Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2023-14

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Modifying the Effective Date of Ordinance No. 2023-5s, Shared Housing Villages in the Residential Resource Zone of the Parkland-Spanaway-Midland Communities Plan Area, to Postpone the Effective Date of the Development Regulation Amendments Challenged under Growth Management Hearings Board - Central Region Case No. 23-3-0004.

Effective: December 1, 2023

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Ryan Mello, Robyn Denson

Final votes

May 23, 2023
Excused Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye

Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
carol j babbitt 5/17/23 1:32 PM The roads cannot accommodate the present housing in this area. This needs to stay at the present zoning of 1-3 houses per acre to protect the wet lands and preserve the beauty of the area
Melody Atwood 5/18/23 8:59 AM Vote YES!!! Protect Public Funds, and allow the voices of Parkland, Midland and Spanaway to be heard! Pierce County should be required to follow the same legal process as its constituents. Help hold them accountable, VOTE YES!
Angela Schick 5/18/23 10:13 AM The ordinance 2023-5s conflicts with the community plan, comprehensive plan, vision 2050 and therefore the Growth management state laws. I urge the council to vote yes on this ordinance and allow the proper time for the Growth Management Hearing Board to rule on ordinance. Futurewise has issued a compelling Petition for Review. Futurewise relief requests the board to make a determination of invalidity which substantially puts the TRM Community First Village and the ARPA funds at risk. More importantly the county is putting Pierce County state funding at risk if found not in noncompliance with Growth Management laws. 2023-5s should never have been voted into effect. The ordinance was touted as a developmental regulation change yet is a very specific building project action which is essentially spot zoning and the proof is all over the public record.
Daniel Atwood 5/18/23 3:25 PM If the steps leading up to the passing of Ordinance No. 2023-5s were in harmony with the intent and letter of the laws and plans in effect at that time then those who voted in favor of this ordinance have nothing to fear. Why not allow it to be challenged and scrutinized over a slightly longer period of time to attest to the validity of this ordinance? Such a move would show good faith to the public and protect the Council and public funds from a decision that may have been made hastily. In my opinion, a "No" vote by any Council member smells like there is something to hide. I urge you to vote "Yes" and demonstrate good faith to the public that this ordinance is sound enough to withstand some scrutiny. Thank you!
Noell Pacho 5/18/23 9:06 PM Vote Yes! I support this propasal.
Ruben Pacho 5/18/23 9:15 PM I totally support this proposal vote yes
Janine Tollin 5/22/23 1:01 PM Please vote yes and allow time to for GMHB review. If this is all truly above board then there is nothing to lose. A no vote speaks volumes - protect our public monies - vote YES!
Elizabeth Taunt 5/23/23 1:13 PM I support this proposal , Vote Yes !
Sharon Costello 5/23/23 2:40 PM I urge the Council to VOTE YES on this measure. Procedures, Policies and Plans are developed over time with careful consideration. The original ordinance was put forth so fast that adequate study time was not conducted to fully determine the impacts of this action on the local community. Putting shared housing villages in this area is in clear and undeniable opposition to the area's community plan that was developed with great study and consideration for the environment, and the ability of this area to economically and commercially support this type of development. Voting no on this measure today would be irresponsible and reckless governing.
sandy willaimson 5/23/23 3:13 PM please vote yes to delay the implementation for this 6 mo. so proper consideration may be given
PennyChoward 5/23/23 3:24 PM Please vote yes
Scott M Munson 5/23/23 3:59 PM I support 2023-14. This ill-conceived site must not be developed.
James Overway 5/23/23 5:01 PM I promote a yes vote for common sense review.
Jessie Richards 5/23/23 5:13 PM I still have environmental concerns about this project. Many have been noted already. My other objection is the not all of Pierce county has been added to this new zoning. Only Parkland, Spanaway, Midland….