HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONSENT Resolution re Lower Adelma rd vacation Department of Public Works
Consent Agenda
Page 1 of 2
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
Consent Agenda Request
To: Board of Commissioners
Josh Peters, County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, P.E., Public Works Director
Agenda Date: August 18, 2025
Subject: A Resolution adopting Hearing Examiner report and
recommendations, and expressing Board's intent to vacate a portion
of Lower Adelma Beach Rd, subject to Petitioners meeting certain
conditions
Statement of Issue:
In accordance with JCC 12.10.090, the Board is asked to consider the Hearing Examiner's report
and recommendations (attached) pertaining to a Petition to vacate the western 20-foot portion of
Lower Adelma Beach Rd right of way abutting parcel 001-324-021 located in the northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
Jefferson County Washington. The subject right-of-way only abuts Tax Parcel001-324-021
owned by Todd and Cathy Stegman(Petitioners).
Analysis:
A public hearing on the road vacation petition was conducted before a Jefferson County Deputy
Hearing Examiner on July 29, 2025. Based upon the recommendations contained in the County
Engineer's report, as well as any comments received from other departments, agencies, and
individuals, the Hearing Examiner has recommended that the road vacation be approved subject
to Petitioners meeting the following condition:
• Pay all required compensation owed to the County for the vacated right-of-way and
administrative process.
Although the official public hearing was conducted by the Office of the Hearing Examiner,
pursuant to JCC 12.10.130(1), the Board has the discretion to accept public testimony in support
or in opposition to the proposed vacation.
Fiscal Impact:
If the Board approves the attached Resolution of Intent to Vacate, then in accordance with JCC
12.10.120, Petitioners will pay compensation for administrative fees and expenses incurred over-
and-above staff hours included in the application fee plus $15,000 as compensation for full
current market value (as of the date of the Petition) of the subject rights of way.
Department of Public Works
Consent Agenda
Page 2 of 2
Recommendation:
Department of Public Works recommends that the Board adopt the Hearing Examiner's Report
and approve the vacation of the subject rights-of-way subject to Petitioners meeting the Hearing
Examiner's recommended approval condition, with the clarification that compensation to be paid
by Petitioners shall include the costs for preparing and recording(by County staff) a Final
Resolution approving the vacation of the subject rights-of-way.
Public Works recommends that the Board sign the attached Intent to Vacate Resolution which
will commit the Board to adopting a final Resolution which will officially grant the petition to
vacate the subject rights-of-way upon verification that Petitioner has met all of the required
conditions within one-year. Failure to meet the conditions within that timeframe, or any
extension approved by the Board, will result in termination of the vacation process, in which
case Petitioner will remain liable for all administrative costs actually incurred by the County.
Department Contact:
Joshua Thornton, Real Property Specialist, 385-9162
Reviewed By:
Josh eters, County Administrator Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
In the Matter of Jefferson County's
Intent to Vacate a Portion of Lower Adelma RESOLUTION NO.
Beach Road
WHEREAS, Jefferson County Code Title 12 Public Ways and Places governs Right-of-
Way Permits and Places, including road vacations in Chapter 12.10 JCC; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County Public Works requires permits for any activity by a
citizen or business that impacts a county road or public right-of-way, in order to protect the
infrastructure and the public's safety and investment. Public Works reviews and processes
applications for road approaches, utilities and other right-of-way uses, as well as requests for
road vacations; and
WHEREAS,Jefferson County Public Works has received and reviewed a petition submitted
by Todd and Cathy Stegman ("Petitioners") to vacate the western 20 feet of Lower Adelma Beach
Rd right of way abutting parcel 001-324-021 owned by the Petitioners and located in the northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 1 East, W.M., Jefferson
County Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the road
vacation petition on July 29, 2025; and
WHEREAS,the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner considered testimony of Petitioners,as
well as Karim Miller, Barbara Mones, and Public Works staff; reports from the Department of
Community Development and the County Engineer; and a written comment from Qwest Corporation
doing business as CENTURYLINK QC. The testimony and reports recommend approval of the
Petition; and
WHEREAS, the written response from Qwest does not oppose the petition but requests an
easement for their utilities; and
WHEREAS, a Public Works Staff Report documents compliance with vacation notice
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner has issued Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners dated
August 8, 2025 ("Hearing Examiner Report") which contains findings, conclusions and a
recommendation that the Board approve the road vacation subject to the Petitioners meeting certain
1
conditions to pay all required compensation owed to the County for the vacated right-of-way and
administrative process; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner report does not make a
recommendation in regards to the retention of an easement for the construction, maintenance and
repair of public of public utilities and services. Jefferson County Public Works has determined that
existing utilities are located on the eastern side of Lower Adelma Beach Rd right of way that would
remain open. Thus, there is no need to retain an easement within the subject right of way.
