Published: Sunday, November 15, 2009
Builders object to hearing examiner, but activists back her
Hearing examiner Barbara Dykes is never shy about stepping into controversies.
EVERETT — Ask some local home builders, and they’ll tell you they’re facing a bigger problem than the lousy economy.
In their eyes, the biggest obstacle is the Snohomish County official who rules on appeals from neighbors and environmental groups trying to block their projects.
That same official, hearing examiner Barbara Dykes, gets praise from many of the people who have opposed the developers’ plans.
The woman who’s been refereeing the tug-of-war between radically different visions for the county’s future admits she isn’t perfect. But she insists she is professional.
“I’ve made some mistakes in the past,” Dykes said last week. “I’m not here to obstruct people; I’m here to help them. If there’s a problem, I’m not going to turn a blind eye to it, that’s all.”
Some of the people who have fought large building projects have gripes of their own. They say county planners favor developers. A land-use attorney went even further. He accused County Executive Aaron Reardon’s office, which oversees the planning department, of letting developers bend the rules.
The County Council decided to form a task force last year to address the exasperation felt on all sides. Council members expect to have the group’s recommendations in the next month or two.
“I know that a number of the developers are not happy with the hearing examiner,” Councilman Dave Somers said. “I think it usually takes two to tango. There are probably some issues that can be resolved on both sides.”
In most cases, the hearing examiner’s decisions can be appealed to the council. Somers said that in some cases Dykes has overextended her authority. In others, she correctly struck down some “very strange interpretations of code” by county planners, he said.
The hearing examiner approves or denies applications and appeals for building projects. Other duties include rulings on code-enforcement, environmental-policy and licensing appeals.
The examiner position has existed in Snohomish County for three decades.
John E. Galt held the position for 22 years, starting in the late 1970s. During 22 years, he earned respect for being tough and fair.
“I had a very good reputation for toeing to the letter of the law,” said Galt, who now works as a part-time municipal examiner in about a dozen jurisdictions. “I wasn’t elected to be a policy-maker, I don’t think any hearing examiner is.”
Dykes was first appointed in mid-2007. Her tenure began during a busy period as appeals from the building boom were cresting. She also had several complex, controversial cases requiring extra time.
The biggest case involved an application to build two radio towers outside Snohomish for use by KRKO radio. Dykes denied approval. The county council overturned her ruling and a Superior Court judge backed the council’s decision.
When the County Council early this year appointed Dykes to another term through mid-2010, only Councilman Brian Sullivan voted against her.
“I like our hearing examiner, and I think she’s extremely qualified to do the job,” Sullivan said. “From time to time, the hearing examiners need to be reminded that they’re there to apply the law.”
A major concern of Sullivan’s was that Dykes accepted a South Korean study as evidence that AM radio towers increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Sullivan thought the study lacked credibility.
The radio towers remain a source of controversy. Two at the same site were toppled in an act of apparent sabotage in September.
Before becoming hearing examiner, Dykes spent 17 years as a deputy prosecuting attorney and had a hand in writing many of the county’s land-use codes. From 2003 to 2007, she was the chief civil deputy.
Developers have accused her of stacking the deck against them, making arbitrary decisions and not knowing how to do her job.
“This lack of predictability and lack of standards is by far the most daunting problem we’ve faced with the hearing-examiner process,” said Mike Pattison of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. “It may be our biggest challenge in the housing industry today in Snohomish County, maybe even more challenging than the current economic crisis.”
Well-intentioned developers who try to obey the rules have no idea what to expect, Pattison said.
A land-use attorney who has won several cases before the examiner said developers are angry with Dykes for a simple reason: Unlike some of her predecessors, she’s willing to stand up to them.
“It’s causing some backlash in the building industry because they’re not used to it,” said Seattle attorney David Bricklin.
The problem with the appeals process isn’t Dykes, Bricklin said, but the executive’s office’s oversight of county planners.
“It’s possible that if the executive branch isn’t faithfully applying the laws that the council passes, the examiner is going to call them on it,” Bricklin said.
Dykes said something similar in a written decision last year that prevented a senior center from expanding near Warm Beach. She accused county planners of deliberately misreading the code. She now regrets that criticism and has since apologized to planners and the County Council, she said.
Top county planning officials feel pressed from both sides: by developers who say they’re too strict and by others who say they’re too lax.
“We won’t send a project to the hearing examiner until we believe that it complies with the regulations,” said Tom Rowe, a planning department division manager.
Planners have had to make big adjustments to Dykes’ style because she applies a stricter interpretation of regulations, Rowe said.
“We have gone from spending a few hundred dollars in staff time preparing for hearings to spending thousands and thousands of dollars preparing for hearings” and following them through, he said.
While agreeing that her approach is different — she said “more critical”— Dykes was quick to note that many projects sail right through.
“There are lots of little guys out there,” she said. “They get their permits and they move on.”
The group working to smooth things out has been meeting monthly since June. It includes developers, a land-use attorney, county staff and members of the county planning commission.
The big news is that everybody’s talking. A comparison to group therapy isn’t far off, said Angela Day, the group’s chairwoman and a planning commission member. Day, a University of Washington doctoral student, has a background in resolving disputes between Hanford workers and their bosses.
Day doesn’t want to assign blame for the county’s permit pains, just get to the root problems.
“I think it’s conflict resolution,” she said. “There’s a lot of frustration on all sides.”
