Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 David Fitzpatrick P 0 Box 134 Nordland WA 98358 27 June 2017 TO: Stephen K. Causseaux, Esq. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 902 South 10th Street, Tacoma Washington 98405 C.C. Patty Charnas, Director of Community Development, pcharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us Pat Hopper,Associate Planner,phopper@co.jefferson.wa.us Kate Dean, County Commissioner District 1,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us David Sullivan, Commissioner District 2,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Kathleen Kler, Commissioner District 3,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Philip Morley, County Administrator,pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us aarthur@ptleader.com Dear Mr. Causseaux, Here is a transcript of my testimony before you on 27 June 2017, at the Jefferson County Courthouse, regarding: File No: MLA17-00019: ZON17-00002—ZON17-00003 — BLD17-00093: Good afternoon. Thank you for being here and I thank the County for the opportunity to speak publicly on this issue at a formal hearing. My name is David Fitzpatrick. I am a member of the Marrowstone Island Preservation Committee. I have been a Marrowstone Island property owner for 19 years, a part-time resident for ten years, and a full time resident for five years. As mentioned earlier,we have no objection to the legalization of marijuana under I-502. However, we do object to the location of such facilities in rural residential neighborhoods generally, and, of course, to their location anywhere on Marrowstone Island in particular. We view the struggle to preserve our rural residential community and our unique environment as having important implications for the balance of competing interests regarding marijuana production throughout the county. My comments will focus on just a few of the many environmental concerns we have regarding the proposed facility. To begin with respect for community and respect for law, broadly speaking, we want to correct what we believe is a major mischaracterization of the primary intent of the property, facility, and operation. The county staff report repeatedly reports the claim that the primary intent of the property is as a residence for Mr. Smith or at least for some of his employees (who might also be relatives) that will work at the facility. But this is at odds with the fundamental economics of this project. According to county records,the purchase price of the property and house was $410,000. The cost of the "greenhouse"kit,the construction of the buildings, and the price of the systems that allow it to function,will very likely exceed the original purchase price of the property. Other operators in our region have reported investments in plant and equipment for similar sized operations as being in the $750,000 range and up. This situation is made more acute if the claims made to be equipping this particular facility with extra and more expensive systems in order to reduce odors, noise, and waste-water are true. It is also important to note, as far as we have discovered through this date,that Mr. Smith still owns a home in the Seattle area. When you consider the recurring economics of the facility,the same pattern emerges. The estimated labor expense of even a four-person crew for a month* will more than double the monthly mortgage payment we estimate* is required on the original property purchase. The monthly mortgage on the facility and systems, if there is one, is also likely to be larger than the estimated property mortgage. In terms of the application of human effort at the site over a month of operation, the use of human effort for commercial purposes also far outweighs the personal,residential application. And if recurring revenue is considered, the production facility surely will produce many, many times more income than the house, even if all three rooms were rented to employees. Industrial-scale commercial interests drive this project. The fundamental economics of the site and planned operation are dominated by commercial intent. The physical space of the site will overwhelmingly be dedicated to commercial intent. The proposed production facility is nearly six times as large as the residence. The production facility plans show no restrooms and the site plan has no additional septic or water treatment elements. From this we think it is reasonable to assume the residence will be used as an employee facility and office as well as a residence. Altogether,the above facts and estimates make it unreasonable to consider the marijuana production facility as"ancillary"to the residence. The opposite is true. The residence is ancillary to the business, and very likely will be used as additional commercial space. As such, it is in violation of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Development Plan, Land Use and Rural Policy 6.1 (p.8-24)which, to paraphrase, `permits cottage industries when they are accessory to the residential use of the property'. [See relevant Plan text and county staff comment on page 5, item 2.c, of the Staff Report, dated 20 June.] On that basis alone, we recommend this development plan and building permit be denied. Moving on to other environmental concerns. There appears to be considerable risk of ground and water pollution by the proposed facility. As stated before, that is of special concern given our isolated, fragile aquifer that is still the source of drinking water for many Marrowstone Island residents. * estimate details available on request We hear from Mr. Smith via the Leader, and from his representative at the MICA meeting, that the facility will be a state-of-the-art hydroponic "grow". We are told the system is so sophisticated and precisely balanced that there will be no water runoff inside the operation. And based on that claim, the facility and site design contain no grow water capture or treatment features, not even a connection to the existing residential septic system. But we are skeptical. In none of the actual operations we have reviewed or researched can we find an example