The Home Trust should not be required to make additional frontage improvements to the duplex development on Holli Place, according to the July 20 Hearings Examiner decision.

Development plans began precovid, and the Home Trust then was told the only improvements they needed to do were along Price Street. However, as homeowners were set to move in, issues were discovered with the original site plan.

“The town has always been under the impression that it was not subdividing,” Ryan Ericson, the town’s Community Planning and Development Director, testified at the July 17 Hearing Examiner Hearing,

With that impression, the Home Trust was granted multiple development permits. Under the correct site plan, sidewalks, street lights and other improvements would be required. Since the work was already done, such improvements would require ripping out work including landscaping and fiberoptics. Estimated costs have been estimated to be $200,000.

The Home Trust appealed Ericson’s decision to the Town Council and applied for a variance. Homeowners testified to the council they did not want such improvements and loved their neighborhood without streetlights. Those sentiments were reiterated to the Hearings Examiner.

“I love the neighborhood,” Molly Dent testified, “I don’t want improvements, no lights, any of it. I grew up in the neighborhood. It has always been quiet.” She added that, like many homeowners, not being able to close on her home has been not just stressful, but a real hardship, and that she had lost financing as a result.

To alow the homeowners to move in while the issue was sorted out, Ericson worked to get the homeowners temporary occupancy permit. Some of the homeowners may not have had anywhere to go at such short notice, since they were expecting to be able to live in their new homes.

The Home Trust argued before the Hearigngs Examiner that the town had violated its own codes by forcing the improvements and questioned whether the town could add new conditions after previous permits were approved.

“This case is a head scratcher, It should never have gotten to this point. Why the town wants this on an insignificant dead-end street is puzzling,” Dan Grauzs, attorney for the Home Trust told the Hearings Examiner.

Hillary Evans, attorney for the town, argued that although the previous permits were approved, they were not final, and were not considered final until the occupancy permits were approved. The town expressed concern that by allowing The Home Trust to develop without the frontage improvements would open the gates for other developers to argue against such requirements.

Evans also argued that an approval stamp implicitly indicates the permit is approved on the basis code is followed. This stamp was dubbed the “Magic Stamp.” The Examiner disagreed, he wrote in his decision, for several reasons.

First, he found that the stamp in question as intended to apply to buildings, not site development. “Every listed regulation except the generic catch-all “FHMC” entry pertains to structures which are subject to building/construction permit requirements,” he wrote.

Second, the Friday Harbor Municipal Code provides that, when required, frontage improvements are to be completed or bonded for completion before approval of a Binding Site Plan. The decision states “SP, Chapter 15.06 Site Plan, or issuance of a building permit. The Chapter 15.06 Site Plan and the four building permits have been approved (and the four buildings essentially finished). It is too late now to impose frontage improvement requirements.”

Third, the Hearings Examiner found that the “Magic Stamp” is intended to protect the town from unscrupulous builders who might claim that if a regulatory requirement isn’t expressly shown on a plan detail, it is not applicable. “For example, code-compliant wall stud spacing applies as required by the codes even if framing details are not depicted on a building plan set,” he wrote, adding “The “Magic Stamp” allows the Town to require compliance with the regulation as construction progresses even if that detail is not shown on the approved building plans.”

And finally, the Examiner wrote that the “Magic Stamp” doesn not allow conditions to be imposed after the plans have been approved and construction essentially completed. “The notion that Planning can impose new conditions on a building project at the time it makes its final inspection before issuing a C of O is the antithesis of fairness and contrary to the principle of finality,” The decision states. “Washington appellate courts ‘recognize[] a strong public policy supporting administrative finality in land use decisions.’ Once a municipality has issued a land use permit, that permit is binding on the municipality to the same extent as it is on all other persons.”

He clarified that should a municipality decides it erred in approval of a permit, it must file an appeal within the statutory time limit for doing so, which according to statute is 21 days after issuance of the permit or approval. In this case, the town did not appeal and therefore cannot now change those permits as issued.

The Examner held that additional frontage improvements for finalization waived and The design Standards Variance is moot and need not be pursued.

The town has 10 days to request a judicial review, which would be heard in Superior Court.

“We are anxious to refocus on our real mission of providing permanently affordable housing to island residents,” Jim Goetz said, Board President said. “We look forward to continuing to work with the town on our ongoing and future developments.”