Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010MrA18-00102 PUBTIC COMMENTS A B C D E F 9 Ryan Schroeder Violates Cottage lndustry code, water usage, aquifer contamination, noise, smell, property value.315 Kens Way Quilcene WA 10 Ronald & Margaret LeMay Property Value Address primary use as residentia l. PO Box 345 Kingston WA 11 Ronald & Colleen Faragher- Horwell Violation of Cottage lndustry code, primary use is not residential, sets bad precendence, Property Value.471 Dietz Drive Qu lce ne WA 12 Jacqueline Gardner lnconsistent statements in application material, sqaure footage for processing v. production, potential for employees, noise, odor, air pollution, stormwater, not residential use, precendence setting.135 Gereaux Lane Quilcene WA 13 Marilyn S. Mitchell Deny application, traffic, noise, lights, odor, comments made by Bonnie Story 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene WA L4 Kathi Boyker Violation of Cottage lndustry code, out of rural character and neigboring properties, glare, noise, dirt, too close to neighbors,65 Dellwood Road Quilcene WA 15 Barry & Barbara Lanum Would like to receive notice of hearings and decisions, property value, process started before home established, violates cottage industry code, CC&Rs, smell, noise, L194t Fairway Circle N Drive lndianapol is IN 1_6 Thane & Karen Grooms lndustrial use, precedent setting, I carlic-301 Eaton Road Quilcene WA 17 Rosalyn Roberts noise, odor, crime, water usage,1201 Kens Way Quilcene WA t_8 Steve Date Moving an industrial business to rural residential, Radio Frequency Radiation from grow lights, crime.RFI 702 Kens Way Quilcene WA 19 Terri Murphy-Naughton Do not support, water usage, property value. 233 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene WA # -O MLA18-00102 PUBTIC COMMENTS A B C D E F 1 Commenter Concern/lssue Additional lnformation Street Address City State Water usage, smell, number of plants, Amount of water to be used? Filter system - type, tested, maintenance plan, monitoring, manufacterer's specs, handle the number of plants?Victoria Galanti pro value.706 Kens Way Quilcene WA Violation of Cottage lndustry code (size > 5k square feet, scale, impacts), Violation of subdivision CCR agreement, Location too close to neigbors, Smell, Crime Magnet, Property Value, Noise, Not a "good fit." Noise analysis by sound engineer. Response to CC&Rs Statistics on "attractive nuisance" or associated crime. 293 Blueberry Hill Drive I Bonnie Story Quilcene WA Joyce Lhamon CC&Rs, not residential.12907 Coyle Road Quilcene WA Donna Prater Too close to neighbors, more traffic on Coyle Road, Crime.153 Toandos Road Quilcene WA Violation of Cottage lndustry code (size > Chris & SherrylWilson 5k square feet, Crime, need public heari 793 Kens Way Quilcene WA James Olson MD Out of rural character, property value, water usage, crime, outside growing, illegal under Federal law, violates CC&Rs, Noise from traffic,907 Kens Way Quilcene WA Heather Carmichael Olson Ph.D Violation of Federal law, crime, water usage, wastewater treatment, CC&Rs, smell, light pollution, noise and impacts from traffic, Naval Base, out of rural character, outdoor growing, property value.907 Kens Quilcene WA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t MtAl8-00102 PUBLIC COMMENTS A B c D E F 20 Bruce & Laurie Carver Forest Practice rules, six year moratorium. Ross Goodwin with DNR visited the site and comfirmed by phone that no FPA required.PO Box 2294 Sequim WA 21,Gary Elmer Inconsistent statements in application material. Address inconsistencies, i.e., was property purchased primarily for cannabis production or for residential use, or both? Violates Cottage lndustry code and Federal law, crime, water usage, aquifer contamination, noise, smell, property value, power outage. Address the power outage issue. 136 Gereaux Lane Qui lcene WA 22 Chris Clegg & Nancy Slough 915 Kens Wayn Quilcene WA 23 Doug & Joanmarie Eggert lnconsistencies, violation of cottage industry code, out of rural character 510 Smith Lane Quilcene WA 24 Gary Williams Violates localand Federal law, odor, CC&Rs (fence), 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene WA Victoria Galanti 706 Kens lYay Quilcene,lYA 98376 March L4,2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Proposed Marijuana GroWProcess operation at 9790 Coyle Rd To: David Wayne Johnson I have owned my property on Kens Way for over 30 years and have appreciated the merciful quiet, the fragrance of the fir and cedar, and the peacefulness of the setting. The proposal above brings major questions concerning all of those items, and in addition concems about safety (will it be an "affractive nuisance"?), pollution (what happens to the waste water and used dirt? Will they be disposed of safely to mitigate