Wing_Pt_Denying_Motion_for_Reconsideration OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Richard B. Shattuck, Hearing Examiner Pro-Tem
RE: WING POINT GOLF & COUNTRY )
CLUB DRIVING RANGE, )
CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT ) NO. CUP 02-19-99-1
)
SEPA APPEAL BY AZALEA ) HEARING EXAMINER’S
AVENUE HOMEOWNERS AGAINST ) DECISION DENYING MOTION
DRIVING RANGE. ) FOR RECONSIDERATION
_______
___________________________________)
The Application of the Wing Point Golf & Country Club and the associated SEPA appeal were heard at public hearing on February 7 and 22, 2000.
The Hearing Examiner heard approximately 12 hours of testimony by the Applicant, Appellant and public on this matter. The factual issues and argument on the associated legal conclusions
flowing from the facts issues were thoroughly reviewed and rereviewed during the course of these hearings and in close to 200 exhibits.
The Hearing Examiner DENIES the Applicant’s request
for reconsideration. The Applicant’s facility design expert, Mr. Tanner, was present throughout the Appellant’s presentation. Mr. Tanner was called in rebuttal and addressed the points
made by the Appellant’s facility design expert, Mr. Pirkl. In this rebuttal presentation, however, the Applicant and Mr. Tanner quite candidly stated that they could not warrant that
golf balls would not leave the driving range. Mr. Tanner also noted that one of the safety factors to be considered was the distance between the driving range and the homes on Azalea
Avenue. The testimony at hearing was that this safety zone is an integral part of the residential use
by the Azalea Avenue property owners. The application does not meet the Conditional Use Permit criteria of 18.108.040(1), (3), (6) and (7), and accordingly must be denied.
The Hearing
Examiner also DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration on due process and/or fair hearing issues. Scheduling for the second night of the hearing was set after consultation with the Applicant
to ensure that its experts were available to review the testimony of the Appellant’s experts and associated public testimony. The Applicant’s facility design expert and golf expert
were present throughout the Appellant’s presentation, and provided rebuttal testimony. Prior to closing the record on the hearing, no motion was made by the Applicant to leave the record
open to address specific issues raised by the Appellant, and no request was made for an additional hearing date to allow analysis of the Appellant’s evidence or testimony. The Applicant
received a fair hearing.
DATED this ____ day of March, 2000.
Richard B. Shattuck
Hearing Examiner Pro-Tem
City of Bainbridge Island