Marshall landowner Andy Varlow has sued county supervisors for denying his right to build a large house near Millerton Point.
County officials and environmentalists fear the lawsuit could be pivotal in the battle to preserve agricultural zoning on Tomales Bay's east shore.
"These courts are conservative these days," said Supervisor Gary Giacomini. "They can be tough on regulators. I think it's a dangerous case."
Following Giacomini's lead, supervisors last January upheld planning commissioners' rejection of Varlow's plan to build a 6,296-square-foot house on 91 acres next to the Borello Ranch.
Varlow's lawsuit charges that supervisors made an "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable" decision that was not based on facts or zoning law.
Supervisors had been willing to approve the house if Varlow would have reduced its size, despite the Planning Commission's ruling that agriculture didn't have a big enough role in Varlow's plans. (Zoning on the property allows one house per 60 acres, which must be used in agricultural production.)
However, Varlow in January chose not to give in. Instead he castigated supervisors - particularly Giacomini - for standing between him and his "dream" home. At the time, he compared Giacomini to former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.
Varlow this summer made good on his threat to sue. He filed a lawsuit in Superior Court demanding immediate approval of his plan and payment of attorneys fees.
However, after a judge ruled that a court cannot simply overturn county ruling, Varlow's attorney Joe Forest amended the complaint. Forest now wants the court to force supervisors to reconsider his client's application.
County attorney David Zaltsman said the case will boil down to Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor's reading of how much force is carried by community design-review standards .
Zaltsman said the size of Varlow's proposed house simply didn't fit within the county's guidelines for development on the bay's east shore.
By offering Varlow a compromise in January - approval of a much smaller house - Giacomini said supervisors were covering their backs in the event of a court case. "I hope we skinned the cat right," he said.
Attorney Forest plans to argue that the zoning ordinance for the east shore supports Varlow's proposal to build on five percent of the land and lease the rest for grazing.
Varlow's struggle with county government began when he filed his application in December 1993.
The East Shore Planning Group, supported by numerous Marshall residents and various environmental groups, protested that Varlow's "estate" would be way out of character with the surrounding dairy ranches and grazing land.
In response, Varlow's architect lashed out in a letter to county planners:
"Personally, I believe that the East Shore Planning Group consists of a bunch of neurotic 60s rejects who are paranoid about rich people building big houses in the area and taking over their NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] club."
"My feelings are not about his plan per se," he said. "My feelings are about community. What you have over there [in Marshall] is a community that has strong feelings about what gets built in their midst."
Dowie added, "If he wins this and builds a boutique ranch with no ag[ricultural operation] on it, that could establish a precedent" that might gradually erode local agriculture as a whole.
Central to the legality of A-60 zoning (one house per 60 acres of agricultural land) is the continued prosperity of ranching. Should enough land fall out of production, the argument goes, expenses such as hay delivery and milk-pickup would climb for the remaining ranchers, perhaps to the point where ranching wouldn't work anywhere on the coast.