HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL Lower Adelma Street Vacation Hearing Examiner Recommendation1
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 1
Stephanie Marshall, Attorney at Law
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN RE
PETITION TO VACATE PORTION OF
LOWER ADELMA BEACH ROAD,
PROJECT NO. 97025002
CATHY STEGMAN,
PRINCIPAL PETITIONER
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING
The undersigned Hearing Examiner conducted a hybrid (video conference with remote
access technology, and in-person) open record public hearing on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at 2:00
p.m. on a petition to vacate the western 20-foot portion of Lower Adelma Beach Road abutting
parcel 001-324-021. Principal Petitioner, Cathy Stegman, along with her husband, Todd Stegman,
is the current owner of record of Tax Parcel 001-324-021. The right-of way proposed for vacation
is the western 20-foot portion of Lower Adelma Beach Road abutting parcel 001-324-021 (street
address of 150 Lower Adelma Beach Road).
The following exhibits comprise the record on the petition:
CA-01 Petition for Vacation
CA-02 Appraisal
CA-03 Road Vacation Process
CA-04 Upcoming Road Vacation Schedule
CA-05 Final Staff Report
CA-06 Engineer’s Report
CA-07 CenturyLink Comment
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 2
Documents may be viewed at: www.co.jefferson.wa.us – Services – Laserfiche Web portal
(username/password: public) – Board of Commissioners – Boards & Committees – Hearing
Examiner – 2025 – 072925 Lower Adelma
FINDINGS OF FACT
After reviewing the record and hearing testimony, the Hearing Examiner makes the
following Findings of Fact:
1. On May 8, 2025, Cathy and Todd Stegman (“Petitioners”) submitted a Petition to
Vacate a Jefferson County Right-of Way, requesting vacation of a 20-foot portion of Lower
Adelma Beach Road abutting their private property, Parcel 001-324-021 (the “Petition”). CA-01;
Exhibits 1 and 2 to CA-05; and Exhibits A, B and D to CA-06. The purpose of the petition is to
enable Petitioners to remodel their home, which – along with a portion of their garage - currently
encroaches into the subject right-of-way. This action is a necessary prerequisite for their planned
home remodel, contingent upon the approval of an associated setback variance. CA-06.
2. Parcel 001-324-021 is owned by Petitioners and is the only parcel abutting the
subject right-of-way. CA-06. Therefore, 100% of the abutting property owners are included in the
Petition to Vacate. Exhibit C to CA-06.
3. The Petition was submitted and has been reviewed in accordance with Chapter
12.10 Jefferson County Code (“JCC”) and RCW Chapter 36.87.
4. The subject right-of-way is located at Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter,
Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 1 West. CA-05; CA-06.
5. A Staff Report, dated July 8, 2025, was prepared by Joshua Thornton, Jefferson
County Real Property Specialist with the Jefferson County Public Works Department. CA-05.
6. In accordance with JCC 12.10.050, Mr. Thornton emailed/mailed notice of the
petition and public hearing, including a request for comments on the proposed vacation, on June
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 3
13, 2025 to applicable County departments and other entities and businesses. Exhibit 2 to CA-05.
He also sent notices of the petition and the public hearing via U.S. Mail to property owners within
300 feet of the subject rights-of way. See list of Adjacent Property Owners ("APOs") and sample
notice attached as Exhibit 3 to CA-05.
7. No objections to the proposed road vacation were raised by any of the County
departments, entities or businesses which received notice. Exhibit E to CA-06 (Department of
Community Development Memo dated June 10, 2025 to Mr. Thornton from Greg Ballard,
Jefferson County DCD Code Administrator). No written or oral objections were received as of the
date of the Staff Report from nearby property owners.
8. Notice of the public hearing for the proposed road vacation was published in the
Jefferson County Port Townsend Leader on July 10 and July 17, 2025. Exhibit 4 to CA-05.
9. On June 17, 2025, public notices of the Petition to Vacate, public notice of the
scheduled public hearing and instructions for commenting were posted on the subject site at the
northwestern and southwestern intersection of the right-of-way and Petitioners’ parcel boundary
in accordance with RCW 36.87.050 and JCC 12.10.050. Exhibit 5 to CA-05.
10. The County Engineer examined the subject right-of-way and prepared a report
rendering an opinion on the required factors that must be considered in determining whether the
subject road should be vacated. CA-06 (July 8, 2025 County Engineer’s Report, prepared by Monte
Reinders, P.E., Public Works Director/County Engineer).
11. The Lower Adelma Beach Road (originally Discovery-Port Townsend Road) was
petitioned on May 3, 1886 and established by order of the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners on November 6, 1886. The petition requested a 30-foot wide road; however, the
sitting Jefferson County Board of Commissioners did not specify a road width in the text of the
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 4
Order of Establishment. The 1879 Territorial Laws of Washington provided that “all county roads
shall be sixty feet in width, unless the county commissioner shall, upon the prayer of the petitioners
for the same, determine on a less number of feet in width.” Jefferson County has historically taken
the position that the subject road is within a 60’ right of way. CA-06.