WHEREAS, Petitioners' compensation owed to the County for the vacated right-of-way
includes$15,000 for full current market value(as of the date of the Petition),plus administrative fees
and expenses; and
WHEREAS,upon verification by the Public Works Department that Petitioner has met all
of the conditions identified above, and pursuant to Chapter 36.87 RCW and Chapter 12.10 JCC,the
Board shall adopt a resolution officially granting the Petition and vacating and abandoning the
subject rights-of-way described above; and
WHEREAS,the administrative expenses are over-and-above the staff time allowed under the
application fee,with the clarification that such administrative fees and expenses shall include the costs
for preparing and recording(by County staff)a Final Resolution approving the vacation of the subject
rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, if Petitioners fail to meet the required conditions within one year from the
date of this Resolution, or any approved extension, the vacation process shall terminate, in which
case Petitioners shall remain liable for all administrative costs actually incurred by the County;
and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has considered the Hearing
Examiner Report and the recommendations contained therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Whereas Clauses are Findings of Fact. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
hereby adopts the above"Whereas" clauses as Findings of Fact.
Section 2. Purpose. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts the Hearing Examiner's
findings, conclusions and recommendations as reflected in the Hearing Examiner's Report dated
August 8,2025.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution
or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of this Resolution or
its application to other persons or circumstances shall be fully valid and shall not be affected.
Section 4. SEPA Categorical Exemption. This Resolution is categorically exempt from the State
2
Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11-800 (19).
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force immediately upon
passage by the Board of County Commissioners.
(SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE)
3
ADOPTED and APPROVED this day of August, 2025.
SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Heidi Eisenhour, Commissioner District 2
Greg Brotherton, Commissioner District 3
Heather Dudley-Nollette, Commissioner District 1
ATTEST:
Carolyn Gallaway, CMC Date
Clerk of the Board
4
1 Stephanie Marshall,Attorney at Law
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
2
3
4
6 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
JEFFERSON COUNTY
8 IN RE FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO
9 PETITION TO VACATE PORTION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
LOWER ADELMA BEACH ROAD, COMMISSIONERS
10 PROJECT NO.97025002
11 CATHY STEGMAN,
PRINCIPAL PETITIONER
12
PUBLIC HEARING
13
14 The undersigned Hearing Examiner conducted a hybrid (video conference with remot-
15 access technology, and in-person) open record public hearing on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at 2:01
16 p.m. on a petition to vacate the western 20-foot portion of Lower Adelma Beach Road abuttin
17
parcel 001-324-021. Principal Petitioner,Cathy Stegman,along with her husband,Todd Stegman
18
is the current owner of record of Tax Parcel 001-324-021. The right-of way proposed for vacatio
19
20 is the western 20-foot portion of Lower Adelma Beach Road abutting parcel 001-324-021 (stree
21 address of 150 Lower Adelma Beach Road).
