HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 30 Letter to Causseaux .docxCheryl Brunette
P O Box 112
Nordland WA 98358
360-385-5425
30 July 2017
Stephen K. Causseaux, Esq. c/o Nicole Allen nallen@co.jefferson.wa.us
Dear Mr. Causseaux,
Once again I ask that you deny the conditional use permit for the proposed Tier 3 marijuana project on Marrowstone Island, and I want to address the following items in the revised Staff
Recommendations provided to us on July 14, 2017:
#16. “The cottage enterprise is an accessory use to the residential use of a dwelling unit, and the residential function of the buildings and property shall be maintained.”
Austin Smith bought the property at 9272 Flagler Road on 11/14/2016. Eight and a half months later, the residence is still vacant and has been vacant this whole time. A prudent person
would conclude that the only reason for someone to live there, given the current permit request, is to tend the business, making the residential use an accessory use to the business
enterprise. Thus this project does not comply with condition #16.
#17. Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties. The area devoted to the cottage
industry and all related activities to processing of recreational marijuana shall be limited to the 1800 square foot area defined on the approved plan set as the “head house”. No activities
related to the cottage industry shall take place anywhere else inside the greenhouse structure or on the property.
During the June 27 hearing Kevin Coker testified that there was a “60 to 70 foot high” structure over 100 feet long as seen on Google Earth within a mile of this proposed project. This
structure does not exist. The closest thing to it is a low-roof, ramshackle “barn” at 660 Schwartz Road on property owned by Dr. Anne Mize. She says, “I have lived next to that property
for over 25 years and so have observed the activity on that property for that long. There has been a commercial venture there in the past, but that is no longer the case. The barn is
so dilapidated it would be unsafe for any animal or person to walk into, and has been in this condition for over 20 years. The dimensions of the barn are approx 15ft x 50ft.”
There is no structure on the island close in scale to the one described in the building plans of which you have a copy. Despite the applicant’s and county’s linguistic contortions to
try to divide the space into “cottage industry” and “greenhouse” it’s all one building, one Tier 3 permit, one business license, and any prudent person who spent even one hour driving
around the island would see that this is totally out of scale and character. Therefore this project does not comply with condition #17.
#18. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment
of adjoining and surrounding property. Any after-hours business activities shall not have noise impacts discernible beyond the property boundaries.
We have nothing but verbal assurances of mitigation from the applicant that none of these will be a problem. Despite the reams of documented complaints about these problems with marijuana
grows across the state, the fact that the plans show a number of massive fans and vents and 117 1000-watt High Pressure Sodium Lamps, the DCD has chosen to accept the applicant’s verbal
assertions without supporting documentation. At the hearing we submitted 81 pages of ORCAA odor complaints in Jefferson and Clallam counties filed in the last three years and specs
on the noise levels of the fans. A prudent person would conclude that verbal assertions of mitigation, especially in the face of all the evidence of the environmental impact of such
operations, are inadequate. Thus this project does not comply with condition #18.
One other point needs to be made about interfering with “the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property.” The owners of the adjacent property have already sustained
material damages in the form of property devaluation in an attempt to sell it, and in a lost buyer. A prudent person might see that as losing enjoyment of ones property, seeing its
value drop with the mere threat of this project going in.
#20. The proposed cottage industry shall comply with the standards and requirements of the Jefferson County environmental health department.
I emailed Susan Porto of the Jefferson County Environmental Health Department on July 17, to ask if these two conditions listed on the website for this project were still relevant:
1) “ No plumbing has been reviewed or approved for this project by Jefferson County Public Health. Additional requirements may apply if plumbing is proposed.”
and
2) “JCPH approval for the septic system connection is approved based on the growing operation using soil as the growing medium. The use of hydroponic or water based growing media IS
NOT approved.”
This was her answer:
“Cheryl,
I spoke to Austin prior to the hearing to clarify his statements on hydroponic. He said he would be growing in soil, using irrigation. He said some people refer to that as hydroponic,
tho I’ve never heard of any soil based growing called hydroponic. In any case, the condition remains and no revisions to add any plumbing has been submitted.
S”
It is unreasonable to assume that they can grow thousands of commercial plants inside a building without plumbing, unless, of course, they intend to deliver the water in buckets and
watering cans, and that defies even the most vivid of imaginations, especially given the very limited number of employees allowed.
As for Smith’s contention that “The plants are grown in a closed hydroponic system, where the state-approved nutrients feed the plants through a drip system, and there is no runoff,”
when is hydroponics not hydroponics? This is just another semantic boondoggle like so many they’ve used to try to fit this large, rectangular project into a small, round hole.
Any prudent person would conclude that the project does not comply with condition #20.
I still contend that this project is, at the very least, subject to SEPA review as outlined in my June 27, 2017 letter to you and I have other concerns about the project but they are
best addressed to the WSLCB, Governor Inslee, and Jefferson County officials.
Thank you,
Cheryl Brunette
C.C.
Patty Charnas, Director of Community Development, pcharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us
David Greetham, Planning Manager, DGreetham@co.jefferson.wa.us
Kate Dean, County Commissioner District 1, jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Kathleen Kler, Commissioner District 3, jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
David Sullivan, Commissioner District 2, jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us
Philip Morley, County Administrator, pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us