HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA01 Permit Application Property & Applicant Information Sheet �.
gDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street,Port Townsend,WA 98368
, Tel:360.379.4450 1 Web:www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment RECEIVED
''i,r, ` E-mail:dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
PERMIT APPLICATION APR 2 4 2025
PROPERTY&APPLICANT INFORMATION SHEET
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Purpose:This form is a required component of all development permit applications. E) 1 1f CNTACI
Site Information
Parcel Number: 701164005
Site Address: 660 Twana Way Quilcene, WA 98376
Access(name of street(s))from which access will be gained: Twana Way
Present use of property: undeveloped
Description of Work(include proposed uses): Appeal of Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SDP2023-00020
Wastewater-Sewage Disposal
Is this property served by a sewer system? 0 YES NI NO
If not served by sewer,identify type of septic system below:
❑Septic 0 Community Septic Septic Permit#:
❑Attach last Operations and Maintenance Report
Applicant/Property Owner Information
Property Owner Name: Appellants are John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver
Address: 161 Twana Way Quilcene, WA 98376
Phone#: See below E-mail Address: See below
Authorized Agent/Representative(if applicable):
Name: Bryan Telegin E-mail Address: bryan@teleginlaw.com
Phone#: 206.453.288
B Please contact Authorized Agent/Representative with project info.
The authorized agent/representative is the primary contact for all project-related questions and correspondence.Jefferson County Community Development
will e-mail requests and information about the application to the authorized agent/representative and will copy(cc)the owner noted above.The authorized
agent/representative is responsible for communicating the information to all parties involved with the application. It is the responsibility of the authorized
agent/representative and owner to ensure their mailbox accepts Jefferson County email(i.e.,email is not blocked or sent to"junk mail").
Note: For projects with multiple owners or representatives,attach a letter of authorization or attach additional Property&Applicant Information Sheets.
By signing this application form,the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein,and in any attachments,is true and correct to the best of his or her
knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in making any
issued permit null and void.I further agree to that all activities I intend to undertake or complete associated with this permit will be performed in compliance with all
applicable federal,state,and county laws and regulations and I agree to provide access and right of entry to Jefferson County and its employees,representatives,or
agents for the sole purpose of application review and any required inspections. Applicant may request notice of Jefferson County's intent to enter upon the property
for visits related to this ap ication and subsequent per it issuance.
Signature: Print Name:Bryan Telegin Date: 4/23/2025
i'evnit Apphcanou P -1 of 1
APPEAL STATEMENT - 1
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
In re Appeal of Rathvon Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, DCD File No.
SDP2023-00020
APPEAL STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Sections 18.40.270(2) and 18.40.330(2) of the Jefferson County Code (“JCC”) and
Rule 3.1 of the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure (“ROP”), Appellants John
DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver hereby appeal the Type II shoreline conditional use permit attached
hereto as Attachment A.
The challenged shoreline conditional use permit would allow construction of a large, nearly
4,000 square foot single-family residence within the shoreline environment of Dabob Bay in Quilcene,
Washington, on a parcel owned by the permit Applicant, Richard Rathvon (herein, the “Rathvon
Parcel”). Among other impacts, construction of the proposed residence threatens to degrade a
primitive road known as Twana Way, which also provides access to the home of Petitioners John
DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver. Twana Way is located within a geologic hazard area and any damage
to the road is likely to result in increased runoff of turbid, sediment-laden water to Dabob Bay and the
shoreline environment, further harming Appellants’ aesthetic, recreational, and environmental
interests in enjoying the bay and shoreline.
/ / /
/ / /
APPEAL STATEMENT - 2
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II. ALLEGATIONS
Pursuant to ROP 3.1(b), Appellants allege as follows:
1. Full name, mailing address, and email address of the Appellant.
The names and mailing address of the appellants are:
John DiMaggio and Michelle Oliver
161 Twana Way
Quilcene, WA 98376
Appellants may be contacted through their attorney of record:
Bryan Telegin
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Ave SW, Suite N270
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tel: 1.206.453.2884, ext. 101
Email: bryan@teleginlaw.com
2. File number, license number, or other identifying number.
The DCD file number of the challenged Type II shoreline conditional use permit is SDP2023-
00020.
3. Copy of the challenged decision, license, order, or other administrative decision.
A copy of the challenged decision is attached hereto as Attachment A. The challenged decision
was issued on April 10, 2025, in conjunction with a staff report dated April 10, 2025. Later, the County
issued revised staff report on April 14, 2025.
4. Concise statement of the factual and legal basis for the appeal citing specifically
the alleged errors in the administrative official’s decision.
