Current issues

Many land-use, zoning, and legislative issues may affect the rural/suburban quality of life for Hollywood Hill residents.

Please contact the Association if you have any questions, comments, or new issues which you feel are important to Hollywood Hill residents.

Jump to:

Keesling Property updates:

Winery Ordinance

Murray Franklyn court decision - Big Win for our neighborhood!

May 2023

We had a really BIG WIN in the Court of Appeals, which agreed with the position of Hollywood Neighbors' (Team Rural) that the Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) granted by the County to Murray Franklyn LLC was illegal. The Court proceeded to reverse the BLA.

(Murray Franklyn purchased 23 of the 25 lots that comprised the Keesling estate in late 2021. This is the largest undeveloped tract of private land on Hollywood Hill, including about 14 acres of mature native forest.)

The reversal of the BLA was based on several factors, but the primary reason was that the BLA would result in lots that were too small to qualify as “building sites”. The law is clear that a BLA cannot result in unbuildable lots, so the Court reversed that action.

But the most important element for our neighborhood is that, since all of the lots on the Murray Franklyn tract are about the same size, that means that they ALL fail to qualify as “buildable sites” in their current configuration. This is what we have been saying to the County and to Murray Franklyn since before Murray Franklyn purchased the property from the Keesling estate. This ruling verifies that.

All parties agree that the tract can be developed, but this ruling shows that the lots must be combined to create lots large enough to satisfy the minimum lot size for developing an undeveloped lot in our RA2.5 zoning, which is 1.87 acres.* Murray Franklyn is interested only in maximizing profit and less lots mean less profit. But the real point here is that Murray Franklyn’s plan would result in urban density development in our Rural neighborhood. Less lots means less density and the ability to preserve some of the forest and open space of this 24 acre tract, that is to say, preserve some of our “rural character”, cleaner air, water and more wildlife habitat which is the raison d’être of our efforts here..

Then there is the NOT-SO-GOOD NEWS.

In spite of the legal questions that were pending, the County went ahead and approved building permits on 3 of the Murray Franklyn lots last month.

Simply put: This is an outrageously irresponsible action on the part of King County’s Department of Permitting. And it is just one example of how the County is failing to uphold the zoning codes that protect our private property, our neighborhood and that vast majority of us who live with respect for the rule of law.

The County was very quiet about how they issued the permits. When the permits were discovered, Hollywood Hill Neighbors contacted their legal team right away and a lawsuit challenging the permits has been filed in Superior Court.

If any one of these lots is considered “buildable”, then they all are. We find the law to be very clear that these lots are too small, as discussed above. The overall density will be way higher than what is supposed to happen in the Rural areas like our neighborhood.

The County knows this, so why did they go ahead and break their own zoning laws by granting these permits? Maybe it has something to do with the over $50,000 of permit fees that the developer has already paid on just two of the lots.

* This minimum size applies only to construction on lots that have not been previously developed. Many properties around our community were developed under old zoning laws that allowed smaller lots and, since these properties were developed legally under the codes in effect at that time, they are “grandfathered”. Our current zoning codes have been in place for about 35 years and these are the ones that Murray Franklyn must comply with.

Court of Appeals decision reversing Murray Frankly’s BLA. - May 2023

Keesling Estate Development

May 2022

King County Permitting looks past its own regulations in support of dense development on Hollywood Hill.

Left unchallenged, County complicity presents an existential threat to our community.

Please consider pitching into the legal fund in defense of our neighborhood.

The HHA has been working with a group of local residents to challenge Murray Franklyn LLC’s proposal for building on the largest remaining tract of undeveloped land on Hollywood Hill in a manner that would violate our Rural unincorporated neighborhood’s RA2.5 zoning requirements.

Regardless of multiple violations inherent in Murray Franklyn’s proposal, King County’s Director of Permitting Jim Chan has stated support for the proposal. He has approved an associated boundary line adjustment (BLA) and his team is now actively processing several building permit applications. Chan has repeatedly stated that the Murray Franklyn lots are legal, but fails to admit that these lots do not meet existing King County code to qualify as legally buildable lots.

In response to these actions by the County, neighbors have filed a formal challenge in the Court of Appeals under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). That process of review is under way.

It is a sad state of affairs that citizens must resort to legal action to compel King County to carry out its responsibility to uphold our laws. Meanwhile, the County uses our tax money to defend the violations in question. This has become a troubling trend across Rural unincorporated King County.

The most recent chapter in this story is that legal counsel for the neighbor group Team Rural has just filed a brief requested the Court as it considers Team Rural’s LUPA petition. (Team Rural is referred to as Hollywood Hill Neighbors in the legal documents.) A copy of that brief is available for your viewing here.

Protecting our homes and neighborhood is expensive. Please consider supporting Team Rural’s legal fund.

A check can be made out to “HHA-Team Rural” and sent to the following address:

TEAM RURAL
c/o Hollywood Hill Association
PO Box 404
Woodinville, WA 98072

This fund is separate from funds associated with paying dues and contributing to the Hollywood Hill Association.

