CARLSBORG — Nearby residents of a potential manufactured home park in Carlsborg look to stop development once again.
The Concerned Atterberry Neighbors, or CAN, and their attorneys with Bricklin & Newman filed a complaint and petition against developer Chris Anderson’s CA Homes Inc. and Clallam County in Kitsap County Superior Court on March 15.
Anderson sought to build 66 manufactured homes for residents 55 and older on about 8.66 acres of the 15.5 acres of land at the northeast corner of Atterberry and Hooker roads.
Opposition
The petition and complaint follow two-plus years of debates that eventually led to Clallam County Hearing Examiner Andrew Reeves approving the project Feb. 25.
CAN members have contested the project since 2017 for a number of reasons ranging from the development’s impact on threatened fish in Matriotti Creek to the buffer distance from the stream to an increase in traffic.
In their complaint, CAN’s attorneys list several alleged errors in Reeves’ decision, such as the classification for Matriotti Creek, allowed distances for wetland buffers, distance for widening Atterberry Road, the State Environmental Policy Act checklist, complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and many more.
CAN’s petition asks a judge to reverse Reeves’ decision, bring it back before him for consideration and award the group compensation and attorney’s fees/costs.
The initial Land Use Petition Act, LUPA, hearing is set for 2:30 p.m. April 26 in Kitsap County Superior Court.
Reconsideration
Reeves denied a reconsideration request by project opponent Stuart McColl on March 14 to add provisions into the approved binding site plan.
McColl said that the county’s code and the Americans with Disabilities Act require Hooker Road be widened as part of the development, and/or a sidewalk be added.
He also alleged that Anderson and county staff misrepresented the current condition of Hooker Road.
“Hooker Road like Atterberry Road was not required to be widened although Hooker Road is clearly under a higher traffic burden than Atterberry and with the added traffic from the proposed sub-division, the burden is worsened yet,” McColl wrote in his reconsideration request.
“Hooker Road is the major artery that connects this proposed sub-division and the rest of the neighborhood to the highway.”
McColl added that nearby residents “have a right to safe passage along Hooker Road” and that a paved shoulder be installed from Hooker Road to U.S. Highway 101.
He also claimed that Anderson “misrepresented that Hooker Road has a shoulder that led to the Administrator’s effort in not requiring the developer to widen Hooker Road as part of the approval process.”
However, Reeves said the county’s code doesn’t require Anderson to do projects on Hooker Road because it doesn’t provide access to the project site.
He added that he lacks “authority to adjudicate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal statute.”
Lastly, Reeves wrote in his denial that the “reconsideration request does not support a conclusion that an obvious legal error has occurred or a material factual issue has been overlooked that would change the previous decision.”
Previously, Reeves denied two versions of Anderson’s plans starting with a 73-home project in August 2017, and a similar 66-home project in July 2018.
He also denied county staff’s and Anderson’s reconsideration request last year, too.
________
Matthew Nash is a reporter with the Olympic Peninsula News Group, which is composed of Sound Publishing newspapers Peninsula Daily News, Sequim Gazette and Forks Forum. Reach him at mnash@sequimgazette.com.
