HomeMy WebLinkAbout31 67 1'1Jt,
Jo Ann Comstock
11 Reef Road
Nordland,WA 98358
jacoxey@me.com
June 26, 2017
Stephen K. Causseaux,Esq.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
902 South 10th Street,Tacoma •
Washington 98405
RE: Case:MLA17-00019
Building Permit:BLD 17-00093
Parcel No: 021204015
Address: 9272 Flagler Road,Nordland WA
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board License#412943
Dear Mr. Causseaux,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the above-referenced proposal for a
Tier 3 marijuana production and processing facility on Marrowstone Island. Although I
previously submitted comments to the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development,it was prior to the availability of the"Development Review Division Staff Report
to Jefferson County Hearing Examiner"(dated June 20th, 2017). I believe that several of the
findings put forth in this report to justify approval of the proposed facility are flawed. I will touch
on only a few of them here,as I know that many of the other issues are addressed by other
concerned citizens in their comments..
1) Regarding the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan stated goal of fostering
cottage industries in order to provide economic and employment opportunities,
staff findings include the following:
• "The proposed cottage industry permit...will provide economic and employment opportunities
to Jefferson County Citizens."
• "The proposed project ... will allow a new business to provide living wage jobs for Jefferson
County citizens."
Conversely,staff findings also include the statement that'All employees are extended family
members of the property owner and will reside at the existing single family residence on the
property." Secondly,in the Operating Plan submitted to the Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board,(and received by Jefferson County DCD on March 7, 2017),Mr.Austin Smith
answers"NO"to the question"Will you provide a living wage to eighty-five percent or more of
your employees?"
Clearly,this project will not provide new employment opportunities to Jefferson County residents,
nor does Mr. Smith intend to provide living wages to his "extended family member"employees.
1 of 4
At best,one might hope for"trickle-down"economics and argue that production/processing
operations indirectly create jobs at the retail end of the marijuana business,as well as excise taxes
for the county.
2) Regarding the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan requirement that the owner
or lessee of the property reside within the dwelling unit, staff findings include the
following:
• "Austin Smith...will reside in the dwelling unit."
• "The cottage industry will be owned and operated by Austin Smith,property owner."
Austin Smith's representative,Planning Commissioner Kevin Coker,stated at the May 15th
Marrowstone Island Community Association meeting that Mr. Smith does not intend to reside at
the property for at least a couple of years so that his daughters can complete their high school
education in Seattle.If that is the case,the residency requirement will not be met.
Furthermore,while the Staff Report comments on the applicable county ordinances,it does not
address the apparent conflict with Washington Administrative Code 314-55-015,which states that
the Liquor and Cannabis Board"will not approve any marijuana license for a location where law
enforcement access,without notice or cause,is limited. This includes a personal residence."
3)Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.20.020 requirement that the cottage
industry be accessory and secondary to an existing single-family dwelling,staff
findings include the following:
• "The principal use of the property is residential.The proposed greenhouse is clearly secondary
to the principal use....The project covers only 3.1%of the 7.3 acre parcel...."
Planning Commissioner Kevin Coker,stated at the May 15th Marrowstone Island Community
Association meeting that Mr. Smith was specifically searching for a property for marijuana
production/processing when he chose the location on Marrowstone Island,and that Mr.Smith
does not intend to reside at the property,at least initially. Clearly,the marijuana structure and
business is primary,and owner residency is a secondary"maybe".
Furthermore,if structure size is to be used as a factor for determining primary and secondary use,
the proposed greenhouse structure,at nearly six times the size of the residence,is clearly the
primary use.
4) Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.20.170(4),which limits the size of any new
structure built to accommodate a cottage industry to 5,000 square feet; and JCC
18.20.295(4),which allows a marijuana production greenhouse to up to five percent
of gross parcel size, (for a 7.3 acre parcel), staff findings and conditions include
the following:
• "The parcel is zoned as Rural Residential 1:10 and requires a cottage industry permit for
processing of recreational marijuana.The proposed greenhouse is one structure totaling 10,080
square feet. Only 1,800 square feet of the structure is dedicated to processing,in the arca of the
greenhouse labeled'head house'."
