A Gig Harbor hearing examiner denied an application last week to amend the city’s Height Restriction Area map.
The failed rezone, applied for by Pioneer and Stinson, LLC, would have removed 2 acres of property at 3700 Grandview St., where the current height restriction map limits structures to 16 feet. The rezone, denied June 16, would have allowed structures to reach up to 35 feet in height.
The application passed three of the four requirements for a rezone, including comprehensive plan objectives and provisions that dealt with current views of the bay, Mount Rainier or the Tacoma Narrows, or an adverse affect on views for adjacent properties.
However, the third criterion requires no land within 100 feet of the property in question to have a slope of 5 percent or greater toward Gig Harbor Bay, Mount Rainier or the Puget Sound Narrows.
The property failed that test, the hearing examiner said.
A prior application for the same Height Restriction Area map from Bennett/SFS, LLC, had a different result. The previous hearing examiner ruled the language regarding slope of “land within 100 feet” of the property was ambiguous.
Margaret Klockars disagreed with the previous ruling and said that, since the land in question exceeds the 5 percent slope grade toward the view, the application does not fulfill necessary criterion for an amendment to the rezone.
“Case law is clear that, unless the language is ambiguous, that is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations, it must be presumed that the legislative body, the City Council in this case, meant exactly what it said and the provision must be applied as written,” Klockars wrote in her decision.
Developer Carl Halsan, with legal representative William Lynn, went before the hearing examiner earlier this month.
Pioneer and Stinson can request an appeal through the hearing examiner. Reconsideration would go through the Gig Harbor City Council, planning director Tom Dolan said.
Lynn said Monday via e-mail that his client hadn’t decided whether or not to appeal.
Dolan said it’s too early to comment on the decision, since the appeals process has yet to begin.
Print
E-Mail