A controversial plan for a recreational vehicle park in Woodland has cleared its latest legal hurdle following denial of an appeal over the development.
City council largely doesn’t agree with the development but can’t do much because of the process, they say.
During its Aug. 2 meeting, the Woodland City Council voted 5-1 to deny an appeal over a key permit that would allow the establishment of the Belmont RV Park off of Belmont Loop. The appeal follows an initial approval by Woodland’s contracted hearings examiner Joe Turner in March and a hearing on the appeal in June.
If built, the park would feature 67 RV lots with full utility hookups on 3.69 acres, including an office building, showers, laundry and a recreation area.
At the Aug. 2 meeting, council authorized the signing of a final decision on the denial, though they had agreed on the decision two weeks earlier. During that vote, councilors voiced their opposition to the park based on a number of grounds laid out by the appellants including incompatibility with nearby businesses. If built, the park would neighbor a daycare, veterinary hospital, homebuilder offices and an automotive repair shop.
Regardless, the councilors ultimately denied the appeal on the basis their decision hinged on whether or not Turner had misapplied existing law in his own decision.
“We are not hearing a rezone and we are not being asked whether we like this project or not, and the fact of the matter is that the applicant has a piece of property here and he is developing it for an allowed use,” Councilor Benjamin Fredricks said during the July 19 meeting. “If you don’t like the law, you should change it, but in this case, the ship has already sailed.”
Though he personally didn’t like the development, Fredricks felt an approval of the appeal would deny the applicant their constitutional rights. He cited case law which ruled that “community displeasure cannot be the basis of a permit denial.”
Councilor Dave Plaza — who was present at the July 19 meeting but not the Aug. 2 one — echoed other councilors’ comments, saying that although he was apprehensive of the RV park coming in, the decision was strictly based on how the hearings examiner applied the law.
“The choice of location is awful,” Plaza said, adding he didn’t feel the park would be compatible with businesses in the area.
Regarding the appellants’ argument that the park would bring more crime to the area, Plaza said he looked through all the documents provided and other available crime statistics to see if the claims had any basis for appeal.
“Unfortunately almost every single report that I read showed that RV parks are actually lower in crime than the surrounding neighborhoods,” Plaza said.
Councilor Karl Chapman agreed council’s hands were essentially tied from a legal standpoint, adding he took issue with threats from nearby businesses that they would move out of the city if council denied the appeal.
“That is your right to do that, but to come here and throw it in our face for a bully tactic, I didn’t like it at all,” Chapman said.
Councilor DeeAnna Holland, the board president of Woodland Action, a food bank and community resource center, also pushed back on the appellants’ rhetoric, though her rebuttal focused on the language used to describe what demographics the park would bring.
“A lot of (Woodland Action) clients came to me and did not like being used as the boogeyman of what would come to your neighborhood. (These are) folks who live in RVs or campers because they only get a couple hundred dollars a month (of) Social Security Disability,” Holland said.
During the Aug. 2 meeting, council had less discussion. Fredricks took issue with the process the city went through, with the appeal going into council’s hands as a judicial authority on the project.
“I find it very difficult to do my job as a city councilmember, which is to do what the will of the folks want, but when I’m put in a situation where I have to be the judge, it goes against what I may want to do from a political standpoint,” Fredricks said.
He reiterated his agreement with many points made by the appellants, “but unfortunately, legally, the question that’s before us is did the hearings examiner apply the law to the facts? He did.”
In both the July 19 and Aug. 2 votes, councilor Carol Rounds was the sole “no” vote.
The appellants may make a further appeal in Cowlitz County Superior Court, something Fredricks said was likely at the July 19 meeting.