4.1. The Rathvon parcel is located on the shoreline of Dabob Bay, in an area known to
provide ecologically significant habitat for Hood Canal summer chum salmon and Puget Sound
Chinook, both of which are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The upland
portions of the Rathvon parcel have a shoreline environmental designation of “Natural” under
Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”). The purpose of this designation is to
“protect[] from harm or adverse impact shoreline areas that are intact, have minimally degraded
functions and processes, or are relatively free of human influence.” Jefferson County Code (“JCC”)
APPEAL STATEMENT - 3
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18.25.210(3)(c)(i). The aquatic environment adjacent to the Rathvon parcel has a shoreline
environmental designation of “Priority Aquatic,” the purpose of which is to “protect[] to the highest
degree possible and, where feasible, restores waters and their underlying bedlands deemed vital for
salmon and shellfish.” JCC 18.25.210(3)(a)(i). This area is also known as providing premiere shellfish
beds, with Taylor Shellfish located immediately across the bay, and Rockport Oyster just over a mile
to the north.
4.2 Access to the Rathvon parcel is via Twana Way, a narrow, steep, unpaved, primitive
road. The surface of Twana Way is only eight to nine feet wide, with some areas as narrow as seven
feet—falling far short of the Fire Apparatus Access standards of Quilcene Fire District #2, which
require a 12-foot minimum “all weather” road surface, four-foot shoulder, and 20-foot minimum width
clearance. To accommodate project-related construction traffic, Mr. Rathvon previously proposed an
extensive road improvement or renovation plan, which he represented to other property owners along
Twana Way as being necessary to enable safe and reliable access for service and emergency vehicles.
4.3 Twana Way is known to area residents as the “goat trail.” The conditions of the road
are so primitive that it is difficult even for everyday vehicles to navigate, let alone large emergency
response vehicles, service and delivery vehicles, and construction-related vehicles hauling building
materials and equipment. The road is especially difficult for vehicles to navigate traveling uphill, as
this narrow, primitive road rises more than 600 feet over an eighth of a mile, immediately adjacent to
a steep embankment leading down to Dabob Bay.
4.4 A primary failing of the Rathvon application is its failure to address details of the
proposed construction process. As discussed above, Twana way is a narrow, steep, unpaved, primitive
road that is difficult even for everyday vehicles to navigate, especially going uphill. If the Rathvons
propose to use this same road for moving construction materials and equipment to and from the project
site, then there is a significant risk not only of damage to the road and adjacent hillside, utilities under
the road, and interference with other uses (including pedestrian use of the road), there is also a risk of
damage to the surrounding environment, including harm to the shoreline environment, inter alia,
through increased runoff and sediment transport. Given its location in a geologic hazard area,
APPEAL STATEMENT - 4
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
increased traffic on the road may lead to even more serious damage which may in turn result in
significant adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.
4.5 These construction-related issues are directly relevant under JCC 18.25.320(1)(a),
which provides that “[t]he location, construction, operation, and maintenance of all shoreline uses and
developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over
the long term” (emphasis added). These issues are also relevant under JCC 18.25.590(2)(a) through
(e), which require the Applicant for a shoreline conditional use permit to demonstrate that the proposal
“will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program,” that it “will not interfere
with normal public use of the shoreline,” that “the proposed use of the site and design of the project
will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area,” that the proposal “will not cause adverse
effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located,” and that “the public interest [will]
suffer[] no substantial detrimental effect.” Finally, the impacts of future foreseeable road
modifications must be assessed as incremental and cumulative impacts under JCC 18.25.070(1)(b)(v).
4.6 There is no indication in the staff reports accompanying the challenged decision that
the County evaluated any of these issues and impacts prior to making its decision. Instead, the original
and revised staff reports state that these issues were ignored because (a) “[r]oad improvements are not
proposed within shoreline jurisdiction,” and (b) “Evaluation of Twana Way, which is located beyond
the limits of shoreline jurisdiction, is outside the scope of the shoreline application.” The County erred
as a matter of law in its determination that these impacts are beyond the scope of review for the
challenged shoreline conditional use permit.
4.7 In addition to the problems above, the Rathvon application materials fail to address
several important issues and to meaningfully address several questions on the County’s conditional
use application form.
4.8 Question 2 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
“[e]xplain how the conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance
with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity and with the physical
characteristics of the subject property.” To this, the Rathvon application answers: “Proposed SFR has
APPEAL STATEMENT - 5
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
been designed to be constructed 160’ from the OHWM as such, the home will sit within the existing
mature forest creating an in-forest design resulting in a barely-visible footprint.” However, no
renderings have been provided to show what the proposed single-family residence will look like (either
from adjacent uplands or from the water). This is despite that Jefferson County’s Shoreline Master
Program specifically provides that “[a]ll residential use and development should be planned, designed,
located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on . . . aesthetics.” JCC 18.25.500(1). The County erred
as a matter of law in failing to require the Applicant to provide renderings of the proposed single-
family residence to confirm that it will be designed and located to avoid adverse aesthetic impacts. See
JCC 18.25.270(3)(b) (“The county shall have the authority to require the Applicant/proponent to
prepare special studies, assessments and analyses as necessary to identify and address cumulative
impacts including, but not limited to, impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, public access/use, aesthetics,
and other shoreline attributes.”) (emphasis added).