22 The following exhibits comprise the record on the petition:
23
CA-01 Petition for Vacation
24 CA-02 Appraisal
CA-03 Road Vacation Process
25 CA-04 Upcoming Road Vacation Schedule
26 CA-05 Final Staff Report
CA-06 Engineer's Report
27 CA-07 CenturyLink Comment
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS- 1
1 Documents may be viewed at: www.cojefferson.wa.us — Services — Laserfiche Web porta
(username/password: public) — Board of Commissioners — Boards & Committees — Hearin_
2 Examiner—2025—072925 Lower Adelma
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
4
5 After reviewing the record and hearing testimony, the Hearing Examiner makes the
6 following Findings of Fact:
7 1. On May 8, 2025, Cathy and Todd Stegman ("Petitioners") submitted a Petition to
8 Vacate a Jefferson County Right-of Way, requesting vacation of a 20-foot portion of Lowe
9
Adelma Beach Road abutting their private property, Parcel 001-324-021 (the"Petition"). CA-01;
10
1 Exhibits 1 and 2 to CA-05; and Exhibits A, B and D to CA-06. The purpose of the petition is t
enable Petitioners to remodel their home, which—along with a portion of their garage- current]
13 encroaches into the subject right-of-way. This action is a necessary prerequisite for their planne
14
home remodel,contingent upon the approval of an associated setback variance. CA-06.
(.s
2. Parcel 001-324-021 is owned by Petitioners and is the only parcel abutting th-
1 ti
17 subject right-of-way. CA-06. Therefore, 100%of the abutting property owners are included in tit:
18 Petition to Vacate. Exhibit C to CA-06.
19 3. The Petition was submitted and has been reviewed in accordance with Chapte
20 12.10 Jefferson County Code("JCC")and RCW Chapter 36.87.
21
4. The subject right-of-way is located at Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter
22
23 Section 32, Township 30 North, Range 1 West. CA-05; CA-06.
24 5. A Staff Report, dated July 8, 2025, was prepared by Joshua Thornton, Jefferso
25 County Real Property Specialist with the Jefferson County Public Works Department. CA-05.
26 6. In accordance with JCC 12.10.050, Mr. Thornton emailed/mailed notice of th=
27
petition and public hearing, including a request for comments on the proposed vacation, on Jun:
2R
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-2
I 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 withi
300 feet of the subject rights-of way. See list of Adjacent Property Owners("APOs") and sampl:
4
5 notice attached as Exhibit 3 to CA-05.
6 7. No objections to the proposed road vacation were raised by any of the Coun
7 departments, entities or businesses which received notice. Exhibit E to CA-06 (Department o
8 Community Development Memo dated June 10, 2025 to Mr. Thornton from Greg Ballard,
9
Jefferson County DCD Code Administrator).No written or oral objections were received as of the
10
11 date of the Staff Report from nearby property owners.
12 8. Notice of the public hearing for the proposed road vacation was published in the
13 Jefferson County Port Townsend Leader on July 10 and July 17,2025. Exhibit 4 to CA-05.
14 9. On June 17, 2025, public notices of the Petition to Vacate, public notice of the
15
scheduled public hearing and instructions for commenting were posted on the subject site at th.
16
17 northwestern and southwestern intersection of the right-of-way and Petitioners' parcel bounda
18 in accordance with RCW 36.87.050 and JCC 12.10.050. Exhibit 5 to CA-05.
19 10. The County Engineer examined the subject right-of-way and prepared a repo
20 rendering an opinion on the required factors that must be considered in determining whether the
21
subject road should be vacated.CA-06(July 8,2025 County Engineer's Report,prepared by Mont:
22
23 Reinders, P.E., Public Works Director/County Engineer).
24 11. The Lower Adelma Beach Road (originally Discovery-Port Townsend Road) wa,
25 petitioned on May 3, 1886 and established by order of the Jefferson County Board o
26 Commissioners on November 6, 1886. The petition requested a 30-foot wide road; however, the
27
sitting Jefferson County Board of Commissioners did not specify a road width in the text of the
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-3
1 Order of Establishment. The 1879 Territorial Laws of Washington provided that"all county roar
2 shall be sixty feet in width,unless the county commissioner shall,upon the prayer of the petitioner-
3
for the same,determine on a less number of feet in width."Jefferson County has historically take
4
5 the position that the subject road is within a 60' right of way. CA-06.