12. Parcels to the south of the subject right-of-way benefit from Lower Adelma Beach
Road. However, the proposed vacation will not impact access because a 40-foot right-of-way will
be retained containing the existing road and utilities. Upon vacation, a 20-foot wide portion of the
right-of-way will attach to the western portion of Tax Parcel 001-324-021. CA-06. As required by
JCC 12.10.110(7), the road vacation will not landlock any parcel or property. CA-06.
13. Lower Adelma Beach Road is open as a public road and has been maintained by
Jefferson County. The County Engineer finds that the road is in fair condition and is currently in
use, meeting the definition in JCC 12.10.020 of a “Class B” road, which is a road “dedicated to.
deeded to, or otherwise established by the county for which public expenditures have been made
in the acquisition, improvement, or maintenance of same except those roads platted prior to March
12, 1904, which remained unopened for public use for a period of five years after authority was
granted for opening them.” CA-06.
14. The County Engineer found that the subject right-of-way does not provide for
overall area or neighborhood circulation for the general public, nor is there any anticipated future
need for this right-of-way to serve the general public. CA-06.
15. RCW 36.87.040 and JCC 12.10.050(2)(e) require the County Engineer to give an
opinion as to whether the public will benefit by the vacation. However, neither provision provides
guidance as to what is considered a “public benefit,” when determining whether to approve
vacation of a public right-of-way. The legislative body is the proper entity to weigh public benefit,
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 5
and there is a presumption that an ordinance approving a street vacation was validly enacted for a
public purpose. London v. Seattle, 93 Wn.2d 657 (1980). In the absence of any need for a road
right-of-way for the benefit of the general public (circulation, trails, utilities, etc.), any benefit
typically would accrue to the property owners with frontage on the vacated right of way. These
benefits might include additional building space, room for septic systems, green belt buffer, the
ability to keep public from trespassing on their property, or other benefits. Benefits to the public
and county could include reduced road maintenance costs, reduced liability for managing public
right of way (such as garbage dumping, timber theft, danger trees, or abandoned vehicles), and
increased property tax. All of these reasons have been used in the past to support road vacations
and could support a finding of public benefit for the vacation of the subject right-of-way. CA-06.
16. JCC 12.10.110(1) requires that the proposed road vacation be reviewed for
compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable plans,
policies or ordinances. JCC 12.10.110(2) states that roads should not be closed or vacated when
land uses, development plans, or occurring patterns indicate their usefulness to area circulation. In
accordance with JCC 12.10.060, the Jefferson County Department of Community Development
reviewed the proposed road vacation and any environmentally sensitive areas that might be
affected by the road vacation. Exhibit E to CA-06.
17. The proposed road vacation has been reviewed for compliance with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans, policies or ordinances, per JCC
12.10.110(1). Therefore, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
18. No land uses, development plans, or occurring patterns indicate that the portion of
the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is or will be useful to area circulation, per JCC
12.10.110(2). Therefore, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 6
19. JCC 12.10.110(3) states that the effectiveness of fire, medical, law enforcement, or
other emergency services should not be impaired by a road vacation. The County Engineer found
that the effectiveness of emergency services will not be impaired by the proposed road vacation.
No opposition to the Notice of Petition to Vacate the subject right-of-way was received from the
Sheriff's Office, Fire District #1 or JeffCom911. CA-06; CA-05. Therefore, the right-of-way is
eligible for vacation under this criterion.
20. JCC 12.10.110(4) states that roads should not be closed, vacated, or abandoned
when such routes can effectively be used for utility corridors. No opposition from public or private
utility companies or providers was received in response to the Notice of Petition to Vacate.
Approval of the proposed vacation will not fully close Lower Adelma Beach Road; existing
utilities are located on the eastern side of Lower Adelma Beach Road, which will remain open.
Therefore, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion. However, if determined to
be necessary, and in compliance with RCW 36.87.140 and JCC 12.10.130(2)(a), the Board of
Commissioners may condition approval of the road vacation on the retention of an easement within
the subject vacated area for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and
services. JCC 12.10.090(2). CA-06.
21. Per JCC 12.10.110(5), a road should not be vacated when it could be used for public
trails or pathways. The portion of the subject right-of-way for which vacation is sought does not
provide direct access to water or a beach. Further, there are no Jefferson County Parks or plans for
new parks in the vicinity. Thus, the subject right-of-way would not be a prime candidate for a
public trail. CA-06. Therefore, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
22. JCC 12.10.110(6) states that rights-of-way should not be vacated if it abuts a body
of salt or fresh water unless certain exceptions apply. The subject right-of-way is located near
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 7
Discovery Bay, but it does not abut the water. Therefore, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation
under this criterion. CA-06.