2 of 4
• "In no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be
devoted to the cottage industry."(Condition 17)
• "Not more than one cottage industry shall be allowed in or on the same premises."(Condition
20)
• "The project will produce a commercial and agricultural product."
Frankly,this is a bit confusing.In addition to the 1,800 square foot cottage industry"head house"
for processing,the plans show 1,800 square feet of greenhouse for"veg"and 6,480 square feet of
greenhouse for"flower".If only the processing component is deemed a cottage industry,what are
the"veg"and"flower"components?
"Veg"suggests"vegetables".Is that the "agricultural product"referred to,separate and distinct
from the marijuana production and processing? Wouldn't an agricultural greenhouse be a second 1
cottage industry?
I assume"flower"refers to the marijuana production component. (Revised Code of Washington
82.04.213 states that"`agricultural product'does not include marijuana,useable marijuana,or
marijuana-infused products...") Would"flower"then represent a third commercial or industrial
type of"cottage industry",(albeit,exempt from the 5,000 square foot limit).That too,would
violate the limit of one cottage industry on the property.
To add to the confusion,Mr. Smith indicates on the Operating Plan submitted to the Washington
State Liquor and Cannabis Board that the marijuana production is an"outdoor grow"and not
an"indoor grow".
5)Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.40,Article VIII Conditional Uses, staff
findings include the following:
• "The addition of a greenhouse for growing an agricultural/commercial cash crop fits with the
existing and intended character of the community in that it introduces additional agricultural
uses....There arc existing agricultural structures of similar size in the surrounding area that are
not adequately screened from the public view"
• "The project proposal is consistent with(the)standard... The public interest suffers no
substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar
actions in the area."
This property is located in an area zoned"rural residential"and while there are other small-scale
agricultural operations on Marrowstone,agriculture/commercial cash crop is not by any means
the predominant"character of the community". I am unaware of any agricultural structures on
Marrowstone Island that remotely approach the size of this proposed facility and would
appreciate specifics in supporting the claim that there"are existing agricultural structures of
similar size in the surrounding area".Furthermore,it bears repeating that,(per RCW 82.04.213)
marijuana is not an"`agricultural product". Agricultural crops do not require eight-foot
screening fences or 24/7 security systems—just two important distinguishing factors.
Mr. Smith stated in aJune 21, 2017 article in the Port Townsend Leader that"...the area seemed
very liberal,being that the closest grocery store has a pot shop next door."This statement reflects
his unfamiliarity with Marrowstone,as there no"pot shop"next to the only grocery store on the
3 of 4
island. In fact,there are no commercial/industrial marijuana production/processing or retail
facilities on the island,and the community strongly opposed a previous proposal for a grow
operation.
The cumulative effect of similar actions on Marrowstone Island would radically alter the character
of the community. There are several undeveloped parcels on Marrowstone,many of them near
this proposed facility. The possibility of having to drive through a corridor fringed by eight-foot
tall fences on either side of Flagler Road in order to access Fort Flagler State Park is an extremely
unpleasant scenario.I do not believe that the cumulative effects of similar actions have been duly
considered.
In summary,I respectfully request that you recommend that the county deny this permit.
Marijuana production and processing is unsuited to rural residential areas.
