HomeMy WebLinkAboutLTR to HE 7-28-17 (0002).docxCarol Gonnella
120 Beach Drive
Nordland, WA 98358
July 28, 2017
Mr. Stephen Causseaux
JEFFCO Department of Community Development
ATTN: Nicole Allen
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
NAllen@co.jefferson.wa.us
RE: JEFFCO Case #MLA17-00019
Building Permit #BLD17-000093
Dear Mr. Causseaux:
My name is Carol Gonnella and I am a resident of Marrowstone Island. I have previously sent a letter and I presented at the hearing regarding this matter on June 27, 2017. This letter
is an addendum to the letter I have previously sent.
I do want to stress I am not opposed to marijuana facilities in the State of Washington, and I applaud the State for taking the courageous stance to be one of the first to legalize recreational
marijuana. However, I am opposed to a Tier 3 marijuana facility being located on the Island of Marrowstone, which is zoned by the county as rural residential. The Tier 3 designation
is the largest allowable marijuana facility allowed under the Washington Statutes. (See WAC 314-55.075). Marrowstone Island is approximately six square miles in size and is a very
rural, quiet, sleepy island. I subjectively feel it is very magical. There is minimal traffic on the county roads and those few motorists are courteous to bikers and walkers. Residents
wave to strangers as well as friends; neighbors look out for each other and have gatherings together. There is a true sense of community. A Tier 3 marijuana facility is totally out
of character with the personality and identity of this island. There is presently no business on Marrowstone that comes close to the scope of this proposal for the growing and processing
of marijuana to sell to the
public. This proposal is a large commercial, industrial enterprise and should be located in an industrial park or commercial area.
A SEPA Review is Mandatory
The State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) mandates its review and involvement in any proposal that may have significant impacts on the environment. The review entails an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the viability of the project and if allowed to go forward, determines specific ways the impacts shall be mitigated. All substantial projects must go
through the SEPA process unless there is an exemption. This marijuana facility does not fall within the categorical exemptions of WAC 197-11-800 through 890. The Department of Ecology
website states “SEPA also gives local governments the option to allow some minor construction projects to be exempt from review depending on the scale and size”. Although this project
is not minor, the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) made a threshold determination of a “negative declaration” that no EIS was required. The DCD determined
that the Tier 3 marijuana processing and manufacturing facility would not significantly affect the environment of Marrowstone. This determination was made with minimal written justification
to support that decision.
The Hearing Examiner has been provided with many letters and other evidence of both the actual and the potential detriment this facility will have on our island. This letter will not
detail those impacts, but does incorporate them by reference. However, I will briefly outline the impacts outlined on the SEPA website of the impacts it reviews and how each of these
listed impacts could detrimentally affect the island if this facility is allowed to proceed. They are as follows:
Air. The air quality could be significantly polluted by the smell of the processing of the marijuana. (documents prepared by the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency regarding smells from
marijuana facilities were submitted at the hearing).
Animals. There has been anecdotal evidence of pets and other animals (which could include the wild animals on our island) eating marijuana plants and getting quite sick.
Earth. This facility will utilize fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals that will fall onto the dirt floors of the green house and pollute the aquifer of the island.
According to the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan, the geologic substrata on the island is composed mostly of till. Liquid waste disposal is generally poor, thus creating
a greater likelihood of pollution not only to the aquifer, but also to the waters surrounding the island.
Health. There will be substantial vibration and humming from the large fans of the facility, creating noise pollution.
Public Services. Marrowstone has only one bridge to access the mainland, and we are miles from law enforcement or fire services. Both the fire department and the sheriff’s office have
made presentations to the island residents regarding their inability to get to the island in less than 20 minutes in the event of emergency.
Transportation. There will be increased transportation with the movement of the product from the facility to locations for retail sale.
Utilities. According to the PUD, this marijuana facility will use about 1000 amps of service, which is deemed an industrial service. This island often loses power for many reasons,
mostly from fallen trees after storms. There are many potential negative impacts on the area surrounding this facility if it were to be without power for a period of time.
Water. It is anticipated the greenhouse will use between 5000 to 15,000 gallons of water daily.
Although not listed on the SEPA website, I will list one more: DANGER. The applicant is proposing to use a propane system to increase the heat in the greenhouse by creating CO2 to
encourage faster growth of the marijuana plants. It does this by utilizing large quantities of propane to generate the heat. This substantial quantity of propane puts the island at
great risk for fire from an explosion. With our fire services strained and presently unable to quickly get to the island, major damage to our residents, their homes and our forests
could be sustained. This is not without precedent as there was a recent fire in New York caused by a propane system located in a marijuana facility. One firefighter lost his life
in the blaze.