23. JCC 12.10.120 requires the Principal Petitioner to compensate the County for all
Class A and Class B vacated rights of way in compliance with RCW 36.87.120. A resolution
approving vacation of a right of way shall not be effective until the following payments are made:
• Base payment: the principal petitioner shall pay, with respect to the vacation of
either or both Class A and Class B roads or rights of way a sum equal to 1 half of
the current fair market value (as of the date of the petition) of the area so vacated if
the county holds title through a dedication, or the full current fair market value (as
of the date of the petition) if the county acquired the subject rights-of-way other
than by dedication, e.g. fee simple interest.”
• Additional Payment for Class B roads or rights of way (part 1): The principal
petitioners shall pay to the county an amount equal to the amount of public
expenditures made in improvement or maintenance of the road or rights-of-way or
a portion of any road or rights-of-way that is the subject of the proposed vacation.
• Additional Payment for Class B roads or rights of way (part 2): An amount equal
to all other administrative costs incurred by the county in vacating the road.
24. The County did not acquire the subject right of way through dedication. Therefore,
if the Board accepts the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation and approves the road vacation, the
Principal Petitioner shall be required to compensate the county for the full current fair market value
of the property. Based upon an appraisal commissioned by Stegman, the fair market value of the
subject's right of way is $15,000. Exhibit F to CA-06.
25. The County Engineer found that it is not possible to determine what expenditures,
if any, were made prior to 1997 regarding the subject right of way, and no records of public
expenditures since then were found. Petitioners’ improvements encroaching on the subject right-
of-way have existed since 1946, further supporting the presumption that no public expenditures
were made in regard to the subject right of way. CA-06.
26. In order for the vacation to be completed, Petitioners shall be required to pay the
administrative costs incurred by the County in the road vacation process, whether the vacation is
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 8
ultimately approved or not. These include the 2025 costs associated with preparing for and
conducting a hearing with the Hearings Examiner, reviewing documents submitted by the
Petitioners, document recording fees, etc. To date, the Principal Petitioners have paid a total
administrative fee of $1381, which is the 2025 fee for vacating roads and includes 17 hours of
staff time. Petitioners shall be liable for any staff time over 17 hours and any other administrative
costs incurred in processing the application. CA-06. With compliance with the proposed conditions
of approval in this Recommendation, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under JCC
12.10.120.
27. The County Engineer concluded that the proposal appears to meet all of the criteria
in Chapter 36.87 RCW and Chapter 12.10 JCC required for approval of vacation of a portion of
the subject right-of-way. The Public Works Director/County Engineer expressed an opinion that
the right-of-way should be vacated, provided that no contrary testimony or new findings are
presented at the hearing, and provided that the Principal Petitioner pays all required compensation
owed to the County for the vacated right-of-way and administrative process. CA-06.
28. No testimony or new findings were presented at the public hearing contrary to the
County Engineer’s opinion.
29. The petitioner has the burden of proof and must establish that the proposed road
vacation meets all applicable criteria of JCC Chapter 12.10 and RCW Chapter 36.87. The applicant
must meet its burden of proof with substantial evidence.
30. The subject right-of-way has not been statutorily vacated.
31. On July 21, 2025, CenturyLink submitted an email and letter comment on the
proposed road vacation. CA-07. It stated that it has utilities in the subject right-of-way and
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 9
requested that an easement be reserved for any CenturyLink facilities within the proposed vacation
area.
32. In accordance with RCW 36.87.060 and JCC 12.10.08, the Hearing Examiner held
a public hearing on the petitions for road vacation, allowing for public comment on the proposed
road vacation. The Examiner reviewed the road vacation petition, the written staff report, and the
criteria contained in JCC 12.10.110, and received public testimony in support of or in opposition
to the proposed road vacation.
33. At the public hearing, Joshua Thornton, Jefferson County Real Property Specialist,
provided testimony reviewing the Staff Report, presenting the circumstances for which proposed
road vacation is intended to address and an overview of the County Engineer’s report. He testified
regarding the required compensation for the road vacation, including the base payment based on
the fair market value of the portion of the road to be vacated and additional administrative fees.
34. Mr. Thornton testified that only one public comment was received in response to
the Notice of Intent to Vacate from CenturyLink/Quest. This comment letter stated that the road
vacation should not diminish its rights to any other existing easement or other rights CenturyLink
has on the site or in the area. CenturyLink also requested that, if its facilities in the area are
damaged, the Petitioners should be required to bear the cost of relocation/repair. CA-07. Mr.
Thornton stated that he personally visited the site on July 21, 2025 to confirm that utilities are
located on the eastern side of the road.
