she said the Port's attorney was wrong and the City was entitled to proceed.

From a citizen's perspective, the Port's attorney was not only wrong, but he was wasting his time, the Port's money, the City Attorneys' time, and the City's money, by rehashing the same old previously refuted argument: The argument that the City of Shelton did not engage in consultation with the Port of Shelton in connection with the project.

The deadline for compliance remains April 25, 2011.

The City has complied.

The Port lost this one; they need to get over it.

Photo by Christine

SHELTON BLOG NOTE:

City of Shelton Commission Meeting tonight
Monday, April 25, at 6:00 PM, at Civic Center
Second reading & adoption of rezone ordinance