contamination of surrounding properties?), and finally, how can such an operation NOT negatively affect the property value? Having said that, however, there are three additional significant issues I wish to address: Water usage: Everything I have read notes the large amounts of water needed to operate a grow site, which could negatively impact surrounding properties like mine. The Williamsons claim they will hand water plants that are in pots and that they will not use more than authorized for a 2-person family (300 gaUday). They also note that they will be growing the same number of plants at the new location as they currently grow at their site near the Glen Cove Industrial area. What I have not seen is evidence of the amount of water they currently use, which should be available from their current location. Does it in fact support their contention? Smell: These grow operations are known to produce obnoxious odors during some parts of the operation, and especially in warmer weather (when neighbors would have open windows and outside activities). The Williamsons say they will use carbon filters with their fans to mitigate the odor. How often do they plan on changing filters? Who will check to be sure they do so? If they plan to change them only "when needed", are they aware that people who work around strong odors become used to them to the extent that they don't even notice it? How will they then even know the filters need to be changed? I don't know if they use carbon filters at their current location; I do know I could smell the odor when drove by. Number of plants: The Williamsons have said that they currently grow between 12-1400 plants at their current location using only half of their current 8,000 sq. ft. building. They also claim they will be growing the same number of plants at the new location, which makes sense if they tlAR 1 I Z0t9 were only planning on one 5,000 sq. ft.building. But if they build I' ti *(t litI fI It I building, they must expect to grow more plants, perhaps as much as double the number now. How will that affect the water usage, smell, noise from fans? Irealize Jefferson County needs to promote more business in the county, and that is a laudable goal. However, it is difficult for me to square 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial buildings in a very quiet, rural residential area, especially on only a 5-acre tract and with the actual and potential negative aspects of this business. Why can't these businesses be focused in Light Industrial areas (which is where the Williamsons current business is located right now) or at least on a larger piece of land in a Rural Agricultural area? Trying to grow what is clearly a non-residential business in Jefferson County in residential areas makes no sense to me, unless, of course, the county is willing to make Port Townsend and other cities subject to such businesses. I find it especially odd that after the local codes out here changed several years ago to make building on anything less than 10 acres (with current smaller properties grandfathered in) out of compliance, somehow now it is fine now to build 10,000 sq. ft. of buildings on 5-acre tracts for the purposes of running a business. I want to be clear. I have no objection to the growing or selling of marijuana; I was in college in the 1960's and the use of marijuana has never been a major issue for me. My issues are the fundamental right of those of us who purchased land in a rural residential are1 pay taxes every year, and support local businesses to not be subject to a shift in the neighborhood to "light industrial" under cottage industry regulations that certainly seemed intended for adjunct businesses to an already established homes, rather than a way to shoehorn in a business that in no way fits into the neighborhood. I appreciate the chance to express my concerns, and also to thank you, David, for the information you have been providing all of us on Coyle Road. I look forward to seeing you at the hearing, which I hope will be scheduled soon. Sincerely, Uale Victoria [,AB 1 B Zltg 1- LE trtrOV i r-\ r,r-\\ li V tr 3-17-L9 Public Comment RE: TYPE ll LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-00102,Tax Parcel 601 Dear Mr Johnson, l,fAR 2 0 2019 I am writing to express several serious concerns about the cannabis growing, processing, and packaging facility being proposed, by way of a Cottage lndustry, for 9790 Coyle Road in Quilcene. My concerns: Violation of Cottage lndustry Codes: Jefferson County's own Cottage lndustry Code states that "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties." The code only authorizes "such activities (that) can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the rricinity... All structures and activities shall be so located (away) from adjacent properties to avoid disturbance through glare, noise, dirt or other nuisances or hazards." "No use shall be made... to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." The proposed proiect fails the test completelv. Violation of subdivision CCR agreements. A quick glance of the CCR documents for the Woodway Large Lot Subdivision shows that the CCR documents direct ONLY land uses of "... attroctive and beneficial purposes, to prevent the impoirment of the ottractiveness of eoch property, to prevent nuisonce, ond to secure to each property owner the full benefit and quiet enjoyment of their property... no noxious, illegol, or offensive use of lond sholl be permitted... no dwelling of less than 900 squore feet of floor oreo..." fhe other Woodway property owners are concerned, organized and ready to move against the cannabis factory being proposed, to preserve the value of their properties. Unreasonably Close to Existing Adjacent Full-Time Residences. This project, which the proponents hope to expand up to 10,000 square feet of industrial space, is located within 600 feet of established full time resident homes in an immediately adjacent residential subdivision. The applicant claims that neighboring properties are uninhabited and undeveloped. This is completely false. lnvasive Smells. The applicant's claim that the stench of a warehouse full of ripe cannabis, in the summer heat, located in the prevailing breeze direction from an adjacent neighborhood, will be contained, ls fantasy. A visit to their current similar facilitv will demonstrate this. The complex odor suppression systems are expensive to operate and are hardly failproof. The smells also alert criminals to an income opportunity in such a remote area, so close to the road. Crime Magnet. Jefferson Countv itself found the "illegality under federal low moy couse those locations where recreotionol morijuono is produced (grown) or processed to be on "ottroctive nuisonce" for criminols, vandals ond minors, soid "ottroctive nuisonce" status being contrary to the quiet ond pastoral rurol nature of much of unincorporoted Jefferson County." (Ord. #04-0608-15 at page 3, Findings of Foct.l Coyle residents have been told that it is not reasonable to expect a Sherriff response to a crime in progress in less than an hour. I feel it would be very careless to permit this facility so near residences. We already have enough crime here - poaching, tree theft, break-ins, boat theft, mailbox tampering, dumping - clearly we do not need an easily detected high value break-in target here to put even more strain on limited law enforcement availability. Loss of Property Value. Bad smells and increased likelihood of crime from industrial cannabis factories like what is being proposed is a known suppressor of property values. Realtors know that they need to disclose the presence il , 'lr',-t*u-'-r- .i ruf-rrftlrt-..# of industrial cannabis facilities. lt is suggested by Realtor associations that a drop in value of tlYo can be expected when thesefacilities are allowed to shoehorn into existing neighborhoods. This is not an acceptabletradeofffor an ill-sited moneymaking venture. Noise. A visit to the facility where the applicants are currently producing cannabis in Port Townsend tells anyone that the drone of industrial air-handling fans will wash out the precious quiet here. The tranquility and quiet is why all of us put up with the extreme inconvenience of living here. The applicants will need to use an extensive system of motorized fans to control the fetid odor from their masses of cannabis plants. The fans truly are noisy. lt is not appropriate for the location in question. Responsibility of Authorities. Commercial cannabis production, legal under state laws but still federally illegal, is brand new to Jefferson County. While we all want to claim to support local business and families, and take credit for stimulating the local economy, caution must be taken to ensure that this very new and impactful industry is being rolled out by authorities in a responsible fashion. Why saddle neighbors, and applicants alike, with land use conflicts, years of expensive legal battles and local strife over a project that is clearly not a good fit. Other jurisdictions are watching, as are future applicants. Please send a message to all that pursuing new income opportunities is not to come at the expense of local residential quality of life, quiet enjoyment, and property values. A proper location for this type of project would be much farther away from any neighborhoods. A good example is the smartly sited comparable project at mile 5 on Coyle Road. No neighbors, no lawsuits, no hassles. Mr Ward simply did not want the problems and expenses, so he did his homework, and he has benefitted. All development is not smart development. I hope that Jefferson County officials know that their job mission does not include rubberstamping of ill-sited industrial developments in quiet neighborhoods, in the name of imagined stimulus. Let's do better. