Correcting Strom Peterson on Land-Use appeals

Today in the Beacon, I read an interesting exchange, and unfortunately, I now have to correct Strom Peterson's statements on land-use appeals. Once again, I am sorry this appears negative, but facts are facts.

First, I will repeat the relevant portions of the exchange titled "Bellevue West, here we come!":

George Murray: He [Strom] did vote to block citizens from the right to appeal certain land-use decisions.

Councilman Strom Peterson: Regarding land-use decisions: Again, Mr. Murray is wrong. Citizens have the right to appeal land-use decisions and the council can better represent the people of Edmonds on these issues.

Mr. Peterson is actually the one who is wrong. Ordinance 3736 removed the citizen's ability to appeal certain land-use decisions to the council, including variances. Thanks to Mr. Peterson and three other council members, a developer can now apply for a variance to waive setbacks, height limits, and environmental regulations without fear of a hearing before the council.

Arguments were taken before the council on 5/26/09, where Mr. Peterson refused to vote in favor of allowing the public to appeal land-use decisions to the council.

In the council minutes of 6/2/09 on page 13, the council passed the final ordinance taking your right to appeal certain land-use decisions away, with Mr. Peterson voting for it. Here's the actual text:

UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED 4-2, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, WAMBOLT AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.

Mr. Peterson's decision to block citizens from the right to appeal certain land-use decisions before council also cost him the endorsement of the Herald. Their words are:

Buckshnis, a longtime community volunteer, critcizes the majority of council, including Peterson, for its “Chapter 20” vote in June regarding shoreline development and variences. The change means that appeals will be decided by a Hearing Examiner rather than the City Council. We agree with Buckshnis that those sorts of appeals are exactly the important type of decisions that the council should make.

Mr. Peterson's statement "the council can better represent the people of Edmonds on these issues" floors me. If Mr. Peterson felt this way, why didn't he vote to let you appeal land-use decisions to the council, so the council can represent the people.

Mr Peterson, rather than denying what you did, you should accept responsibility for it and explain why you took our rights away.

And once again, sorry to all for appearing negative, but truth is truth.