Sincerely yours,
L---,L\.e
o Ann Comstock
Patty Charnas,Director of Community Development,(pcharnasna,co jefferson.wa.us)
Pat Hopper,Associate Planner,(phopper(a,co jefferson.wa.us)
Kate Dean,Jefferson County Commissioner District 1, (Ueflboccna,co jefferson.wa.us)
David Sullivan,Jefferson County Commissioner District 2, (ieflbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us)
Kathleen Kler,Jefferson County Commissioner District 3, (ieffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us)
Philip Morley, County Administrator,(pmorley@co jefferson.wa.us)
Washington State Liquor and Marijuana Board(mjretail@lcb.wa.gov)
4 of 4
67 1'1Jt,
Jo Ann Comstock
11 Reef Road
Nordland,WA 98358
jacoxey@me.com
June 26, 2017
Stephen K. Causseaux,Esq.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
902 South 10th Street,Tacoma •
Washington 98405
RE: Case:MLA17-00019
Building Permit:BLD 17-00093
Parcel No: 021204015
Address: 9272 Flagler Road,Nordland WA
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board License#412943
Dear Mr. Causseaux,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the above-referenced proposal for a
Tier 3 marijuana production and processing facility on Marrowstone Island. Although I
previously submitted comments to the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development,it was prior to the availability of the"Development Review Division Staff Report
to Jefferson County Hearing Examiner"(dated June 20th, 2017). I believe that several of the
findings put forth in this report to justify approval of the proposed facility are flawed. I will touch
on only a few of them here,as I know that many of the other issues are addressed by other
concerned citizens in their comments..
1) Regarding the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan stated goal of fostering
cottage industries in order to provide economic and employment opportunities,
staff findings include the following:
• "The proposed cottage industry permit...will provide economic and employment opportunities
to Jefferson County Citizens."
• "The proposed project ... will allow a new business to provide living wage jobs for Jefferson
County citizens."
Conversely,staff findings also include the statement that'All employees are extended family
members of the property owner and will reside at the existing single family residence on the
property." Secondly,in the Operating Plan submitted to the Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board,(and received by Jefferson County DCD on March 7, 2017),Mr.Austin Smith
answers"NO"to the question"Will you provide a living wage to eighty-five percent or more of
your employees?"
Clearly,this project will not provide new employment opportunities to Jefferson County residents,
nor does Mr. Smith intend to provide living wages to his "extended family member"employees.
1 of 4
At best,one might hope for"trickle-down"economics and argue that production/processing
operations indirectly create jobs at the retail end of the marijuana business,as well as excise taxes
for the county.
2) Regarding the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan requirement that the owner
or lessee of the property reside within the dwelling unit, staff findings include the
following:
• "Austin Smith...will reside in the dwelling unit."
• "The cottage industry will be owned and operated by Austin Smith,property owner."
Austin Smith's representative,Planning Commissioner Kevin Coker,stated at the May 15th
Marrowstone Island Community Association meeting that Mr. Smith does not intend to reside at
the property for at least a couple of years so that his daughters can complete their high school
education in Seattle.If that is the case,the residency requirement will not be met.
Furthermore,while the Staff Report comments on the applicable county ordinances,it does not
address the apparent conflict with Washington Administrative Code 314-55-015,which states that
the Liquor and Cannabis Board"will not approve any marijuana license for a location where law
enforcement access,without notice or cause,is limited. This includes a personal residence."
3)Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.20.020 requirement that the cottage
industry be accessory and secondary to an existing single-family dwelling,staff
findings include the following:
• "The principal use of the property is residential.The proposed greenhouse is clearly secondary
to the principal use....The project covers only 3.1%of the 7.3 acre parcel...."
Planning Commissioner Kevin Coker,stated at the May 15th Marrowstone Island Community
Association meeting that Mr. Smith was specifically searching for a property for marijuana
production/processing when he chose the location on Marrowstone Island,and that Mr.Smith
does not intend to reside at the property,at least initially. Clearly,the marijuana structure and
business is primary,and owner residency is a secondary"maybe".
Furthermore,if structure size is to be used as a factor for determining primary and secondary use,
the proposed greenhouse structure,at nearly six times the size of the residence,is clearly the
primary use.
4) Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.20.170(4),which limits the size of any new
structure built to accommodate a cottage industry to 5,000 square feet; and JCC
18.20.295(4),which allows a marijuana production greenhouse to up to five percent
of gross parcel size, (for a 7.3 acre parcel), staff findings and conditions include
the following:
• "The parcel is zoned as Rural Residential 1:10 and requires a cottage industry permit for
processing of recreational marijuana.The proposed greenhouse is one structure totaling 10,080
square feet. Only 1,800 square feet of the structure is dedicated to processing,in the arca of the
greenhouse labeled'head house'."