6 12. Parcels to the south of the subject right-of-way benefit from Lower Adelma Beac
7 Road. However,the proposed vacation will not impact access because a 40-foot right-of-way wil
8 be retained containing the existing road and utilities. Upon vacation, a 20-foot wide portion of the
9
right-of-way will attach to the western portion of Tax Parcel 001-324-021. CA-06.As required b
10
11 JCC 12.10.110(7),the road vacation will not landlock any parcel or property. CA-06.
12 13. Lower Adelma Beach Road is open as a public road and has been maintained b
13 Jefferson County. The County Engineer finds that the road is in fair condition and is currently i
14 use, meeting the definition in JCC 12.10.020 of a "Class B" road, which is a road "dedicated to.
15
deeded to, or otherwise established by the county for which public expenditures have been mad-
16
17 in the acquisition,improvement,or maintenance of same except those roads platted prior to Marc
18 12, 1904, which remained unopened for public use for a period of five years after authority was
19 granted for opening them."CA-06.
20 14. The County Engineer found that the subject right-of-way does not provide fo
21
overall area or neighborhood circulation for the general public,nor is there any anticipated futur:
22
23 need for this right-of-way to serve the general public. CA-06.
24 15. RCW 36.87.040 and JCC 12.10.050(2)(e) require the County Engineer to give a
25 opinion as to whether the public will benefit by the vacation. However,neither provision provide,
26 guidance as to what is considered a "public benefit," when determining whether to approv:
27
vacation of a public right-of-way. The legislative body is the proper entity to weigh public benefit.
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-4
1 and there is a presumption that an ordinance approving a street vacation was validly enacted for
2 public purpose. London v. Seattle, 93 Wn.2d 657 (1980). In the absence of any need for a roa
3
right-of-way for the benefit of the general public (circulation, trails, utilities, etc.), any benefi
4
5 typically would accrue to the property owners with frontage on the vacated right of way. Thes:
6 benefits might include additional building space, room for septic systems, green belt buffer, the
7 ability to keep public from trespassing on their property, or other benefits. Benefits to the publi
8 and county could include reduced road maintenance costs, reduced liability for managing public,
9
right of way (such as garbage dumping, timber theft, danger trees, or abandoned vehicles), an•
to
1.1 increased property tax. All of these reasons have been used in the past to support road vacation
12 and could support a finding of public benefit for the vacation of the subject right-of-way. CA-06.
13 16. JCC 12.10.110(1) requires that the proposed road vacation be reviewed fo
14 compliance with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable plans
15
policies or ordinances. JCC 12.10.110(2) states that roads should not be closed or vacated whe
16
17 land uses,development plans,or occurring patterns indicate their usefulness to area circulation. I
18 accordance with JCC 12.10.060, the Jefferson County Department of Community Developmen u
19 reviewed the proposed road vacation and any environmentally sensitive areas that might b-
20 affected by the road vacation. Exhibit E to CA-06.
21
17. The proposed road vacation has been reviewed for compliance with the Jefferso
22
23 County Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans, policies or ordinances, per JC•
24 12.10.110(1). Therefore,the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
25 18. No land uses, development plans, or occurring patterns indicate that the portion o
26 the right-of-way proposed to be vacated is or will be useful to area circulation, per JC
27
12.10.110(2). Therefore,the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-5
19. JCC 12.10.110(3)states that the effectiveness of fire,medical, law enforcement,o
2
other emergency services should not be impaired by a road vacation. The County Engineer foun
that the effectiveness of emergency services will not be impaired by the proposed road vacation
4
5 No opposition to the Notice of Petition to Vacate the subject right-of-way was received from the
6 Sheriffs Office, Fire District #1 or Jefftom911. CA-06; CA-05. Therefore, the right-of-way i'
7 eligible for vacation under this criterion.