Based upon the above, the DCD has erroneously exercised its discretion as a designated EPA administrator when it made a threshold determination that this manufacturing and processing
facility will have such minimal impact to allow a “negative declaration” resulting in no requirement for an EIS.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Has Been Violated
Kevin Coker is the retained spokesperson and advocate for the applicant, Austin Smith. He has been representing and advocating for Mr. Smith for many months. Mr. Coker is also a current
Member of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, with his term expiring on March 17, 2019. A Planning Board Member represents his/her constituents and the general public.
The Planning Commissioner Bylaws, Section 14, state in pertinent part:
The Application of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is limited to quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies.
In quasi-judicial actions, Members shall disclose any and all personal benefits, gains, advantages to themselves, friends, or immediate family.
Because the Appearance of Fairness is so important, these Bylaws further restrict a Planning Commission Member until two years after the expiration of his/her term from knowingly acting
as an agent, consultant, or attorney for any one other than the county if the Member participated personally and substantially in that matter while on the Planning Commission. Surely
if that degree of concern of separation is mandated for retired Members, the standard for current Members must have at least the same scrutiny.
Even if Mr. Coker has recused himself from participating in this particular transaction (which I assume he has), the doctrine has been violated. The question is: has Mr. Coker participated
in the Comprehensive Plan, participated in zoning in any parts of the county,
participated in any way in matters that now affect or could affect this particular application? In addition, Mr. Coker undoubtedly has a working relationship and a friendship with not
only the other Members of the Planning Commission but also with many of the staff of the DCD, which could put pressure on those involved in this decision-making process to be biased.
His representation of Austin Smith does not pass the smell test. It is unfair and indefensible.
This Application Violates the Intent of the Cottage Industry Exception to the Comprehensive Plan
The Jefferson County Cottage Industry Regulations (JJC 18.20170) allow the Planning Commission to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) only when it finds reasonable and compelling reasons
to change the use of a parcel from the zoning requirements imposed on everyone else. This departure from the literal provisions of the zoning requirements applied to all residents
should be strictly construed and only granted in limited circumstances when deemed a benefit to the community.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan sets forth when and how a cottage industry is to be located within the rural residential zone:
POLICY LNP 6.2
Permit cottage industries conducted by the owner or lessee of the property, who shall reside within the dwelling unit, as an accessory use within a single family dwelling or building
accessory to a dwelling and which are accessory to the residential use of the property throughout the unincorporated portions of the County, subject to conditional use permit review
procedures.
This policy has been codified in JCC 18.20.170, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
18.10.030. (Definition) “Cottage Industry” means a commercial or manufacturing activity conducted in whole or part in either the resident’s single family dwelling unit or in an accessory
building, but is of a scale larger than a home occupation or home business. A cottage industry is a limited, small scale commercial or industrial activity, including fabrication, with
limited retail
sales, that can be conducted without substantial impact on the residential character in the vicinity.
18.20.170 (Purpose) To provide for small scale economic development activities on residential parcels, subordinate to the primary residential use, if the administrator finds that such
activities can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity. The scale and intensity of the cottage industries
are typically greater than could be accommodated as a home business, but less than would require a land use district designation of commercial or industrial. (emphasis added).
The intent and spirit of this law is to allow a resident to create and own a small, discreet, unobtrusive business that allows an income stream to the resident and does not impact the
community. Its intent and spirit is not for a manufacturing/industrial processing center unlike anything presently in the community. This proposed application is for a very large
marijuana operation that could generate a substantial amount of income. Tier 3 operations describe single harvest yields of approximately .0625 pounds of product per square foot of
illuminated growing area. If there is 8000 square feet of growing area, 500 pounds of product could be expected from one harvest. The current wholesale price for this product is about
$1600 per pound, or $800,000 per harvest. How many annual harvests can Mr. Smith get from his endeavor, I do not know. However, NextGen, the company that manufactures the greenhouse
Mr. Smith has purchased, states a grower can get up to five harvests a year. That gross income could be $4,000,000 annually. That cannot fall within the parameters of a small scale
business and certainly is not a cottage industry.
The Cottage Industry Regulations reflect a philosophy that the allowed small industry is subordinate to the residence and that the owner of the small business actually resides on the
property, as does his/her family. It is my understanding that Austin Smith does not plan to live on this property, but will continue to reside in his home in Seattle, WA.