Here is a more in-depth history of this issue:

Neighbors learned of Murray Franklyn’s proposal and King County’s stated support for it at an event staged by Murray Franklyn and attended by a number of county officials in spring 2021. Concerned by what they heard, a group of neighbors researched the relevant laws (with support from the HHA) and found that the proposal violated numerous provisions of King County and Washington State policies and regulations. Private funds were pooled by the neighbors, who refer to their group as Team Rural, and legal counsel was retained.

Last summer and fall, Team Rurals’ lawyers submitted formal inquiries to King County challenging aspects of Murray Franklyn’s proposal. King County did not provide justification for its clearly stated support of Murray Franklyn’s proposal.

In spite of the formal legal questions that were being asked, King County granted Murray Franklyn’s request for a boundary line adjustment (BLA) last fall. Soon after, Murray Franklyn purchased approximately 22 acres of what is known as the Keesling estate.

Located adjacent to the Tolt pipeline on the crest of Hollywood Hill, the total size of the estate was 24.5 acres. About half in pasture and half in forest, there are also 2 houses on the tract. A series of complex legal wranglings over the decades resulted in final recognition of 25 lots in 1999. These legal actions were outside of a normal subdivision process. Murray Franklyn purchase all but 3 of these lots, 2 of which are the sites of two existing houses.

The law seems clear to us that these are not “legally buildable” lots.* They are too small and too densely packed for our zoning. Of course, the developer, now also the property owner, wants to maximize profits by having as many lots to build on as the County will allow.

In siding with the developer on this matter, King County seems to be relying on the fact that the Keesling lots are legally defined tax parcels, which they are. However, the county appears willing to ignore the part of the King County Code that says legal lot status does not imply that a lot is also buildable. The November 1999 Subdivision Exemption that segregated the property into separate tax parcels as they exist today supports this position, stating that:

Recognition of the property as a separate lot is not to be regarded as a commitment of any sort that by King County that the lots in their present state are suitable for development under the current King County ordinances. Any application for development approval will be reviewed under the ordinances and laws in effect at that time.

There is no dispute that there exists a right to develop this tract of land. However, any development should comply with the zoning standards that define and protect our property rights and community character. To accomplish this, the existing lots must be combined to meet minimum lot size and maximum density requirements.

In addition to this fundamental issue with lot size and overall density, Murray Franklyn’s boundary line adjustment (BLA), granted by King County, violates several laws that govern the use of the BLA process. This is the primary issue now being considered by the Court of Appeals, as addressed by the brief you can find here.

While this legal action somewhat ties-up development on the 8 lots within the BLA until the LUPA appeal is heard, Murray Franklyn has been quickly submitting building permit applications for the remaining 14 lots. And from everything King County has said and done to date, it appears they plan to issue those building permits, even though the lots don’t meet current RA 2.5 zoning requirements.

Such behavior by King County is increasingly common and closely related to the County’s continued failures to enforce its own zoning codes.

So where do things stand today? Team Rural has submitted its briefing for the LUPA hearing and is monitoring the new building permit applications. None have been granted yet, but they’re being processed and it appears that King County plans to approve them. At that point, Team Rural can legally challenge them.

In the meantime, Team Rural is doing whatever it can to raise awareness of the situation, including local road signs, briefing local reporters, and reaching out to Sarah Perry, our local representative on the King County Council. An article was recently published in the Woodinville Weekly, and local residents have been discussing the issue in the Woodinville Neighbors Group on Facebook.

It’s clear that this is going to be an uphill fight. Murray Franklyn, the developer, seems to have a cozy relationship with the King County Department of Permitting.

It’s also going to be a potentially expensive fight. So far, Team Rural members have funded the majority of legal costs. The Hollywood Hill Association has contributed, as have some concerned local residents who aren’t formally part of Team Rural.

If you’d like to contribute yourself, a check can be made out to “HHA-Team Rural” and sent to the following address:

TEAM RURAL
c/o Hollywood Hill Association
PO Box 404
Woodinville, WA 98072

*None of the Keesling lots qualify as buildable lots because the lots are zoned RA 2.5, which allows for one home per five acres with a minimum lot size of 1.875 acres or 81,675 sq. ft. (see King County Code 21.A.030.A) The largest Keesling lot is 51,472 sq.ft., and the smallest is 36,623 sq.ft. Per current zoning codes, Murray Franklyn should be able to develop at most five homes, not 22, with a significantly larger lot sizes.

Keesling Property Development

November 29, 2021

Update and FAQ on status of Murray Franklyn’s proposal for the development of the Keesling estate

King County approval of developer’s proposal ignores the zoning codes that protect our community.

Legal action is necessary if we are to defend our neighborhood.

Since the last update, the legal firm of Bricklin & Newman, retained by Team Rural, sent a second request for interpretation to King County stating additional concerns over the legality of the Boundary Line Adjustment requested by the development firm Franklyn Murray. The county’s responses have not addressed the primary concerns stated in those inquiries.