8 20. JCC 12.10.110(4) states that roads should not be closed, vacated, or abandone.
9
when such routes can effectively be used for utility corridors.No opposition from public or privat-
10
11 utility companies or providers was received in response to the Notice of Petition to Vacate
12 Approval of the proposed vacation will not fully close Lower Adelma Beach Road; existin
13 utilities are located on the eastern side of Lower Adelma Beach Road, which will remain open
14 Therefore,the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion. However,if determined t.
15
be necessary, and in compliance with RCW 36.87.140 and JCC 12.10.130(2)(a), the Board o i
16
Commissioners may condition approval of the road vacation on the retention of an easement withi
17
18 the subject vacated area for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities an'
19 services. JCC 12.10.090(2). CA-06.
20 21. Per JCC 12.10.110(5),a road should not be vacated when it could be used for publi
21
trails or pathways. The portion of the subject right-of-way for which vacation is sought does no
22
23 provide direct access to water or a beach. Further,there are no Jefferson County Parks or plans fo
24 new parks in the vicinity. Thus, the subject right-of-way would not be a prime candidate for ..
25 public trail. CA-06. Therefore,the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under this criterion.
26 22. JCC 12.10.110(6) states that rights-of-way should not be vacated if it abuts a bod
27
of salt or fresh water unless certain exceptions apply. The subject right-of-way is located ne.
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-6
1 Discovery Bay, but it does not abut the water. Therefore,the right-of-way is eligible for vacatio
2 under this criterion. CA-06.
3
23. JCC 12.10.120 requires the Principal Petitioner to compensate the County for all
4
5 Class A and Class B vacated rights of way in compliance with RCW 36.87.120. A resolutio
6 approving vacation of a right of way shall not be effective until the following payments are made:
7 • Base payment: the principal petitioner shall pay, with respect to the vacation o
8 either or both Class A and Class B roads or rights of way a sum equal to 1 half o
the current fair market value(as of the date of the petition)of the area so vacated i i
9 the county holds title through a dedication, or the full current fair market value(.
of the date of the petition) if the county acquired the subject rights-of-way othe
10 than by dedication,e.g. fee simple interest."
11 • Additional Payment for Class B roads or rights of way (part 1): The principa
petitioners shall pay to the county an amount equal to the amount of publi•
12 expenditures made in improvement or maintenance of the road or rights-of-way o
a portion of any road or rights-of-way that is the subject of the proposed vacation.
13 • Additional Payment for Class B roads or rights of way (part 2): An amount equal
14 to all other administrative costs incurred by the county in vacating the road.
15 24. The County did not acquire the subject right of way through dedication.Therefore.
16 if the Board accepts the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and approves the road vacation, tlk
17
Principal Petitioner shall be required to compensate the county for the full current fair market valu-
18
of the property. Based upon an appraisal commissioned by Stegman, the fair market value of th=
19
20 subject's right of way is$15,000. Exhibit F to CA-06.
21 25. The County Engineer found that it is not possible to determine what expenditures
22 if any, were made prior to 1997 regarding the subject right of way, and no records of publi•
23
expenditures since then were found. Petitioners' improvements encroaching on the subject right
24
of-way have existed since 1946, further supporting the presumption that no public expenditure-
25
26 were made in regard to the subject right of way. CA-06.
27 26. In order for the vacation to be completed, Petitioners shall be required to pay th=
28 administrative costs incurred by the County in the road vacation process, whether the vacation i
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-7
1 ultimately approved or not. These include the 2025 costs associated with preparing for an•
2 conducting a hearing with the Hearings Examiner, reviewing documents submitted by th
3
Petitioners, document recording fees, etc. To date, the Principal Petitioners have paid a total
4
5 administrative fee of$1381, which is the 2025 fee for vacating roads and includes 17 hours of
6 staff time. Petitioners shall be liable for any staff time over 17 hours and any other administrativ:
7 costs incurred in processing the application.CA-06.With compliance with the proposed conditio
8 of approval in this Recommendation, the right-of-way is eligible for vacation under JCS
9
12.10.120.