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene WA 98376 9Y't+'Aq fr (/' March 18.2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sir; As a neighbor and property owner on the Toandos Peninsula, I am writing regarding the proposal: JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOT]CE OF WPE 11 LAND USE APPLICATION MLA18-00102 APPLICANT: TRACY WILLIAMSON 2OO5 NW PETERSON ROAD POULSBO WA 98370 Application Received Date: November 8, 2018 Application Complete Date: March 4,2Ot9 Application Notice Date: March L3,2OL9 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: 9790 COYLE RD Parcel number 601-105-013 in Section 10, Township 26N, Range LW, WM, Woodway Large Lot Subdivision Lot 3, located at 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 This property is in the Woodway Large Lot Subdivision and covered by the currently active CCRs for this area. ! won't copy the whole CCR's because I believe you have those in hand as part of your review of this application. I do want to draw your attention to some relevant parts of these CCR's. First: l. Pufnnse. T[e purpose of the use 0f theDroperty ln the Plrt for sr lmpalrrnent of thr eftroctlyenc$s of pr0vert nui38nce, and thereby to secure to eaeh property owncr lho euJoynent of hls propcrty with o0 use of hls propcrty than lsgreoter reltrlstlon upou the free llmitltlons ls to enrure lhs Iat purposcg to prevent the |/.AH 2 5 208 ,-Itr tr 0 V nocerSery to eruuro those ,/\'property OrYttGrsr ,,v .da* *J -,-t-t* I A 5000 square foot manufacturing building is hardly attractive or beneficial to the neighboring wood land setting. Second: 5. Commerclal Uses Proh[blted. Each Lot wlthln thcPlat shrll be used for resldentlal purposes only, ond no Lot shsll be used for commercial purPoses, provlded,however, that this restriction rhrll not preclude thc rentrl of r home on sny Lot for residentirl purp0se3r or preclude the conductlon ofr buslness within a resldence pursuant to and in full complirnce with $ecllon 6.50 of County Development Code, entltled Eome Buslness and Cottage nd any other applicable regulotions.l/-\ \ Please, deny this application as not fitting in the neighboring forest land, rural neighborhood. Sincerely, Joyce Lhamon L2907 Coyle Rd. Quilcene, WA It would seem that Ms. Williamson's proposed use of the property is not residential, but business - either manufacturing, agriculture, or commercial selling ( I am not sure of the correct terms for a marijuana grow operation.) lf it is deemed "pursuant to and in full compliance with Section 6.50 of the Jefferson County Development code, entitled Home business and Cottage lndustries and any other applicable regulations" , it must be within a residence as stated above. I don't believe Ms. Williamson plans to live in their factory. March 19,2019 Public Comment re: Type ll Land Use Application, MlA18-00102, Tax Parcel 501105013 Dear Mr. Johnson, I am a Quilcene resident living on the Toandos Peninsula, also known as Coyle. I am deeply concerned about the proposed approval of a permit for a Cottage lndustry to produce and process Cannabis at 9790 Coyle Rd. We are a tight knit group of neighbors who choose to live off the beaten path for the peace and quiet. When you drive down Coyle Rd, most people would think that there are very few residences. That is not the case. Our homes are tucked in the forested land that we love. I am absolutely mortified that one of my neighbor's homes is only 600 feet from this proposed business. This proposed 10,000 square foot industrial complex will diminish the property values of the residential subdivision it is next to. Coyle road is also a very dangerous road to drive on. There have been numerous accidents with many fatalities. I am concerned that there will be more traffic with this proposed business. More traffic equals more potential for accidents. Also concerning is the potential for more crime. Remote areas such as the Toandos Peninsula are magnets for low life criminals looking to steal whatever they can to feed their drug addiction. While all of us look out for one another, this will inevitably attract more of the criminal element to our peninsula We all know that police response to our homes may be as long as one hour. I realize there is already a cannabis business at mile marker 5 on Coyle. However, it is not visible from theroadandtherearenoresidential homesanywherenearit. Theownerofthatbusinessdiditrightby purchasing that 80 acre parcel as to not to disturb any residents with his business. I hope you'll take all our comments into consideration regarding this permit. Please do not hesitate to call me if needed. Sincerely, Prater 153 Toandos Rd Quilcene 360-765-4108 I LS flt(z s 208 -trF March 20,2OL9 Chris & Sherryl Wilson 793 Kens Way Quilcene WA 98376 Mailing Address: 3853 46th Ave NE Seattle WA 98105 Phone 206 4L9 9312 D trG tr0v tr [,lAR 2 5 2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division Attn: David Wayne Johnson 62l Sheridan St Port Townsend WA 98368 RE: MLA 18-00102 (Site Address 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene WA 98376; Parcel number 601-105- 013 in Section 10, Township 26N, Range 1W, WM Woodway Large Lot Subdivision Lot 3) Dear Mr. Johnson: We write to raise concerns related to Land Use Application MLA 18-00102 The size of the buildings proposed exceeds the size allowed under Cottage lndustry Regulations (JCC 18.20.170). "ln no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry." MLA 18-00102 includes two (2) 5,000 square foot buildings with 2,000 square feet dedicated to processing cannabis, and the remainder used for production. The operation is likely to constitute an attractive nuisance for criminals, vandals and minors. Such a nuisance is contrarytothe quiet and pastoral rural nature of this area, as noted in Jefferson County Ord. #04-0608-15, page 3. The nuisance potential would be further increased if marijuana plants are grown outside, where theft of the crop would be more easily undertaken. What will be done to mitigate this risk and what is the evidence that such approaches will be sufficient? These issues alone are sufficient justification for a Public Hearing. Moreover, it is likely that other substantive issues will arise prior to or during the hearing. ln summary, we believe the proposal in its current form violates the Cottage lndustry standards and will likely constitute an attractive nuisance in conflict with the rural nature of the area. We call for an open hearing where these and other issues can be openly discussed and debated. Sincerelv. t?^\k*l@ James Olson, M.D. 907 Ken's Way Quilcene, Washington 98376 Mailing Address: 6645 57th Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 981 15 Phone Number: 206 524-4463 March 21,2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division Attention: David Wayne Johnson 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: MLA l8-00102 (Site Address 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, Washington98376; Parcel number 601-105-013 in Section 10, Township 26N, Range lW, WM Woodway Large Lot Subdivision Lot 3) Dear Mr. Johnson: The purpose of Rural Residential zoning regulations in Jefferson County is to maintain the integrity of the rural residential environment. I am writing to highlight my serious concern about the way in which Land Use Application MLA 18-00102 violates the integrity of the neighborhood in which my family and I have invested time, effort, county tax payments and a considerable portion of our savings. We believe that the proposed cannabis factory is out of character with the rural surroundings, does notJit with cottage industry regulations (and is not congruent with the listing of example cottage industries in JCC,18.20.170), and even in application is already too large. The application (see MLA 18-00102) already states that the proposed cannabis factory asks permission for two 5,000 square foot buildings, with 2,000 square feet dedicated to processing cannabis, and the remainder used for production. We also understand that there can be outside growing areas, which raises the size of this factory even further. We have built a home that is intentionally in character with the pastoral nature of Dabob Bay and the rural residential surroundings of our locale. In doing this, our intention was to make a long- term investment in Jefferson County. We have counted on the value of the property and home to sustain us in retirement. We understand that the presence of a cannabis factory has been demonstrated to reduce property values by as much us l0%, This is truly concerning to us, and raises questions about whether remaining in Jefferson County in retirement, and contributing our tax dollars, are the best choices. We are also concerned about the unknown impact on the quality and flow of our water source (which is a well), which has not been investigated and should be. ttAfr 2 5 eots 0 A cannabis factory is likely to be an "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals ond young people. This is in direct conflict with the quiet, rural nature of this area (see Jefferson County Ord. #04-0608-15, page 3). The potential for theft and conduct problems would be further increased if marijuana plants are grown outside, which is not prohibited with this type of operation and thus is highly likely. We are especially concemed because Ken's Way (which runs close to this property and would be a likely conduit for vandals attempting to gain access to the marijuana plants) leads to the water, and is the only road to (and runs right past) our home. We are concerned about our safety and potential property destruction. Given the distance of the property from any police or emergency responders, we wonder what will be done to reduce this risk. What assurance can Jefferson County give that protections (which we pay for with our Jefferson County tax dollars) will be effective and adequate? While legal in Washington state, cannabis is still illegal accarding tofetleral /ar.'