4.9 Question 3 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
describe infrastructure serving the proposed project. In response, the Rathvon application notes that
stormwater runoff “will disperse naturally.” The County erred by not requiring the Applicant to assess
potential impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality. This is especially needed in light of the
sensitive aquatic environment and ESA-listed species located just offshore. See JCC 18.25.320(1)(a)
(“The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of all shoreline uses and developments
should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over the long term.”).
The County should also have required the Applicant to assess potential water quality issues caused by
the proposed on-site septic system.
4.11 Question 5 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
“[d]escribe any noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, outdoor lights or other impacts that will
be generated by the conditional use.” The Rathvon application answers: “Any impacts such as noise,
dust, fumes, etc. should be considered ‘as typical’ for construction and end use of a SFR.” This
statement provides no “description” whatsoever. The County should have required the Applicant to
provide an accurate and complete description of any such impacts.
APPEAL STATEMENT - 6
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4.12 Question 6 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
“[d]escribe the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking area associated conditional use.” To this,
the Rathvon application answers, in part: “There is no pedestrian use.” This is a false statement.
Pedestrians regularly use Twana Way and are likely to be impacted by increased traffic, both during
construction and after. The County erred by not requiring the Applicant to fully assess such impacts.
4.13 Question 8 on the County’s conditional use application form asks whether there are
“any significant adverse impacts on the human and natural environments caused directly by the
conditional use? If yes, can these impacts be mitigated.” To this, the Rathvon application answers
“N/A.” No explanation is provided as to why this question is not applicable. The County should have
required the Applicant to provide a full and complete response. JCC 18.25.630(16) specifically
requires every application to include “[a] summary characterization of the effects of the project on
existing ecological functions and processes in the vicinity of the project. If the project is likely to have
adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions or processes, a mitigation plan shall be provided
demonstrating measures that will be taken to offset impacts.” Similarly lacking is compliance with
JCC 18.25.630(12), which requires every application to include “[a] description of the existing
ecological functions and processes affecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline at/near the
project site.”
4.14 Question 9 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
“[d]escribe how granting the conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in
the vicinity of the subject parcel.” To this question, the Rathvon application answers: “2 adjacent
parcels are currently used in the same manner as our proposal outlines.” This is not an answer to the
question. The County should have required a full and complete response. JCC 18.25.590 specifically
provides that “[i]n the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if
conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances
exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should also remain consistent with the policies
APPEAL STATEMENT - 7
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significant adverse effect to the shoreline ecological
functions and processes or other users.”
4.15 Question 12 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
describe how the proposed conditional use “complies with all other applicable criteria and standards
of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more
specifically, conforms to the standards contained in JCC 18.20 and JCC 18.30.” To this, the Rathvon
application merely notes that the “septic permit has been submitted to Jeffco EH, and the well permit
will be submitted to Jeffco EH at a later date.” Again, this is simply not an answer to the question. The
County should have required the Applicant to provide a full and complete response.
4.16 Question 13 on the County’s conditional use application form asks the Applicant to
“[d]escribe how the conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan.” The Rathvon application answers: “Our proposal is consistent with
zoning and the existing use of properties in the vicinity.” As above, this is not an answer. The County
should have required a full and complete response, including analysis of all applicable goals and
policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
4.17 JCC 18.25.250(1) provides that “[w]hen shoreline development or redevelopment
occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities
exist.” The Rathvon application fails to state whether such opportunities exist and, if they do, how this
project is designed to restore and/or enhance ecological conditions.
4.18 The County’s staff reports erroneously state that Dabob Bay is not a shoreline of
statewide significance, and therefore erred in failing to evaluate the Rathvon proposal for compliance
with the conditions and use preferences at JCC 18.25.250.
5. Specific relief sought.
For the reasons above, Appellants respectfully request that the challenged shoreline
conditional use permit be reversed and remanded for additional investigation, evaluation, and
mitigation of the impacts and issues discussed above, and that the Applicant be required to provide all
relevant information required by the County’s shoreline conditional use procedures.
APPEAL STATEMENT - 8
Telegin Law PLLC
175 Parfitt Way SW, Ste. N270
Bainbridge, Island WA 98110
bryan@teleginlaw.com
(206) 453-2884
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2025.
