HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27 lDoes_addendum w-LCB interview.pdfLee M. Does
Amy L. Does, Ph.D.
8802 Flagler Road
Nordland, WA 98358
July 31, 2017
Stephen Causseaux, Esq.
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
902 South 10th Street
Tacoma, Washington 98405
Re: MLA17-00019 New Information
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
This letter is an update to my rebuttal of the Jefferson County Staff Recommendations and includes new information
regarding the above permit application currently under your consideration. The new information describes
inconsistencies between the applicant's original permit application and information he has subsequently provided to an
investigator with the state Liquor and Cannabis Board. We ask your indulgence in the following:
A late investigation of the applicant’s license #412943 has revealed documentation that suggests that permit applicant
Austin Smith (dba “Olympus Gardens”) may not have been entirely accurate and forthcoming in completing his
application for the above building permit. We ask that you review the attached Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board document Investigator Interview Notes, as prepared by board investigator Tamara Barger1. The interview is dated
30 June, 2017, and describes Mr. Smith’s intentions to create a Tier-3 Marijuana processing facility at 9272 Flagler
Road on Marrowstone Island. We have highlighted and super-scripted several areas on the document and are providing
our own referenced comments below.
Our comments are as follows:
1. Information on this form postdates and is in conflict with the original posted permit application, as well as
information and statements presented by both applicant and agent Kevin Coker at 27 June public hearing.
2. We believe applicant has misstated by failing to disclose a business relationship to Mr. Kevin Coker. Mr. Coker
has been representing Mr. Smith since at least the time of posting the permit application for MLA17-00019,
and spoke as Mr. Smith’s representative throughout the 27 June public hearing. As Mr. Coker is also on listed
on the Jefferson County Planning Commission, we believe both the business relationship and the omission to
be cause for serious concern to your office and especially to the WSLCB.
3. Mr. Smith’s building permit requests consideration for a 10,080-foot greenhouse building in total. At the 27
June hearing, Smith’s agent Kevin Coker stated that 1800 feet of the proposed building should be regarded as a
separate use (“head house”) and should be regarded as qualifying for cottage industry approval. During the 30
June interview with the state investigator, Mr. Smith is now claiming 11,000 square feet of grow-only area plus
an additional outdoor “hoop house” (ref. #7, below) that was not disclosed in the public hearing. The public was
asked to comment on a building permit for a 10,080 square-foot building only.
4. Argument here follows #3, above: Smith has applied for a 10,080 square-foot building only, and is well aware
that any outdoor operations would at the very least require a SEPA review.
5. Applicant is stating an ice-wash as part of his process. Hearing testimony by agent Coker was that no
wastewater would be discharged from any part of the applicant’s process. Research of the water-wash process
(https://www.alchimiaweb.com/blogen/make-ice-water-hash/) conflicts with applicant’s statement. Applicant
Smith is well aware that a water discharge from his process would require a public sewage system. Marrowstone
Island does not have a public sewage system. Mr. Smith’s property at 9272 Flagler includes a septic system for
the 1800 sq. foot house only.
6. There is in fact an R/V park with 576 feet of Mr. Smith’s property. Children are present at the park, and the
park is separated from Mr. Smith’s property by only a single narrow property that is currently vacant.
7. The “hoop house” Mr. Smith is describing was not discussed at the public hearing, was not described on the
public notice posted on the 9272 Flagler property, and to our knowledge has not been previously disclosed. We
continue to be gravely concerned at the ever-changing scope of Mr. Smith’s proposed project.
8. We believe Mr. Smith has intentionally undervalued his current investment in this business. The sale price of
Mr. Smith’s 9272 Flagger road property and 1800 sq. foot home is listed at over $400,000, and Mr. Smith has
already committed to a fully-equipped 10,080 greenhouse. Even without site preparation and building
assembly costs, Mr. Smith’s investments/liability to date would easily be at or in excess of a million dollars.
While this information may not be directly related to the permit application in question, we continue to be
troubled by what appears to be an ever-growing list of discrepancies between what the applicant is presenting
for public evaluation vs. his apparent intentions at his Flagler road property.
W are vigorously objecting to what we perceive as obvious discrepancies between the applicant’s statements on public
documents created for the county and when under oath at public testimony, vs. the applicants statements appearing on
the attached interview with a state investigator. From the beginning, the public has been asked to approve only a single
structure on rural residential property, and to evaluate the use of said structure under cottage industry provisions as
described within the Jefferson County Code. The size and scope of Mr. Smith’s original proposal for a single “10,080
square foot, 23 foot tall” custom-fabricated structure was and remains beyond anything currently existing as such on our
limited-resource island, and accepting the idea that a commercial venture of this size would be operated by an absentee
owner was enough of a challenge in itself.
Prior to the 27 June hearing, considerable time and money had already been invested in reviewing Mr. Smith’s proposal.
During the hearing, it became evident that the request for approval of a single 10,080-foot building had been “tweaked”
such that the primary building would still be in existence but that only an 1800-foot internal building would have to
qualify as cottage industry. Discovery of the attached interview information now suggests that Mr. Smith’s actual
intentions may be considerably different from what he and Mr. Coker have presented to the public, and there seems to
be no guarantee that the final project would even remotely represent the original proposal the public was asked to
consider. We ask that this permit be denied.
Respectfully,
Lee M. Does
Amy L. Does, Ph.D.
cc: WSLCB
Attachment: Investigator Notes; 5x pages
1 The following Investigator Notes were extracted from the WSLCB file at https://lcbbox.com/s/ivrdx5y72th0fwixbgg345ef2ht8z29g
**Entire file is 600MB at 794 pages: Liquor & Cannibis Board will make this file available only until 27 Aug. 27 2017