On June 5, 2013, Westport Cold, LLC submitted an application to the City of Westport for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with Rezone to reclassify property from Mixed Use Tourist Commercial 2 (MUTC 2) to Marine Industrial (MI) for the site of the company’s new building on the corner of N. Nyhus Street and E. Lamb Avenue, along with 40 feet of vacated Harms Street.
Council considers larger area
After considering the application, response from abutting property owners and a recommendation for rezone approval by the Westport Planning Commission, the City Council remanded the issue back to the Commission to develop further findings and consider whether a larger area should be included in the rezone.
The larger area under consideration covers a total of 14 lots, including all but three lots in the northeast corner of the block that is bound by Nyhus Street, Bay Avenue, Lamb Avenue and Harms Street, as well as four lots on the southwest corner of Lamb and Harms.
Public Hearing
The Westport Planning Commission held a public hearing at its regular monthly meeting on March 17 to hear public testimony regarding the updated proposal to rezone. With a turnout at the hearing of upwards of 20, several individuals spoke against not only the original rezoning request, but also the proposed addition of more area.
Glenacres Inn co-owners/operators, Steve and Leslie Irving, have lead the charge against the proposed rezone since last fall. They own properties adjacent to, as well as near the area under consideration.
“Our view is that this questionable proposal should at a minimum be balanced by an effort to find other directions to accommodate industrial growth,” Steve Irving said prior to the public hearing.
“A bigger root of our concern though, is that the proposal isn’t driven by any particular need, other than to maneuver around procedural objections we’ve raised about how Westport Cold’s development on Lamb Avenue was permitted ahead of needed rezoning from MUTC-2 (Mixed Use/Tourist Commercial) to Marine Industrial. Essential considerations about buffering between adjoining MUTC-2 properties were accordingly not addressed,” he said.
Letters of protest
The Irvings engaged the services of Olympia attorney Jay Goldstein to prepare a letter outlining their objections to the original proposal in the fall of 2013, as well as a second letter dated Dec. 2, in response to the proposed additional areas.
The Dec. 2 letter to the City says, in part, that the Irvings “…do not disagree that more industrial space may be needed in Westport. However, carving a new industrial area in the heart of an area that, by the City’s own admission, is trending towards more residential and tourism uses, is not the solution to this problem. Instead, the City needs to follow the outlines of the Comprehensive Plan and locate an area that can be properly buffered so that the industrial uses do not interfere with surrounding properties.”
The attorney’s letter cites the Irvings’ strong opposition to the proposed rezoning based on the following arguments:
• Proposed rezone contradicts the City’ Comprehensive plan
According to the letter: “As the Staff Report on the previous rezoning proposal noted, the Comprehensive Plan requires buffering to avoid industrial uses from impacts to other uses. Expanding the rezoning will only increase the properties that are potentially affected by this proposal. The new proposal does nothing to buffer the existing Mixed-Use Commercial properties from the increased effects on that area associated with these industrial uses.”
• Rezone proposal inconsistent with General Development
“Any rezoning of this area for industrial uses is inconsistent with general development of the area. The City’s own staff report for the initial proposal noted that the area is becoming more tourist and residential oriented— and consequently, less industrial. As such, the City and Planning Commission should be protecting these uses rather than attempting to include industrial uses that are fundamentally incompatible with residential and tourism uses,” the letter says.
• Illegal spot-zoning claim
Goldstein’s letter says, in part, “Zoning merely for the benefit of one or a few, and which is in conflict with the comprehensive zoning plan, is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.
“The City has indeed singled out a particular parcel from a larger area for special zoning. That the City is attempting to avoid this conflict by simply asking more people to sign up for this zoning change, and one which is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, does not cure this failure.”
Rezone recommend
Following the hearing, three planning commission members voted in favor of forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to include the added area to the rezone request, with one member abstaining.
Irving says that he is currently working on a appeal of the Commission’s decision.
Appeals
Appeals may be made to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision on March 17, with that deadline set for tomorrow, Friday, March 27 at 5 p.m.
The application materials are available for review at Westport City Hall located at 604 North Montesano St.
Next step
The issue is expected to be on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled Westport City Council meeting set for Monday, March 30, at 7 p.m. at Old City Hall.