35. Todd Stegman, one of the Petitioners, provided testimony in support of the
proposed road vacation. He stated that he and his wife purchased their property two years ago. The
property is located on a small, dead-end street. Their lot is bisected by the road. Petitioners are
seeking to remodel a portion of their home that is built within the right-of-way. The encroachment
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 10
will be approximately 15-16 feet into the right-of-way. By requesting vacation of 20 feet of the
right-of-way, Petitioners will have a four-foot buffer between the remodeled structure and the
right-of-way. Mr. Stegman testified that they originally considered petitioning for vacation of the
full right-of-way, but the petition for vacation of only 20 feet of the right-of-way is a better
proposal. Mr. Stegman confirmed that all utilities are located on the east side of the road, outside
of the portion they seek to have vacated.
36. Karim Miller, a neighboring property owner, provided testimony in support of the
proposed road vacation.
37. Barbara Mones, a neighboring property owner, provided testimony in support of
the proposed road vacation.
38. On rebuttal, Mr. Thornton testified that utility maintenance will not be affected by
the proposed road vacation. He stated that he had a call with CenturyLink during which the utility
stated it was unsure of the location of its easement. However, it will not be performing a survey.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Petition has been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in accordance with RCW
36.87.060 and JCC 12.10.08.
2. The Petition includes all information required for a petition to vacate in JCC
Chapter 12.10 and RCW Chapter 36.87.
3. Public notice of the Petition was provided in compliance with JCC 12.10.050.
Members of the public were provided with an opportunity to comment on the Petition consistent
with state and local requirements.
4. The Petition is consistent with all subsections of JCC 12.10.110.
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 11
5. With the Petitioners’ compliance with suggested conditions of approval, the
Petition will be consistent with JCC 12.10.120 and RCW 36.87.120.
6. The Board of County Commissioners has authority to weigh the evidence and
determine whether, under RCW 36.87.040 and JCC 12.10.050(2)(e), the public will benefit from
the proposed road vacation. The proposal is based on reasons that legally support a determination
of public benefit. Substantial evidence in the record supports a conclusion that there is no public
need for the portion of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated on the basis of circulation, trails
or utilities. Benefits to the public and county that may result from approval of the road vacation
include reduced road maintenance costs, reduced liability for managing public right of way (such
as garbage dumping, timber theft, danger trees, or abandoned vehicles), and increased property tax.
7. Petitioners have met their burden of proof have established with substantial
evidence that the proposed road vacation meets all applicable criteria of JCC Chapter 12.10 and
RCW Chapter 36.87.
8. The proposed road vacation is exempt from review under the State Environmental
Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.21C.
9. The Hearing Examiner makes this Recommendation to the Jefferson County Board
of Commissioners, consistent with JCC 12.10.080 and 12.10.130.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Examiner
recommends that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners APPROVE the Petition for
Vacation submitted by Petitioners Cathy and Todd Stegman, Project No. 97025002, subject to the
following proposed conditions of approval:
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 12
1. Petitioners shall pay base payment compensation for the full current fair market
value of the portion of the road to be vacated in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and no/100 Dollars
($15,000.00) into the Jefferson County road fund subsequent to the Board of County
Commissioners’ approval of the requested road vacation and prior to the signing of the vacation
resolution.
2. Petitioners shall pay any additional compensation and all other amounts and fees
due and owing to the County to reimburse the County for administrative costs and staff time
incurred by the County in the road vacation process, if the Board of County Commissioners
determines that the County incurred additional costs in processing the Petition for Vacation beyond
the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-One and no/100 Dollars ($1381.00), which
has been paid by the Petitioners. This additional compensation, other amounts and fees, shall be
paid by Petitioners within one (1) year of approval of the request by the Board of County
Commissioners. If any sums owed the County are not paid and/or conditions of approval are not
met within one (1) year of the Board of County Commissioners’ approval of the vacation request
as reflected in the approving resolution, then approval may be rescinded upon notice by mail to
the Principal Petitioner(s).
3. If the Board of County Commissioners determines it to be necessary, and in
compliance with RCW 36.87.140 and JCC 12.10.130(2)(a), it may condition approval of the road
vacation on the retention of an easement within the vacated area for the construction, repair, and
maintenance of public utilities and services. JCC 12.10.090(2).
4. Approval of the requested road vacation shall not be deemed to diminish or
otherwise affect easement and/or other rights of CenturyLink within the vacated right-of-way. If
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
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - 13
Petitioners damage any CenturyLink facilities within the vacated right-of-way, Petitioners shall be
responsible to CenturyLink for the reasonable cost of relocation and/or repair of such facilities.
5. Should the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested road vacation,
reimbursement to Jefferson County of all costs of processing the request shall be the responsibility
of the Principal Petitioners.
Dated this 11th day of August, 2025.
STEPHANIE MARSHALL, Attorney at Law
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner