Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA17-00019_rebuttal_lDoes-aDoes_07-2017.pdfLee M. Does 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 Staff Recommendations Dear Mr. Causseaux: This letter is in response to the Staff Recommendations submitted by JEFCO DCD following the 26 June public hearing on Mr. Austin Smith’s permit application for a 10,080 square foot Tier-3 marijuana production facility. We firmly believe that any of the following numbered arguments would be sufficient to denial of MLA17-00019. For reference purposes, our responses have been numbered to correspond with the same numbers appearing in the current Staff Recommendations document. Please note we have included additional comments following our responses to staff’s recommendations: 7. Staff’s requirement that the applicant’s business must be operated by a “bona fide resident.” We question if staff’s actual intent is that the “resident” would in this case be required to be the actual homeowner. At a 15 May MICA (Marrowstone community meeting) this spring, the applicant’s agent Kevin Coker stated that home owner (and license holder) Austin Smith intended to continue maintaining his residence in the Seattle area; leaving others to manage his facility on at least a part-time basis. The JEFCO Cottage Industry Code 18.10.020 was clearly intended to enable a small-time “Mom & Pop” enterprise within or adjacent to the home. In this instance, a non- resident has purchased property on Marrowstone Island for the sole purpose of qualifying and establishing a business on property zoned as rural residential. To date, the house at 9272 Flagler does not appear to have been either occupied or maintained since the published closing date of November 2016. Irrespective of anticipated arguments from either the applicant or Mr. Coker, a reasonable man would presume the applicant’s past actions demonstrate a lack of interest in living on Marrowstone Island. Were MLA17-00019 to be permitted under such owner-absentee conditions, JEFCO would risk setting bad a precedent by which any non-resident landowner could meet our cottage industry requirement by renting or even sub-leasing property to a live-in employee. We believe Mr. Smith’s application violates both the spirit and intent of the Cottage Industry rules. 8. Total of employees residing off site: Staff is describing only those employees engaged in processing. At the hearing, it was announced that processing operations would be conducted inside a “head house” enclosure entirely within but segregated from the proposed greenhouse. In discussing total employee numbers, staff is ignoring the as-published text of their own public notice currently posted on the subject property: “Production and processing will take place entirely within a 10,000 square foot, 23 foot tall greenhouse, being reviewed under building permit BLD17-00093.” The posted text for MLA17-00019 is soliciting public comment for a single “10,000 square foot, 23 foot tall” facility. The application for a cottage industry permit is listed, but the public is asked only to evaluate a proposal for creating a cottage industry entirely within the “10,000 square foot” structure as described. Irrespective of the posted permit application, the applicant is now describing 1800 feet of the same building as “cottage industry,” leaving the public to question how a single and smaller building could exist within the applied-for 10,080-foot structure. Note that this very issue was raised at the opening of the 26 June hearing as well, when you, as examiner, questioned if the applicant was seeking approval of more than a single permit. The answer at that time was that only a single permit was to be considered. The above argument is especially germane to staff’s recommendation re. number of employees permitted on site, as the applicant has offered no restrictions or limitations regarding employees within the remaining 8280 square feet of the proposed structure. We believe 8200-feet of greenhouse would be expected to house thousands of plants; yet no mention has been made as to how many employees would be required to maintain plants grown under a cottage industry permit. 11. Staff’s recommendation “…except for activities related to the growing and storing of plants,…”: conflicts with the public notice described above (ref. 8), where “10,000 square foot canopy for production…” describes an entirely indoor grow operation. The published permit does not describe an intention to grow or store plants exterior to the building. 15. “No on-site direct retail sales of products not produced on-site (emphasis added) shall be allowed.” Staff is implying that retail sales of site-produced marijuana products would be permitted by the county. Staff should be aware that retail sales from a Tier 3 production site are prohibited by state law. 17. “Cottage industry area restricted to 1800 square feet”: The question here is how the county intends to classify the remaining 8280 square feet of the proposed structure (ref. 8, prev.), when the proposed business would in fact be include the entire 10,080 square foot structure. A successful greenhouse operation demands constant attention to plants, growing media, and to the greenhouse environmental systems. By describing only 1800 feet of building space as “cottage industry” the county appears to be suggesting that thousands of plants and the infrastructure to maintain them would somehow be entirely self- supporting/could survive without daily attention and maintenance. While neither staff or the applicant has thus far gone on record as to how or why the remaining 8280 feet of the proposed building should not be considered as being part of the cottage industry application, all parties should be reminded that state RCW 82.04.213 specifically states that marijuana production is not farming; and that: “ ‘Agriculture product’ does not include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products…” We believe MLA17-00019 would set an undesirable precedent by siting an industrial-scale operation within a rural community already challenged by single-point access and having only marginal response times by both police and fire services. We likewise believe the applicant’s agent Coker was incorrect is stating that Mr. Smith’s project should be allowed under “right-to-farm” rules; as the property at 9272 Flagler is not farmland, nor is marijuana considered a legal agricultural crop. Please note once again that your denial of MLA17-00019 would in no way deprive the applicant of the opportunity to someday relocate to Marrowstone Island and enjoy his home. We do, however, firmly believe that the applicant’s request for permit fails to meet the requirements of subheadings a-e, and especially the (j) “merit and value” test of JEFCO 18.40.530; and therefore request that the application be denied. Respectfully, Lee M. Does Amy L. Does, Ph.D. Attachment: Arguments re. Conditional Use Lee Does and Amy Does Ph.D., Attachment to: Letter to Examiner / Arguments / Attachment Page-1 Examiner: Please note our comments (italicized) re. the application of MLA17-00019 on Marrowstone Island: 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; • Character & Appearance: 10,080 structure would be the largest single-purpose structure of it’s kind on the island. At the hearing, Mr. Coker compared MLA17-00019 with temporary shelters on nearby farmland on Flagler Road. MLA17-00019 is for a permanent structure of steel construction, and includes utilities power, water, and propane heating in common with an industrial application. The structures Mr. Coker is apparently referring to are constructed of PVC tubing and plastic sheeting, are open at both ends, have no utilities, are extremely temporary in nature. As local residents, we are unaware of other existing island buildings even remotely comparable to what is being proposed under MLA17-00019 • Subject Property: We submit that a reasonable man would not conclude that a 10,080’ area by 23’H permanent structure would be in any way appropriate for placement next to the 1800 square foot family home currently on the property. (b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control; • MLA17-00019 is for a fully equipped industrial-scale production facility, with electrical power requirements second only to nearby Fort Flagler. This level of consumption belongs in an industrial park. • Testimony at the 06-2017 hearing quoted fire and police officials as stating that response times to Marrowstone Island could be severely limited (“20-minutes to over an hour”) by a combination of single-point access and lack of manpower. Island residents should not be exposed to the potential increased risks of fire (high-intensity lighting in combination with propane-based heating and C02 generation); or the increased risks of crime (burglary and violence) documented within this industry. • Numerous comments were recorded concerning potential pollution/lack of commercial sewage at 9272 Flagler. We note that the proposed building will be plumbed for water usage, but that no toilets/showers/washdown facilities seem to have been provided. In this case the public is left to assume that wastewater from contaminated clothing, tools, or other sources will be discharged into the septic system at the adjacent home. We believe such discharge would be unlawful under both state and county rules. (c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel; • Testimony is already on record that application for a Tier-3 production facility at applicant’s 9272 Flagler property contributed to loss of a nearby property sale. (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; • Applicant is required to obtain a review for fumes/odors that would be generated by his process. This relates directly to potential loss of adjacent property value as described in ref. ©, above. • Questions persist regarding the dB output from the numerous exhaust fans associated with the project. Lee Does and Amy Does Ph.D., Attachment to: Letter to Examiner / Arguments / Attachment Page-2 (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; • Applicant is claiming his project will be screened by tree line at south side of property, but trees are on property currently for sale. Property owner has publicly stated he would “clear-cut the property” if unable to sell. We believe the applicant’s 23’H structure must include appropriate screening provided by the applicant. • Again, we believe placing a Tier-3 industrial-scale facility on rural-residential land will lead to loss of property values “loss of enjoyment” of nearby properties. (f) Omitted/no commented (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; • As previously stated in refs. 7&8, MLA17-00019 fails to meet the spirit or intent of the “mom and pop” home business defined by JEFCO or especially as written in the Marrowstone Island Community Plan. (h) Omitted/no commented (i) Omitted/no commented (j) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; • The applicant’s paperwork 07/2017 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board Operating Plan as submitted to JEFCO DCD lists zero (-0-) wages or income to be paid through the proposed enterprise. We see no merit or value to the Marrowstone Island Community. • We understand that taxes from a Tier-3 operation are submitted to the state. From this perspective, we fail to see how this project could be of any benefit to our community. • While the proposed structure is described as a “greenhouse,” the level of climate control and other features would, based upon our own professional experience raising and marketing heirloom tomatoes, likely exclude the building from being repurposed at a later date. Should the Tier-3 market decline/Mr. Smith move on, the island would be left with a “white elephant” property with a greatly reduced number of potential buyers. (k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; • Re.LNG 6.0 ”Foster home-based business or cottage industries…. provide economic and employment opportunities…” We cannot see how a project of this scope, with a non-resident owner claiming no wages or benefits paid, or could be evaluated as an opportunity for either Marrowstone Island or Jefferson County.