It is further my understanding that Mr. Smith has minor children. Under WAC 314-55-015 (2), no one under twenty-one years of age is allowed to enter or remain on a marijuana premises
except as provided in RCW 69.50.357. (This later statute relates to patients between the ages of 18
to 21 who have a medical marijuana card entering a retail store). Thus the minor members of the family of Austin Smith are not even allowed to live in the residence as the Washington
State Liquor Control Board believes this facility is so dangerous to minors, they are prohibited from stepping foot on the premises. With Mr. Smith not residing full time on the property,
it is a direct violation of the intent of the Cottage Industry Exception.
The DCD Staff Recommendations require that there be one “full time bona-fide resident” residing in the single-family residence. As the greenhouse has no restroom facilities, the current
1800 square foot home will also need to be the restroom, the kitchen, and the office of the marijuana operation and its employees. Mr. Smith should answer to you, as the Hearing Examiner,
who will be the “full time bona-fide resident” on the property. At a MICA (Marrowstone Island Community Association) meeting earlier this year, Mr. Coker stated that Mr. Smith wants
to live on Marrowstone Island because it is a wonderful place for him to raise his family.
The DCD Incorrectly Bifurcated the Use of the Cottage Industry Exception Under the Regulations
JCC 18.20.170(4)(o) states: Any new structure construed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties. In no
case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry. (emphasis added).
Mr. Pat Hopper, the staff member of the DCD assigned to this project, interpreted this permit application by dividing it into two parts, the growing facility and the processing facility.
I believe the rationale for this is found under Jefferson County Code 18.15, the Use Tables, wherein the processing of marijuana is defined as an industrial use and the growing of
marijuana is defined as an agricultural use. Thus Mr. Hopper’s reasoning is that the processing of the plant is the only use that requires the cottage industry exception. He defines
a small portion of the greenhouse, labeled the “head house”, of 1800 square feet, as all that needs to be considered when applying the 5000 square foot requirement. The other 8000
plus square feet of the greenhouse
wherein the plants are grown is irrelevant and need not be considered. This analysis flies in the face of common sense. There is only one marijuana application to the Washington Liquor
Control Board, only one request for a conditional use permit, only one piece of property, only one business. The growing of the plant is a necessary part of the industry of processing
the plant, and but for that growing, no processing could take place. The decision to bifurcate the uses of the cottage industry exception is an erroneous application of the law and
is an irresponsible and creative way to circumvent the maximum square footage requirement.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan Are Not In Conflict
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan defines the zoning for Marrowstone Island “Residential-Rural”. Taking those words at face value, it means that only residences should be allowed
and the character of the island should remain rural. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, many residents of Marrowstone Island (in cooperation with the Jefferson County Planning Department)
developed a document reflecting the residents’ desires for the planning and identity of the island. This document, titled the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan (MICDP)
was approved and certified as an official amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan on the 20th of March, 1978. The current Comprehensive Plan further affirms and adopts
the MICDP as part of its Plan. Both Plans stress that this island should remain residential and rural, and the MICDP goes even further in defining the goal of preservation and enhancement
of its rural atmosphere and scenic beauty. One section of the MICDP addresses commerce and industry. It provides as follows:
GOALS (regarding Commerce and Industry):
To preserve for a level of commerce that is adequate for the needs of island residents and to a lesser degree summer tourists.
To insure that commercial development is located, designed, constructed and operated in a desirable and well–planned manner.
The MICDP then defines the POLICIES for any Commerce and/or Industry if allowed on the island and mandates the following requirements for that Commerce and/or Industry:
A cottage business shall not employ more than two persons outside of the immediate family.
Be contained within primary residential structures or common outbuildings such as garages or barns.
Be accessory to a primary residence.
Not adversely affect the use, value, or enjoyment of adjacent properties.
It is my understanding the DCD disregarded the MICDP requirements above, stating that the MICDP was in conflict with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Nothing could be farther
from the truth. Both plans state the intent to retain the rural quality of this unique six square miles and preserve it only for residential uses. Any requested exception to the present
zoning of residential rural has the burden of asking the county for a CUP, and must comport with the rules and regulations of both the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan AND the
policies as stated in the MICDP, as it is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Neither plan wants to change the character and identity of the island and both plans want to retain
and enhance its rural character. There is no conflict.
The granting of this CUP could drastically affect the character and quality of life for the residents of Marrowstone Island as well as the many tourists who visit to enjoy its rural
nature and scenic beauty. The granting of this permit is opening the door and setting a precedent for other industrial uses to be permitted on the island. In fact, the DCD’s cavalier
attitude to allow high impact industry in rural properties could have a detrimental impact on every piece of property zoned rural residential in Jefferson County. If approved, such
approval would be in direct conflict with the goals and policies of both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan.
For the above reasons, I respectfully request that the permit for this marijuana facility be denied.
I thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Carol Gonnella