10
11 27. The County Engineer concluded that the proposal appears to meet all of the criteri
12 in Chapter 36.87 RCW and Chapter 12.10 JCC required for approval of vacation of a portion o i
13 the subject right-of-way. The Public Works Director/County Engineer expressed an opinion that
14 the right-of-way should be vacated, provided that no contrary testimony or new findings ar-
15
presented at the hearing,and provided that the Principal Petitioner pays all required compensatio
16
17 owed to the County for the vacated right-of-way and administrative process. CA-06.
18 28. No testimony or new findings were presented at the public hearing contrary to the
19 County Engineer's opinion.
20 29. The petitioner has the burden of proof and must establish that the proposed roar
21
vacation meets all applicable criteria of JCC Chapter 12.10 and RCW Chapter 36.87.The applican
22
23 must meet its burden of proof with substantial evidence.
24 30. The subject right-of-way has not been statutorily vacated.
25 31. On July 21, 2025, CenturyLink submitted an email and letter comment on the
26 proposed road vacation. CA-07. It stated that it has utilities in the subject right-of-way am
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-8
I
requested that an easement be reserved for any CenturyLink facilities within the proposed vacatio
area.
3
32. In accordance with RCW 36.87.060 and JCC 12.10.08, the Hearing Examiner hel.
4
5 a public hearing on the petitions for road vacation, allowing for public comment on the propose.
6 road vacation. The Examiner reviewed the road vacation petition,the written staff report, and th=
7 criteria contained in JCC 12.10.110, and received public testimony in support of or in oppositio
8 to the proposed road vacation.
9
33. At the public hearing,Joshua Thornton,Jefferson County Real Property Specialist,
10
it provided testimony reviewing the Staff Report,presenting the circumstances for which propose.
12 road vacation is intended to address and an overview of the County Engineer's report. He testifies
13 regarding the required compensation for the road vacation, including the base payment based o
14 the fair market value of the portion of the road to be vacated and additional administrative fees.
15
34. Mr. Thornton testified that only one public comment was received in response t.
16
17 the Notice of Intent to Vacate from CenturyLink/Quest. This comment letter stated that the roa.
18 vacation should not diminish its rights to any other existing easement or other rights CenturyLi
19 has on the site or in the area. CenturyLink also requested that, if its facilities in the area ar-
20 damaged, the Petitioners should be required to bear the cost of relocation/repair. CA-07. Mr
21
Thornton stated that he personally visited the site on July 21, 2025 to confirm that utilities ar-
22
23 located on the eastern side of the road.
24 35. Todd Stegman, one of the Petitioners, provided testimony in support of th-
25 proposed road vacation. He stated that he and his wife purchased their property two years ago.Th.
26 property is located on a small, dead-end street. Their lot is bisected by the road. Petitioners ar=
27
seeking to remodel a portion of their home that is built within the right-of-way.The encroachmen
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-9
1 will be approximately 15-16 feet into the right-of-way. By requesting vacation of 20 feet of th=
2 right-of-way, Petitioners will have a four-foot buffer between the remodeled structure and the
3
right-of-way. Mr. Stegman testified that they originally considered petitioning for vacation of the
4
5 full right-of-way, but the petition for vacation of only 20 feet of the right-of-way is a bette
6 proposal. Mr. Stegman confirmed that all utilities are located on the east side of the road, outsid=
7 of the portion they seek to have vacated.
8 36. Karim Miller, a neighboring property owner, provided testimony in support of th
9
proposed road vacation.
10
11 37. Barbara Mones, a neighboring property owner, provided testimony in support of
12 the proposed road vacation.
13 38. On rebuttal, Mr. Thornton testified that utility maintenance will not be affected b
14 the proposed road vacation. He stated that he had a call with CenturyLink during which the utili
15
stated it was unsure of the location of its easement. However, it will not be performing a survey.