. This is in conflict with the covenants of the Woodway Large Lot Subdivision which prohibit illegal activity. We also note that trucking activity for this factory would create noise. There are also safety concerns about the location in which trucks would enter and leave Coyle Road, and the danger that trucks would introduce to the small roads in our locale. lYe strongly believe that these issues justify a Public Hearing, which we request. It is likely that other issues will arise before or during the hearing that are important to the many neighbors united in their concern about this factory. With justification, we ask for an open hearing where these issues, and all voices, could be heard when making this important decision. Sincerely, Olson fu-l,t n//4,C, Mailing Address: 6645 57th Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Phone: (206)524-4463 March 22,2079 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division Attention: David Wayne ]ohnson 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: MLA 18-00102 (Site Address9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, Washington 98376; Parcel number 601-105- 013 in Section 10, Township 26N, Range 1W, WM Woodway Large Lot Subdivision Lot 3) Dear Mr. )ohnson: The area of Jefferson County in which we own property is a rural environment with true natural beauty. The pastoral nature of the rural, residential neighborhood, and the calm, safe environment, was a major reason why my family and I chose to build a house and commit resources to the area. Yet there is now a proposed cannabis factory (Land Use Application MLA 18-00102) which poses a risk to the character of the area in which we have made a home. I believe there are important issues about this land use application that have not received appropriate attention. My comments below will address six issues. First, while legal in Washington State, cannabis growing and use are still illegal according to federal law. A marijuana growing operation is in conflict with the covenants of the Woodway Large Lot Subdivision, in which the applicants propose to build, which prohibit illegal activity. lMat legal conflicts does this raise, and hat;e those been adequately dealt with before a permit is granted? Second, and a related issue, a cannabis factory is likely to be a "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals and minors. This is in direct conflict with the quiet, rural nature of this area (see Jefferson County Ord. #04-0608-15; page 3). The potential for theft and disruptive behavior exists with any cannabis operation. This would be further increased if marijuana plants are grown outside, which is not prohibited with this type of operation and is only limited by the size of the property. (Note that outside growing could greatly increase the amount the applicants state they are planning to grow). I am especially concerned because Ken's Way (which runs quite close to this operation; see attached photograph) is a likely access for those interested in theft. Ken's Way also leads to the water, and is the only road to our home (and runs directly past it). I am concerned about our safety and believe there is real potential for property damage. I would expect Jefferson County to provide protection that is appropriate, effective and sufficient. But there is quite a distance from this area to any police or other first responder location. How is this to be handled in an appropriate manner? r-IE tr I VHeather Carmichael Olson, Ph.D. 907 Ken's Way Quilcene, Washington 98376 ilAR 2 5 2019 r,d-d'# Third, our area has multiple aquifers. It is not clear whether the cannabis factory would share our aquifer, and affect our well and only soutce of water. This has not been adequately studied. Marijuana growing operations have a wide variance in water use. There are no clear data on water usage by the applicants with regard to their existing operation. As the enclosed photograph illustrates, our property (#661103013) is directly in line with the proposed factory (#660105013). According to Ord. #04- 0608-15 (page 3), the impact on the quality and