of such a system. We have seen estimates that such hydroponic grows require between 5,000 to 15,000 gallons of water each day. We believe spills, leaks, overflows, and cleanup activities are inevitable. We also understand that fertilizers,pesticides, and fungicides will be used at the facility. Given the size of the operation, large quantities will be required. Mr. Smith has stated that all such chemicals he will use are approved by the State and are listed on the WSU Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL). But so far as we know there is no provision anywhere to contain or treat water or ground pollution from these chemicals. We have seen no plan for the disposal of growing media or other plant waste contaminated by these chemicals. As with the no water runoff story, we are skeptical. Taken together, the claims regarding grow water runoff and chemicals seem too good to be true. Yet there are no permit conditions proposed regarding internal grow operations water treatment or ground contamination control, only external stormwater management is addressed. What we fear as a result is that the ground and water of our island will be contaminated from inside the production facility as currently designed and planned. We regard draft county conditions to guard against these reasonable concerns as insufficient, particularly for Marrowstone. And, as stated earlier,we believe the county decision to exempt the project from a SEPA review is flawed and should be reversed if the project proceeds in any form. We are also deeply concerned about odors and noise pollution. Through our collective research we have gathered multiple,persistent complaints of extremely offensive odors coming from marijuana production facilities of all sizes and designs. There is strong correlation between size and intensity in these violations of regional odor standards. I'm providing as additional evidence in this hearing a recent compilation of ORCAA complaints and administrative actions for your review. It's over 80 pages in length, so I won't go into all the details now. But please allow me just a few observations. In this record there are many, frequently repeated claims that special enhanced odor control systems are in place. None of them seem to be effective enough to stop negative public impact. At one large operation in Port Townsend the odors are so intense they regularly arouse complaints from up to 1/2 mile away from people driving by in cars. The record is also full of excuses made by producers about how they don't have the money, space, or technology to really solve the problem. So once again, we are skeptical about the claims made minimal odor from the massive facility proposed for our neighborhood. Regarding noise,primarily from the large quantity of ventilation and circulation fans in the facility,you've heard previously about the estimate of 66dB noise levels coming from the eight large exhaust fans. That's terribly loud, especially when sustained over long periods or at night. But many people are not familiar with dB as a unit of measure and its logarithmic scale. So here's another, more approachable way to think about it. A leading cause of noise in fans is the speed of the blade tip, along with the amount of air it moves, and the related vibration of the blade itself. Consider this: a 48" diameter fan running at low speeds generates tip velocities of between 100 to 250 miles per hour. At high speeds, as they might be run on hot summer days, such fans generate tip speeds of over 550 miles per hour. That's nearly as fast as a Boeing 737 flies at cruise altitude; it equates to Mach 0.7, or seven tenths the speed of sound. Multiply that tip speed phenomena by five blades in each fan and by eight again to account for the quantity of large exhaust fans in the proposed factory. It could make the worst F-18 Growler traffic we've ever experienced seems like a great alternative. The claims of muffling such noise so that "anyone beyond few dozen feet away would have difficulty hearing anything from the system" are hard to believe. Yet again, we are skeptical. It's hard to beat physics. We are concerned that the proposed facility would violate the Washington State Department of Ecology standards for the intensity of sound emitted by an industrial activity. We note that the county did set compliance with that standard as a condition of the permit. Incidentally, we regard that condition as another confirmation that the facility is industrial and not appropriate for a residential area. We'd like to see compliance with the standard demonstrated via independent tests before permits are granted,preferably as part of the SEPA review we think this project deserves, if it proceeds at all. Let me wrap up by illustrating several issues with a realistic future scenario. Imagine living at Smitty's RV Park,just a few hundred feet south of this huge industrial facility. You will be regularly exposed, directly and at close range, to toxic smells, steady fan noise and the sounds of other industrial activity. There will be lights,traffic, and a potential for crime that have never existed before on Marrowstone. What will you do? Most likely you will eventually move away. And Smitty's, a successful family business in place for decades, will fold. As it does, many more people will be forced out of their homes, many of who live modest lives on modest incomes. Why should those people be displaced and suffer? Why should the broader local community suffer? How can that risk be justified in a county with ample land, services, and utilities elsewhere that are proven to be more suitable for commercial marijuana production? The Marrowstone Island Preservation Committee strongly urges county, and state, authorities to reject the subject development proposal and building permits. We think all such developments should be prohibited in rural residential communities anywhere in the county. And we believe all such developments, controversial and high-risk as they are, should be subject to SEPA review. We believe county regulations, codes, as well as state law support our position. Thank you for your time and consideration. David Fitzpatrick P 0 Box 134 Nordland WA 98358 27 June 2017 TO: Stephen K. Causseaux, Esq. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 902 South 10th Street, Tacoma Washington 98405 C.C. Patty Charnas, Director of Community Development, pcharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us Pat Hopper,Associate Planner,phopper@co.jefferson.wa.us Kate Dean, County Commissioner District 1,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us David Sullivan, Commissioner District 2,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Kathleen Kler, Commissioner District 3,jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us Philip Morley, County Administrator,pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us aarthur@ptleader.com Dear Mr. Causseaux, Here is a transcript of my testimony before you on 27 June 2017, at the Jefferson County Courthouse, regarding: File No: MLA17-00019: ZON17-00002—ZON17-00003 — BLD17-00093: Good afternoon. Thank you for being here and I thank the County for the opportunity to speak publicly on this issue at a formal hearing. My name is David Fitzpatrick. I am a member of the Marrowstone Island Preservation Committee. I have been a Marrowstone Island property owner for 19 years, a part-time resident for ten years, and a full time resident for five years. As mentioned earlier,we have no objection to the legalization of marijuana under I-502. However, we do object to the location of such facilities in rural residential neighborhoods generally, and, of course, to their location anywhere on Marrowstone Island in particular. We view the struggle to preserve our rural residential community and our unique environment as having important implications for the balance of competing interests regarding marijuana production throughout the county. My comments will focus on just a few of the many environmental concerns we have regarding the proposed facility. To begin with respect for community and respect for law, broadly speaking, we want to correct what we believe is a major mischaracterization of the primary intent of the property, facility, and operation. The county staff report repeatedly reports the claim that the primary intent of the property is as a residence for Mr. Smith or at least for some of his employees (who might also be relatives) that will work at the facility. But this is at odds with the fundamental economics of this project. According to county records,the purchase price of the property and house was $410,000. The cost of the "greenhouse"kit,the construction of the buildings, and the price of the systems that allow it to function,will very likely exceed the original purchase price of the property. Other operators in our region have reported investments in plant and equipment for similar sized operations as being in the $750,000 range and up. This situation is made more acute if the claims made to be equipping this particular facility with extra and more expensive systems in order to reduce odors, noise, and waste-water are true. It is also important to note, as far as we have discovered through this date,that Mr. Smith still owns a home in the Seattle area. When you consider the recurring economics of the facility,the same pattern emerges. The estimated labor expense of even a four-person crew for a month* will more than double the monthly mortgage payment we estimate* is required on the original property purchase. The monthly mortgage on the facility and systems, if there is one, is also likely to be larger than the estimated property mortgage. In terms of the application of human effort at the site over a month of operation, the use of human effort for commercial purposes also far outweighs the personal,residential application. And if recurring revenue is considered, the production facility surely will produce many, many times more income than the house, even if all three rooms were rented to employees. Industrial-scale commercial interests drive this project. The fundamental economics of the site and planned operation are dominated by commercial intent. The physical space of the site will overwhelmingly be dedicated to commercial intent. The proposed production facility is nearly six times as large as the residence. The production facility plans show no restrooms and the site plan has no additional septic or water treatment elements. From this we think it is reasonable to assume the residence will be used as an employee facility and office as well as a residence. Altogether,the above facts and estimates make it unreasonable to consider the marijuana production facility as"ancillary"to the residence. The opposite is true. The residence is ancillary to the business, and very likely will be used as additional commercial space. As such, it is in violation of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Development Plan, Land Use and Rural Policy 6.1 (p.8-24)which, to paraphrase, `permits cottage industries when they are accessory to the residential use of the property'. [See relevant Plan text and county staff comment on page 5, item 2.c, of the Staff Report, dated 20 June.] On that basis alone, we recommend this development plan and building permit be denied. Moving on to other environmental concerns. There appears to be considerable risk of ground and water pollution by the proposed facility. As stated before, that is of special concern given our isolated, fragile aquifer that is still the source of drinking water for many Marrowstone Island residents. * estimate details available on request We hear from Mr. Smith via the Leader, and from his representative at the MICA meeting, that the facility will be a state-of-the-art hydroponic "grow". We are told the system is so sophisticated and precisely balanced that there will be no water runoff inside the operation. And based on that claim, the facility and site design contain no grow water capture or treatment features, not even a connection to the existing residential septic system. But we are skeptical. In none of the actual operations we have reviewed or researched can we find an example of such a system. We