The group meets from 2 to 4 p.m. Friday at the county administration building in Everett.
Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465, nhaglund@heraldnet.com.
In their eyes, the biggest obstacle is the Snohomish County official who rules on appeals from neighbors and environmental groups trying to block their projects.
That same official, hearing examiner Barbara Dykes, gets praise from many of the people who have opposed the developers’ plans.
The woman who’s been refereeing the tug-of-war between radically different visions for the county’s future admits she isn’t perfect. But she insists she is professional.
“I’ve made some mistakes in the past,” Dykes said last week. “I’m not here to obstruct people; I’m here to help them. If there’s a problem, I’m not going to turn a blind eye to it, that’s all.”
Some of the people who have fought large building projects have gripes of their own. They say county planners favor developers. A land-use attorney went even further. He accused County Executive Aaron Reardon’s office, which oversees the planning department, of letting developers bend the rules.
The County Council decided to form a task force last year to address the exasperation felt on all sides. Council members expect to have the group’s recommendations in the next month or two.
“I know that a number of the developers are not happy with the hearing examiner,” Councilman Dave Somers said. “I think it usually takes two to tango. There are probably some issues that can be resolved on both sides.”
In most cases, the hearing examiner’s decisions can be appealed to the council. Somers said that in some cases Dykes has overextended her authority. In others, she correctly struck down some “very strange interpretations of code” by county planners, he said.
The hearing examiner approves or denies applications and appeals for building projects. Other duties include rulings on code-enforcement, environmental-policy and licensing appeals.
The examiner position has existed in Snohomish County for three decades.
John E. Galt held the position for 22 years, starting in the late 1970s. During 22 years, he earned respect for being tough and fair.
“I had a very good reputation for toeing to the letter of the law,” said Galt, who now works as a part-time municipal examiner in about a dozen jurisdictions. “I wasn’t elected to be a policy-maker, I don’t think any hearing examiner is.”
Dykes was first appointed in mid-2007. Her tenure began during a busy period as appeals from the building boom were cresting. She also had several complex, controversial cases requiring extra time.
The biggest case involved an application to build two radio towers outside Snohomish for use by KRKO radio. Dykes denied approval. The county council overturned her ruling and a Superior Court judge backed the council’s decision.
When the County Council early this year appointed Dykes to another term through mid-2010, only Councilman Brian Sullivan voted against her.
“I like our hearing examiner, and I think she’s extremely qualified to do the job,” Sullivan said. “From time to time, the hearing examiners need to be reminded that they’re there to apply the law.”
A major concern of Sullivan’s was that Dykes accepted a South Korean study as evidence that AM radio towers increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Sullivan thought the study lacked credibility.
The radio towers remain a source of controversy. Two at the same site were toppled in an act of apparent sabotage in September.
Before becoming hearing examiner, Dykes spent 17 years as a deputy prosecuting attorney and had a hand in writing many of the county’s land-use codes. From 2003 to 2007, she was the chief civil deputy.
Developers have accused her of stacking the deck against them, making arbitrary decisions and not knowing how to do her job.
“This lack of predictability and lack of standards is by far the most daunting problem we’ve faced with the hearing-examiner process,” said Mike Pattison of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. “It may be our biggest challenge in the housing industry today in Snohomish County, maybe even more challenging than the current economic crisis.”
Well-intentioned developers who try to obey the rules have no idea what to expect, Pattison said.
A land-use attorney who has won several cases before the examiner said developers are angry with Dykes for a simple reason: Unlike some of her predecessors, she’s willing to stand up to them.
“It’s causing some backlash in the building industry because they’re not used to it,” said Seattle attorney David Bricklin.
The problem with the appeals process isn’t Dykes, Bricklin said, but the executive’s office’s oversight of county planners.
“It’s possible that if the executive branch isn’t faithfully applying the laws that the council passes, the examiner is going to call them on it,” Bricklin said.
Dykes said something similar in a written decision last year that prevented a senior center from expanding near Warm Beach. She accused county planners of deliberately misreading the code. She now regrets that criticism and has since apologized to planners and the County Council, she said.
Top county planning officials feel pressed from both sides: by developers who say they’re too strict and by others who say they’re too lax.
“We won’t send a project to the hearing examiner until we believe that it complies with the regulations,” said Tom Rowe, a planning department division manager.
Planners have had to make big adjustments to Dykes’ style because she applies a stricter interpretation of regulations, Rowe said.
“We have gone from spending a few hundred dollars in staff time preparing for hearings to spending thousands and thousands of dollars preparing for hearings” and following them through, he said.
While agreeing that her approach is different — she said “more critical”— Dykes was quick to note that many projects sail right through.
“There are lots of little guys out there,” she said. “They get their permits and they move on.”
The group working to smooth things out has been meeting monthly since June. It includes developers, a land-use attorney, county staff and members of the county planning commission.
The big news is that everybody’s talking. A comparison to group therapy isn’t far off, said Angela Day, the group’s chairwoman and a planning commission member. Day, a University of Washington doctoral student, has a background in resolving disputes between Hanford workers and their bosses.
Day doesn’t want to assign blame for the county’s permit pains, just get to the root problems.
“I think it’s conflict resolution,” she said. “There’s a lot of frustration on all sides.”
The group meets from 2 to 4 p.m. Friday at the county administration building in Everett.
Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465, nhaglund@heraldnet.com.
Comments
(
