HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-30-17 comments to Hearing examiner - LB-signed (0002).pdf
Laurel Burik
1631 Griffith Point Road
Nordland, WA 98358
July 30, 2017
Stephen Causseaux, Hearing Examiner
c/o Nicole Allen, JeffCo Dept. of Community Development
NAllen@co.jefferson.wa.us
Re: Permit Applications for Tax Parcel 021204015
MLA17-00019 (ZON17-00002 and ZON17-00003)
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
I apologize in advance for the unconventional format of this letter; however, I feel it is important to
provide the actual code citations and other evidence directly in the body of this letter rather than
provide footnotes for you to look up. By providing this letter in pdf format, you will be able to zoom in
to read these citations, most of which I have redlined for emphasis.
This letter expresses my vehement objection to the above-referenced permit application specifically
and the county’s ongoing emphasis on commercial growth at any cost, despite Gov. Inslee’s recent
veto of Substitute Senate Bill 5790 amending the Growth Management Act--Economic Development
Element.
Contrary to both state and county code, this enterprise brings NO benefit to our community here on
Marrowstone Island, NO employment for existing county residents, and virtually NO tax dollars, as
excise taxes are now applied at the retail level. Furthermore, this type of growing literally produces
excessive greenhouse gas emissions along with creating a massive carbon footprint, all in the name
of “economic growth opportunity”.
Despite Section 14, Conflict of Interest, in the Planning Commission’s Bylaws, and the statement on
the Jefferson County website that “Appointees represent their constituents and the general public
from their district”, of which permit applicant Austin Smith, a resident of (and presumably voter) in
King County is not, and this case: Hayden v. Port Townsend, 29 Wn. App. 192 (1981), on the
application for conditional use permit, Kevin Coker, a planning commissioner acting as
agent/representative for permit applicant Austin Smith,, describes “a large, open greenhouse”, which
is not true as to it being “open”, as it is a rigid-walled, rigid-roofed and guttered structure with metal
rollup doors and motorized light deprivation curtains.
The plans show eight 48”, 2 horsepower, single-speed exhaust fans, ten 20” HAF fans, three roof
vent DC 24v motors, two light deprivation motors, thirteen 51” intakes along one side (115’), three
8’x8’ rollup doors, three heaters in the grow areas only, a propane line extending the full length (140’)
of the structure, and 117 thousand-watt high pressure sodium lamps, each of which contain 30 mgs
of mercury and require special hazardous waste disposal. There is no indication on the plans
whether there will be a concrete slab, which would require drains and a catchment basin. It shows
concrete footings only.
An operation this large would require commercial service/size electrical and typically would have a
1000 gallon propane tank, not indicated on the site plan. In any case IBC requires plans stamped by
a mechanical engineer and a permit is required as well as installation by a licensed plumber. No
plumbing is indicated on the plan.
http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/seattle/seattle_fuelgas/PDFs_fuelgas/Chaper%204.pdf
Coker also describes the operation thusly:
1. “As a farming operation, the use is consistent with local farms and homes.”
2. “The public will not be adversely affected by the farming.”
3. “The farm will be providing a resource to the community along with tax dollars.”
4. “The ‘right to farm’ is a key component to our goals of encouraging our local economy.”
Coker, a planning commissioner, appears to be ignorant of the term ‘right to farm’, even as cited in
JCC 18.15.095, which serves to protect existing agricultural operations from nuisance lawsuits by
encroaching development (residential or otherwise) for odor, noise, etc. In this case, the proposed
operation would be encroaching on existing single family residential use and bring the nuisance with
it.
State laws would beg to differ that this operation can be legally described as farming.
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/marijuana/Default.aspx
No tax exemptions for recreational marijuana
These products do not qualify for either the sales tax exemption for prescription drugs or the sales tax
exemption for food and food ingredients. None of Washington’s tax preferences for agricultural
products or property tax incentives apply to marijuana businesses.
From Jefferson County Code:
“As a farming operation, the use is consistent with local farms and homes.”
Aside from not being a farming operation, the 10,080 SF structure is not consistent with any existing
local farms and homes. I defy the building department to cite a single permitted structure on
Marrowstone with a 10,080 SF concrete foundation or anything approaching that. Coker described
seeing a structure “125 feet long and 70 feet high” nearby on Google sat map. I do not believe there
is any structure in all of Jefferson County that is 70 feet high with the exception of the clock tower on
the county courthouse. Perhaps he was thinking of some of the structures located at historic Ft.