have seen estimates that such hydroponic grows require between 5,000 to 15,000 gallons of water each day. We believe spills, leaks, overflows, and cleanup activities are inevitable. We also understand that fertilizers,pesticides, and fungicides will be used at the facility. Given the size of the operation, large quantities will be required. Mr. Smith has stated that all such chemicals he will use are approved by the State and are listed on the WSU Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL). But so far as we know there is no provision anywhere to contain or treat water or ground pollution from these chemicals. We have seen no plan for the disposal of growing media or other plant waste contaminated by these chemicals. As with the no water runoff story, we are skeptical. Taken together, the claims regarding grow water runoff and chemicals seem too good to be true. Yet there are no permit conditions proposed regarding internal grow operations water treatment or ground contamination control, only external stormwater management is addressed. What we fear as a result is that the ground and water of our island will be contaminated from inside the production facility as currently designed and planned. We regard draft county conditions to guard against these reasonable concerns as insufficient, particularly for Marrowstone. And, as stated earlier,we believe the county decision to exempt the project from a SEPA review is flawed and should be reversed if the project proceeds in any form. We are also deeply concerned about odors and noise pollution. Through our collective research we have gathered multiple,persistent complaints of extremely offensive odors coming from marijuana production facilities of all sizes and designs. There is strong correlation between size and intensity in these violations of regional odor standards. I'm providing as additional evidence in this hearing a recent compilation of ORCAA complaints and administrative actions for your review. It's over 80 pages in length, so I won't go into all the details now. But please allow me just a few observations. In this record there are many, frequently repeated claims that special enhanced odor control systems are in place. None of them seem to be effective enough to stop negative public impact. At one large operation in Port Townsend the odors are so intense they regularly arouse complaints from up to 1/2 mile away from people driving by in cars. The record is also full of excuses made by producers about how they don't have the money, space, or technology to really solve the problem. So once again, we are skeptical about the claims made minimal odor from the massive facility proposed for our neighborhood. Regarding noise,primarily from the large quantity of ventilation and circulation fans in the facility,you've heard previously about the estimate of 66dB noise levels coming from the eight large exhaust fans. That's terribly loud, especially when sustained over long periods or at night. But many people are not familiar with dB as a unit of measure and its logarithmic scale. So here's another, more approachable way to think about it. A leading cause of noise in fans is the speed of the blade tip, along with the amount of air it moves, and the related vibration of the blade itself. Consider this: a 48" diameter fan running at low speeds generates tip velocities of between 100 to 250 miles per hour. At high speeds, as they might be run on hot summer days, such fans generate tip speeds of over 550 miles per hour. That's nearly as fast as a Boeing 737 flies at cruise altitude; it equates to Mach 0.7, or seven tenths the speed of sound. Multiply that tip speed phenomena by five blades in each fan and by eight again to account for the quantity of large exhaust fans in the proposed factory. It could make the worst F-18 Growler traffic we've ever experienced seems like a great alternative. The claims of muffling such noise so that "anyone beyond few dozen feet away would have difficulty hearing anything from the system" are hard to believe. Yet again, we are skeptical. It's hard to beat physics. We are concerned that the proposed facility would violate the Washington State Department of Ecology standards for the intensity of sound emitted by an industrial activity. We note that the county did set compliance with that standard as a condition of the permit. Incidentally, we regard that condition as another confirmation that the facility is industrial and not appropriate for a residential area. We'd like to see compliance with the standard demonstrated via independent tests before permits are granted,preferably as part of the SEPA review we think this project deserves, if it proceeds at all. Let me wrap up by illustrating several issues with a realistic future scenario. Imagine living at Smitty's RV Park,just a few hundred feet south of this huge industrial facility. You will be regularly exposed, directly and at close range, to toxic smells, steady fan noise and the sounds of other industrial activity. There will be lights,traffic, and a potential for crime that have never existed before on Marrowstone. What will you do? Most likely you will eventually move away. And Smitty's, a successful family business in place for decades, will fold. As it does, many more people will be forced out of their homes, many of who live modest lives on modest incomes. Why should those people be displaced and suffer? Why should the broader local community suffer? How can that risk be justified in a county with ample land, services, and utilities elsewhere that are proven to be more suitable for commercial marijuana production? The Marrowstone Island Preservation Committee strongly urges county, and state, authorities to reject the subject development proposal and building permits. We think all such developments should be prohibited in rural residential communities anywhere in the county. And we believe all such developments, controversial and high-risk as they are, should be subject to SEPA review. We believe county regulations, codes, as well as state law support our position. Thank you for your time and consideration.