County Council pushes controversial hearing examiner from job

A Snohomish County hearing examiner whose decisions on land use often angered the building community -- and even drew a rebuke from a Superior Court judge -- won't be in her job much longer.

The County Council earlier this month gave Barbara Dykes a $10,000 contract to allow her to finish work in August. Then her responsibilities will pass on to someone else.

"In the end, it wasn't a good fit for her," County Councilman Dave Somers said. "She seemed frustrated with PDS (the planning department) and with the council, and I think it was a time to make a change there."

Dykes, 51, couldn't be reached for comment Friday.

The council today is expected to extend a one-year-contract for the hearing examiner job to former Snohomish County deputy prosecuting attorney Millie Judge. Judge has served as a pro-tem hearing examiner since 2007. She will earn an annual salary of about $139,000.

Dykes was named hearing examiner in 2007. Before that, she worked as a Snohomish County deputy prosecuting attorney and helped write many of the laws she would later interpret as hearing examiner.

Her tenure was marked by a series of complex, contentious issues.

Though the development community strongly criticized her, Dykes also won the respect of people who believed she was one of the few officials willing to challenge county planners for being too lax with building rules.

Dykes made her biggest decision in 2008 by denying an application to build two radio towers outside Snohomish for use by KRKO radio, citing health concerns for nearby residents.

The County Council overturned her ruling and a Superior Court judge backed the council's decision.

The same year, she turned down a senior center's plan to build apartments near Warm Beach. In that decision, Dykes accused county planners of deliberately misreading the code in a way that allowed the group trying to build the apartments to unfairly transfer allowed building densities among different parcels. She later apologized for using such strong language.

Last year, her order requiring additional environmental studies on a 49-lot subdivision near Lake Goodwin ended up costing taxpayers money. The developers, called Lake Goodwin A Joint Venture, appealed, arguing they were being subjected to unjust delays and expense. In December, King County Superior Court judge Paris Kallas overruled Dykes' order, calling it "arbitrary and capricious, and illegal."

The developers later agreed to a $90,000 settlement.

Dykes had wanted more study because the developers were trying to build several other subdivisions on parcels adjacent to the one with 49 homes. In total, there would be hundreds of homes. Dykes reasoned that to be allowed to build the 49-home subdivision, the developers should be required to study impact of all the others.

Some on the County Council still believe the type of cumulative analysis for adjacent developments that Dykes requested should be part of county code. Council members recently began discussing draft legislation to change the code accordingly.



Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465; nhaglund@heraldnet.com.