SEAVIEW – The Seaview development in the dunes proposed by Mathew Doney continues to see-saw through the court system but, for the moment, Doney’s forward progress has met another roadblock.

Because developments on any coastal area in Washington require both a county permit and approval by the Shoreline Hearings Board, permits can be held up at either level.

In the case of this Doney development, the State Shoreline Hearings Board ruled on Oct. 19 that there was not sufficient property to comply with plat dimensions required by the Washington State Shoreline Master Program. The result of this ruling was that Doney’s building permit was “vacated;” in essence, the permit was terminated.

Doney requested a formal appeal to the Hearings Board for reconsideration of their decision; but the State Board has declined to take up this appeal.

According to Mike DeSimone, Pacific County director of the Department of Community Development, “The Shoreline Hearings Board rejected the Doney appeal saying that their original decision to vacate Doney’s permit was clear.”

Pacific County Prosecuting Attorney David Burke indicates that Doney has 21 days to file an appeal with the Washington State Superior Court on the Shoreline Hearings Board denial to reconsider the Doney building permit termination.

According to Frank Glenn, plaintiff for Friends of Seaview on the Doney development, Doney’s appeal for reconsideration would need to be filed with the Superior Court by Dec. 8. Friends of Seaview are waiting to see what Doney’s next move will be.

There are several scenarios which could definitively stop the currently stalled Doney development. Like a board game, there are many circuitous legal routes to take in this game of wits.

If an appeal to the Superior Court is not filed by Dec. 8, the vacated permit would stand. If the appeal is filed and the Superior Court chooses not to take up the issue, or if it rules in favor of upholding the Shoreline Hearings Board, Doney would be back to square one.

If either of these scenarios comes to pass, the Doney permit will be definitively revoked. In this case, if Doney chooses to continue with his development project, he would need to begin a new permitting process at the county level.

However, the permitting process for new developments is complicated by the dune building moratorium currently in effect in Seaview. DeSimone indicates that Doney could not reapply until after the Seaview development moratorium, instituted by Pacific County Commissioners, expires on Feb. 23.

Meanwhile, the public forums on how to resolve these building and development issues in the Seaview dunes continue to move forward.

DeSimone, one of the leaders of the public forum says, “We are on a tight time-line and our task is ambitious, but I think we are making good progress toward our two objectives of saving the dunes and keeping property owners financially whole.”

The next, and critical, public forum takes place on Dec. 10, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Peninsula Church Center in Seaview. DeSimone indicates that this will be a time to continue to refine the possible solutions for meeting the two stated objectives. County officials are anxious to receive public feedback on the solutions under consideration.

DeSimone thinks that ultimately the solution may involve moving the Upland Growth Boundary east and the setback west. Additionally, there is a smorgasbord of “tools” for handling the financial transfer of value in order to move building out of the designated rectangle.

The next public meeting will again be facilitated by Kelly Rupp. DeSimone indicates that their goal for the next meeting is to continue to discuss the options and to educate the public on the details of financial vehicles being considered. It is important to get a good turn-out so the county has a real sense of whether the solutions will fly.

Since the group most concerned with these issues is the 59 property owners whose land falls within the designated “rectangle,” DeSimone suggested that a short survey might be sent to those owners. “We want to hear from the Seaview property owners, not that we want to discount the ideas and opinions of others, but this is the group that will be most affected by a change in development boundaries.”

Members of the Ad Hoc Technical Team have been working hard between meetings to gather information and format it for public consumption. According to Daniel Farber, planner for the State Parks Department and a member of the Dunes Moratorium Ad Hoc Technical Team, “I am confident now that there are some real, legitimate choices folks will have that can meet our objectives at a reasonable cost. At the end of our last meeting, there was a round of applause and some really good feelings in the place. We are making excellent progress.”

The last meeting in mid-October generated a lengthy list of concerns, questions and suggestions from participants, all of which were addressed or will be addressed by members of the Technical Team, a group that is providing expertise and support for the discussion process.

As Farber says, “There are legitimate concerns, but there was also a lot of hope expressed at our last meeting.”

This moratorium on Seaview dunes development has provided a chance for the Seaview property owners and other interested peninsula residents to reopen a discussion about the long-standing issues of development in the dunes.

Everyone involved is hoping that this time the community can come to a definitive agreement on development and put into place financial instruments that provide for value transfer in the affected areas.

If consensus can be reached by Feb. 23, if the new policy is clear, and if our County Commissioners take an appropriate enforcement role, perhaps we can take back control of our land and get these disputes out of the state courts.