2 of 4
• "In no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be
devoted to the cottage industry."(Condition 17)
• "Not more than one cottage industry shall be allowed in or on the same premises."(Condition
20)
• "The project will produce a commercial and agricultural product."
Frankly,this is a bit confusing.In addition to the 1,800 square foot cottage industry"head house"
for processing,the plans show 1,800 square feet of greenhouse for"veg"and 6,480 square feet of
greenhouse for"flower".If only the processing component is deemed a cottage industry,what are
the"veg"and"flower"components?
"Veg"suggests"vegetables".Is that the "agricultural product"referred to,separate and distinct
from the marijuana production and processing? Wouldn't an agricultural greenhouse be a second 1
cottage industry?
I assume"flower"refers to the marijuana production component. (Revised Code of Washington
82.04.213 states that"`agricultural product'does not include marijuana,useable marijuana,or
marijuana-infused products...") Would"flower"then represent a third commercial or industrial
type of"cottage industry",(albeit,exempt from the 5,000 square foot limit).That too,would
violate the limit of one cottage industry on the property.
To add to the confusion,Mr. Smith indicates on the Operating Plan submitted to the Washington
State Liquor and Cannabis Board that the marijuana production is an"outdoor grow"and not
an"indoor grow".
5)Regarding Jefferson County Code 18.40,Article VIII Conditional Uses, staff
findings include the following:
• "The addition of a greenhouse for growing an agricultural/commercial cash crop fits with the
existing and intended character of the community in that it introduces additional agricultural
uses....There arc existing agricultural structures of similar size in the surrounding area that are
not adequately screened from the public view"
• "The project proposal is consistent with(the)standard... The public interest suffers no
substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar
actions in the area."
This property is located in an area zoned"rural residential"and while there are other small-scale
agricultural operations on Marrowstone,agriculture/commercial cash crop is not by any means
the predominant"character of the community". I am unaware of any agricultural structures on
Marrowstone Island that remotely approach the size of this proposed facility and would
appreciate specifics in supporting the claim that there"are existing agricultural structures of
similar size in the surrounding area".Furthermore,it bears repeating that,(per RCW 82.04.213)
marijuana is not an"`agricultural product". Agricultural crops do not require eight-foot
screening fences or 24/7 security systems—just two important distinguishing factors.
Mr. Smith stated in aJune 21, 2017 article in the Port Townsend Leader that"...the area seemed
very liberal,being that the closest grocery store has a pot shop next door."This statement reflects
his unfamiliarity with Marrowstone,as there no"pot shop"next to the only grocery store on the
3 of 4
island. In fact,there are no commercial/industrial marijuana production/processing or retail
facilities on the island,and the community strongly opposed a previous proposal for a grow
operation.
The cumulative effect of similar actions on Marrowstone Island would radically alter the character
of the community. There are several undeveloped parcels on Marrowstone,many of them near
this proposed facility. The possibility of having to drive through a corridor fringed by eight-foot
tall fences on either side of Flagler Road in order to access Fort Flagler State Park is an extremely
unpleasant scenario.I do not believe that the cumulative effects of similar actions have been duly
considered.
In summary,I respectfully request that you recommend that the county deny this permit.
Marijuana production and processing is unsuited to rural residential areas.
Sincerely yours,
L---,L\.e
o Ann Comstock
Patty Charnas,Director of Community Development,(pcharnasna,co jefferson.wa.us)
Pat Hopper,Associate Planner,(phopper(a,co jefferson.wa.us)
Kate Dean,Jefferson County Commissioner District 1, (Ueflboccna,co jefferson.wa.us)
David Sullivan,Jefferson County Commissioner District 2, (ieflbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us)
Kathleen Kler,Jefferson County Commissioner District 3, (ieffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us)
Philip Morley, County Administrator,(pmorley@co jefferson.wa.us)
Washington State Liquor and Marijuana Board(mjretail@lcb.wa.gov)
4 of 4