Satterlee House development fight: Owner to appeal latest ruling

hosuetoday.jpg

A week and a half ago, we reported from the courthouse as King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Barnett announced the latest decision in the fight over what, if anything, will be built on the lawn of the landmark Satterlee House (aka the “Painted Lady” of Beach Drive). She ruled against Satterlee House owner William Conner in his appeal of a decision made last April by the city Hearing Examiner (WSB coverage here). That decision in turn had affirmed a vote last year by the city Landmarks Board, denying Conner permission to build three 3,000-square-foot-average homes — not denying permission to build ANYTHING on the lawn, just rejecting this specific proposal as potentially marring the characteristics that led to the property being designated in the early ’80s as a city landmark. After Judge Barnett’s ruling on October 24th, Conner’s lawyer Richard Hill told WSB they would “digest” the ruling before deciding whether to continue the challenge; we checked back with Hill this morning to see if a decision had been made, and he replied, “Yes, Mr. Conner intends to appeal.” Next stop, the state Court of Appeals; we will continue to cover this, every step of the way.

7 Replies to "Satterlee House development fight: Owner to appeal latest ruling"

  • Denny November 3, 2008 (10:06 am)

    At what point do the lawyer’s fees cost more than the development?

  • JanS November 3, 2008 (11:04 am)

    and what about the cost of taking up the court’s time…geez..taxpayers are paying for that, I believe..time to move on…

  • B November 3, 2008 (11:56 am)

    Does he occupy the home now? It looks like someone is living there. I can’t imagine they would want the view taken away.

  • WSB November 3, 2008 (12:17 pm)

    As of the hearings earlier this year, there was a tenant in the house.

  • cruiser November 3, 2008 (12:29 pm)

    Maybe he’s holding out for one mother of a quake:)

  • Shannon November 3, 2008 (1:00 pm)

    I don’t really think 3,000 s.f. is an “average” sized home… Maybe he should try downsizing his development plans.

  • NIMBY nulu November 3, 2008 (5:39 pm)

    Averager of what? Average size for the neighborhood, where some houses are twice as large. Some of the complaining NIMBY’s are comfortably ensconced in recent era subdivided 3,000 square foot Mc Manses.

Sorry, comment time is over.