TELEGIN LAW PLLC
By:
Bryan Telegin, WSBA No. 46686
175 Parfitt Ave SW, Suite N270
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Tel: 1.206.453.2884, ext. 101
E-mail: bryan@teleginlaw.com
Counsel for Appellants John DiMaggio and
Michelle Oliver
ATT ACHMENT A
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (RCW 90.58)
PROPONENT: RICHARD RATHVON
20 LIBERTY KNOLL
COL TS NECK, NJ 07722
DATE ISSUED: April 10, 2025
DATE EXPIRES: April 10, 2030
CASE NUMBER: SDP2023-00020
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Shoreline conditional use (administrative) and stormwater applications to construct a new house in the Natural shoreline
environment designation along Dabob Bay. Residential development is proposed outside of the 150-foot shoreline buffer
and 10-foot building setback. Construction of the house and installation of the septic system would be located within 200
feet of ordinary high water mark, but most of the concrete parking area is proposed outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The
applicants have submitted a geotechnical report, a stream report, and a cumulative impacts report, and all development
would be located outside of the stream buffer. The proposal is not subject to review under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). The findings are outlined in a staff report prepared for this proposal, dated April 10, 2025.
PROJECT LOCATION: 660 Twana Way, Quilcene, WA 98376
WATERBODY AND/OR ASSOCIATED WETLANDS: DABOB BAY
SHORELINE OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE: NO
SHORELINE DESIGNATION: NATURAL
Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken subject to the applicable policies and performance standards
of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the following conditions:
1. This proposal requires final permitting approval from Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Construction
shall not begin until Ecology has sent written authorization to proceed.
2. Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the issuance of the
permit.
3. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as approved for this shoreline permit shall
receive separate review by Department of Community Development (DCD).
4. A silt fence shall be installed 160 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as shown on the approved site
plan, to prevent sediments from being transported from the construction area to the shoreline. At the drainfield
location, the silt fence shall be placed no closer than 150 feet from OHWM. The permittee shall contact DCD
planning to review the silt fence installation prior to proceeding with any other work on the property.
5. The permittee shall ensure that all construction-related activities for the house, including ground clearing and
stockpiling equipment, are conducted at least 160 feet from OHWM and that all ground disturbance to install the
drainfield is conducted at least 150 feet from OHWM.
6. This shoreline permit is for construction of a new single-family residence and development on the subject property
is limited to that shown on the approved site plan.
7. This permit does not authorize any modifications to the existing access road. It is the responsibility of the
permittee to obtain any required permits.
8. The permittee shall ensure that all development, including ground-disturbing activities, occurs outside of the
50-foot buffer associated with an off-site stream.
9. The permittee shall comply with the 2019 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and
with the stormwater plan prepared by Evergreen Engineering Services (dated June 24, 2024). This includes, but
is not limited to, compliance with the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater requirements:
a. BMP T5.108 -Downspout Dispersion Systems (for roof downspout flow);
b. BMP T5.12 -Sheet Flow Dispersion (for driveways);
c. BMP T5.13 -Post-construction Soil Quality and Depth (to restore disturbed areas;
d. Exposed soils shall be stabilized;
e. Pollutants (such as motor oil and construction debris) shall not be released or discharged;
f. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be routinely inspected and maintained; and
g. Unnecessary ground disturbance is not allowed.
10. The permittee shall adhere to all conclusions and recommendations in the Geologic Hazard Assessment report
(dated February 15, 2022) and Geologic Hazard Assessment Update (dated November 14, 2024), both of which
were prepared by Stratum Group. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. The single-family residence shall be constructed at least 30 feet from the top of the shoreline bluff;
b. Stormwater shall not be discharged within 30 feet of the top of the shoreline bluff slope;
c. Tree and cover vegetation removal is limited on the bluff and buffer; and
d. Yard debris and waste shall not be placed on the bluff face or near any steep slope.
11. No fill or other materials may be placed in the waters or intertidal areas of Jefferson County.
Appeals:
Pursuant to chapter 18.40.270(2), the decision by the administrator' is final, subject to the following: an
applicant or party of record may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing.
Pursuant to chapter 18.25.750(5) JCC, appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a final decision on a
shoreline substantial development permit may be filed by any aggrieved party in accordance with RCW 90.58
within twenty-one (21) days of filing the final decision by Jefferson County with the Washington State
Department of Ecology and Washington State Attorney General's Office. Information on appeal process and
rules of procedure is available on the Shoreline Hearings Board web site at
Shorelines Hearings Board I ELUHO
Notice:
Nothing in this permit shall excuse the permittee from complying with applicable local, state, or federal ordinances, or
regulations consistent with RCW 90.58.
c: Lizzie Carp, DOE, Shorelands Office
1 "Administrator" means the Jefferson County department of community development director or a designated representative. JCC
18.10.010 A definitions.