On November 10, King County’s Department of Permitting chose to ignore Team Rural’s legal inquiries, our zoning policies and Washington State law by approving the Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) sought by developer Franklin Murray of the Keesling estate properties. The county is now processing building permit applications from the developer.

Now that the county has signaled its intent to ignore the law by approving the BLA, the only avenue to stop it is to appeal to Superior court. Team Rural’s legal counsel filed the necessary petition on November 29. You can read the petition here. Murray Franklyn will have 20 days to respond in writing to the court.

Please join your neighbors in supporting Team Rural’s legal fund. You can make a check out to “HHA - Team Rural”. (The HHA is not formally a part of Team Rural but is providing support for the cause. Team Rural has an independent account for this purpose.)

Write your check to: “HHA – TEAM RURAL”

And mail it to:

TEAM RURAL
c/o Hollywood Hill Association
PO Box 404
Woodinville, WA 98072

Questions can be sent to the HHA contacts listed on this website. We will either answer them or refer you to one of the Team Rural members.

Contributions are not tax-deductible.

Read through FAQs about the Keesling update here.

Keesling Property Development Recap & Update

October 2021

At a meeting last spring, Jim Chan of King County’s Permitting Department stated the county’s position was that the Keesling estate's lots were legally developable in their existing configuration. The developer, Murray Franklin, went on to discuss their plan to change the configuration of these lots by a process called Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA). The county signaled an intent to permit the BLA.

After the meeting, a group of neighbors formed Team Rural and researched the pertinent policies. They found both state and county policies that appear to clearly view these sub-standard lots to be unbuildable, either as they exist now or as they would exist if the proposed BLA were to be approved. They would be too small to meet the zoning code standards that apply to our Rural neighborhood.

Rural hired a law firm which sent a letter to King County laying out the pertinent policies. It stated that what Murray Franklin and King County were proposing was not supported by those policies and requested the county provide a “code interpretation”. This request was sent in June, 2021. To date, there has been no response to that inquiry.

In the interim, the Hollywood Hill Association has begun to provide support to Team Rural in several ways, including this posting on our website.

At the time of this writing, we are unaware that the county has issued any permits for development of this property.

The next step is re-engaging with the county and press for a response to the original inquiry. A second inquiry is being prepared as of this writing. If the county backs off from supporting the existing development plans laid out by Murray Franklin, we may be able to say mission accomplished. However, if the county signals an intent to permit development of what appear to be unbuildable lots (per current zoning codes), Team Rural and the HHA will step up actions to formally challenge any such effort.

The legal counsel necessary to formally address will continue to be expensive. Fundraising efforts are underway at this time. See below for information on how you can participate in defending our neighborhood.

View this as a PDF.

Keesling Property Development Continued

July 2021

For many on the Hill, it recently came as big news that the heirs of the Maxine Keesling estate have a pending contract to sell 24+ acres of land to Murray Franklyn, a homebuilder. Today, that land is mostly pasture and forest and includes trails used by walkers, cyclists and equestrians to connect to the Tolt Pipeline trail. The sale is expected to close if Murray Franklyn obtains King County approval of pending applications that would allow the construction of 23 homes on the property.

King County maps show 25 lots on the 23.9-acre parcel. There are significant questions about the legality of the method used to create the lots, which wasn’t a formal subdivision.The lots do not meet current King County lot size or density regulations, which would limit development to 4 homes with a minimum lot size of 1.875 acres.

Murray Franklyn is seeking King County approval to reconfigure the majority of the lots by using the boundary line adjustment (BLA) process to create new lots on which Murray Franklyn proposes to build 23 homes. The Keesling heirs would retain the other 2 lots. However, State law and the King County code prohibit using the BLA process to create new lots that do not meet current codes and these new lots would be too small to meet current codes.

Concerned with the legality and impacts of all this, a group of neighbors has been researching the issues involved with the help of the HHA. Legal counsel has been retained and is initially being funded by the small neighbor group that is calling itself “Hollywood Hill Neighbors - Team Rural.”

After consideration of the issues and potential impacts, the HHA has joined in supporting this inquiry and any subsequent legal challenge if the County approves the pending BLAs. Given the overall impacts to the community at large, the Hollywood Hill Neighbors - Team Rural will be working to expand the awareness of Hollywood Hill families of the urgent need to demand that King County adhere to existing zoning requirements for residential development in rural designated communities. If you wish to be involved, please reach out to us.

Learn more about this issue and how you can pitch in for the legal fund.

Winery Ordinance

Understanding the issues leading to the “winery ordinance” is a crucial element to our effective defense of our homes and community. We know the issues involved in the “winery ordinance” can seem complex, so we have distilled them into a Q&A article, which can be found here.

Winery Ordinance Q & A (2/25/2019)

Tasting Rooms are not Wineries (2/1/2016)