16
7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
18 1. The Petition has been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in accordance with RC
19 36.87.060 and JCC 12.10.08.
20 2. The Petition includes all information required for a petition to vacate in JC•
21
Chapter 12.10 and RCW Chapter 36.87.
22
23 3. Public notice of the Petition was provided in compliance with JCC 12.10.050
24 Members of the public were provided with an opportunity to comment on the Petition consisten
25 with state and local requirements.
26 4. The Petition is consistent with all subsections of JCC 12.10.110.
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS- 10
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 an
4
5 determine whether, under RCW 36.87.040 and JCC 12.10.050(2)(e), the public will benefit fro
6 the proposed road vacation. The proposal is based on reasons that legally support a determinatio
7 of public benefit. Substantial evidence in the record supports a conclusion that there is no publi•
8 need for the portion of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated on the basis of circulation, trail•
9
or utilities. Benefits to the public and county that may result from approval of the road vacatio
10
11 include reduced road maintenance costs, reduced liability for managing public right of way(suc
12 as garbage dumping,timber theft,danger trees,or abandoned vehicles),and increased property tax
13 7. Petitioners have met their burden of proof have established with substantia
14 evidence that the proposed road vacation meets all applicable criteria of JCC Chapter 12.10 an.
15
RCW Chapter 36.87.
16
17 8. The proposed road vacation is exempt from review under the State Environmental
18 Policy Act,RCW Chapter 43.21C.
19 9. The Hearing Examiner makes this Recommendation to the Jefferson County Boar.
20 of Commissioners,consistent with JCC 12.10.080 and 12.10.130.
21
RECOMMENDATION
22
23 Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Examine
24 recommends that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners APPROVE the Petition fo
25 Vacation submitted by Petitioners Cathy and Todd Stegman,Project No. 97025002,subject to th=
26 following proposed conditions of approval:
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS- 11
1 1. Petitioners shall pay base payment compensation for the full current fair marke u
2 value of the portion of the road to be vacated in the amount of Fifteen Thousand and no/100 Dolla
3
($15,000.00) into the Jefferson County road fund subsequent to the Board of Coun
4
5 Commissioners' approval of the requested road vacation and prior to the signing of the vacatio
6 resolution.
7 2. Petitioners shall pay any additional compensation and all other amounts and fee,
8 due and owing to the County to reimburse the County for administrative costs and staff tiny:
9
incurred by the County in the road vacation process, if the Board of County Commissione
10
determines that the County incurred additional costs in processing the Petition for Vacation beyon.
12 the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-One and no/100 Dollars ($1381.00), whic
13 has been paid by the Petitioners. This additional compensation, other amounts and fees, shall b:
14 paid by Petitioners within one (1) year of approval of the request by the Board of Coun
15
Commissioners. If any sums owed the County are not paid and/or conditions of approval are no
16
17 met within one (1)year of the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the vacation reques
18 as reflected in the approving resolution, then approval may be rescinded upon notice by mail t.
19 the Principal Petitioner(s).
20 3. If the Board of County Commissioners determines it to be necessary, and i
21
compliance with RCW 36.87.140 and JCC 12.10.130(2)(a), it may condition approval of the roa.
22
23 vacation on the retention of an easement within the vacated area for the construction, repair, an.
24 maintenance of public utilities and services. JCC 12.10.090(2).
25 4. Approval of the requested road vacation shall not be deemed to diminish o
26 otherwise affect easement and/or other rights of CenturyLink within the vacated right-of-way. I i
27
28
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS- 12
I Petitioners damage any CenturyLink facilities within the vacated right-of-way,Petitioners shall b
responsible to CenturyLink for the reasonable cost of relocation and/or repair of such facilities.
3
5. Should the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested road vacation
4
5 reimbursement to Jefferson County of all costs of processing the request shall be the responsibili
6 of the Principal Petitioners.
Dated this 11th day of August,2025.
STEPHANIE MARSHALL,Attorney at Law
UU Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
11
12
I
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