Flagler, though even the lighthouse is only 28 feet high, or perhaps he was thinking of this old
abandoned egg house.
“The public will not be adversely affected by the farming.”
The public would beg to differ, as evidenced by the outpouring of letters and attendance at this
hearing and other public meetings, and in articles in the local paper, on this operation and others like
it. The public does not want this type of commercial/industrial operation located in rural residential
areas, and according to an August 13, 2014 article in the PT Leader, “Jefferson County officials say
legal marijuana growing and processing businesses don’t belong in rural residential areas”.
“The farm will be providing a resource to the community along with tax dollars.”
What resource is that? Here is a list of Community Resources for Jefferson County. I do not see
marijuana production and processing listed.
On page 3-22 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is a section titled “Economic Activities
Outside of Rural Commercial Areas”.
.
RCW 36.70A.365 - Major industrial developments
According to Jefferson County Code 18.10.180, 18.15.015 and 18.15.020, it is not a "resource".
"Resource-based industrial" means a forest resource-based industrial land use designation
that recognizes existing, active sawmills and related activities.
"Resource lands" means agricultural, forest, and mineral lands that have long-term commercial
significance.
Which community? Does this community include the children therein? Kids in this community and
indeed anywhere in the US can go to the store and buy apples or apple juice, but they cannot buy
alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. Excise taxes are now at the retail level only. B&O taxes go to the
state. Maybe Mr. Coker means property taxes, but those could likely be lowered on surrounding
homes and land if this commercial/industrial operation is permitted in this rural residential community.
Every property owner in this community is providing tax dollars to the county, though we may be
providing less if this operation is permitted.
Speaking of communities, the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan, adopted by the
county in March of 1978 (prior to the 1979 Comprehensive Plan), is still in full force and effect,
despite claims by some at the county that say it has been superceded by the current county
comprehensive plan.
This is taken direcly from the JeffCo website:
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/html/JeffersonCounty18/JeffersonCounty1805.ht
ml#18.05.190
Below are portions of the Marrowstone Community Development Plan that clearly spell out the
values, goals and policies for Marrowstone Island that exist to this day.
As for the cottage industry application, JCC code conflicts with itself. It requires a cottage industry
permit for marijuana processing but in JCC 18.15.040, Categories of Land Use, Table 3-1, as cited in
the pre-application conference (PRE-16-00038), cottage industry specifically excludes recreational
marijuana.
JCC Table 3-1 also prohibits farm worker housing in rural residential. According to the applicant’s
permit application, that is exactly what is intended.
In searching the JeffCo website for all documents pertaining to the above referenced parcel, I came
across the 95% LTV owner-occupied purchase money deed of trust recorded November 16, 2016, a
current lien on the property. Apparently both the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and
the Jefferson County Building Department failed in their due diligence determinations for both the
business license location and the permits. Below is the recording information to look up the
document. I believe a close look is warranted.
JCC Table 3-1 lists recreational marijuana processing under industrial uses, and indeed WAC 51-50-
0306 classifies it as F-1 moderate hazard – “moderate” being most hazardous industrial uses that are
not extremely hazardous, such as nuclear reactors. Here’s a portion of the IBC with WA
amendments.
JCC Table 3-1 lists recreational marijuana producing under agricultural and forestry uses, but as
pointed out near the beginning of this letter, marijuana production is not considered agriculture
and marijuana producers are not farmers.
18.40.530 Approval criteria for all conditional uses.
(1) The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in
Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as “C(a),” “C(d)” or “C”) if all of the following criteria are satisfied:
(a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or
intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical
characteristics of the subject property;
(b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater
disposal, and stormwater control;
(c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which
unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the
conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties;
(f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and
anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel;
(g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this code and any other
applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in
Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC;
(h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield;
(i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot
be mitigated through conditions of approval;
(j) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole;
(k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Plan; and
(l) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect
of similar actions in the area.
(2) In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the application shall be denied.
Lastly, what is the point of (d) – discretionary, if NO discretion is applied? Common sense dictates
that this type of large-scale commercial/industrial business has NO business in residential areas, rural
or otherwise. There is a designated place for this type of business in commercial and industrial
zones. I believe this permit application fails to meet ALL of the criteria set forth above, and as such
should be denied.
Sincerely,
Laurel Burik