amount of water, and whether the nutrient-rich waste water and surface water discharges typical of a marijuana growing operation, should not be allowed to affect us. How will this be adequately studied before a permit is granted? Fourth, there are multiple other ways in which this mariiuana growing operation could impact the rural and pastoral character of our neighborhood. The "Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Easements" ('Declaration') for the Woodway Large Lot Subdivision (Recorder number 394129) forbid nuisances. The Declaration states "no noxious, illegal, or offensive use of land shall be carried on or permitted upon any Lot in the Plat." There are multiple probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Marijuana growing operations have invasive smells, which could travel directly to our property. Light pollution could be a factor, since marijuana growing operations often use long lighting periods to optimize growth. Trucking activity for the operation would create noise and traffic safety problems (especially if truck entry/departure takes place on a curve, which is the current plan). The local roads are small and vehicles travel swiftly, raising the potential for accidents (another problem given that first responders are not nearby). Already the applicants have removed a large number of trees in order to put in their well, so the tree barrier regulations need to be examined. Finally, the Naval Base land is only about a mile away, so these issues could impact not only the near neighbors but other entities important to Jefferson County and its tax base, lMat requirements are needed to ensure that qll these issues will be thoroughly exnmined? Hozu can these adaerse impacts be understood and can they eaen be resolaed? Fifth, the proposed cannabis factory is out of character with the rural surroundings, does not fit with cottage industry regulations (and does not match with example cottage industries in ]CC.18.20.170)- and even in application is already too large. The application (see MLA 18-00102) already states that the proposed cannabis factory asks permission for two 5,000 square foot building with 2,000 square feet dedicated to processing cannabis, and the remainder used for production. There is apparently no limit on outside growing areas, which increases the size of this factory (and augments issues of water usage and potential pollution even further). Can this issue eaen be resolaed? Finally, we have built a home completely in character with the pastoral nature of Dabob Bay and the rural residential surroundings of our locale. In doing this, our intention was to make a long-term investment in jefferson County. We have counted on the value of the property and home to sustain us in retirement. I understand that the presence of a cannabis factory has been demonstrated to reduce property values by as much as 10%. This is deeply concerning to me, and raises questions about whether remaining in Jefferson County in retirement, and contributing our tax dollars, is the best choice to make. With sincere concern and good cause, I request a public hearing so these issues can be discussed and debated. Sincerely "] : c I( g ac &tr o}{JtGl* :6 ilE {l\,Ur6!* tr' b*{($fitr afihr gl 88 tat ttJ gtt fo €) s od s6 Tlr - -- Ixa.-I I t ItI\ I o6.4.Jel\, 8' w t .al{IIto ilrit*t*i { c}'Et I tl.llcIT,l d t ,1 .j * sb-l.lo hTt)cG 3lroo-l Co.a.t trr{r}G -I C3 fi01 0s1 00ro Cr.arlorco6ol I *l I I J [,; ; I t .t ll CeJiaa\x)oo " "-&. ", (l trt -+J Ett Qif rI I t L,J ,U\ i r. II T xPT-# raL I -../a, 7 {n t. "{trt* floJl da.a.*al, st)N I *,t dE'.,it d -J J -* \-liA titi5'Lr---.- r!I I CC:Th ] ,pU t, b \'1b ?flE1l I An Ort#ance Relating to the Production, ) Processing, and Retailing of Recreational ) Marijuana within Jefferson County ) ORDINANCE #04-0608 .15 WIIEREAS,Initiative 502 was approved by the voters of this State at the General Election held in November 20 t2, said Initiative approving and making legal, with restrictions, so-called "recre ational marij uana." WHEREAS, some 65Yo of the voters in Jefferson County voted yes on Initiative 502. WHEREAS, initiative 502 was codified into Chapter 69.50 RCW, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. WHEREAS, WSLCB adopted final rules on October 16,2013 for marijuana producers, processors and retailers, said regulations being codified at Chapter 314-55 WAC. Regulations of Ch. 3 I 4-5 5 WAC went into effect on Novemb er 16, 2013 and the WSLCB began to accept applications for recreational marijuana producers, processors and retailers on November 18, 2013, said application window being open for one month with some exceptions to that time limit. WHEREAS, WAC 314-55-020(11) explicitly recognizes the authority of locall,,* adopted rules or ordinances to regulate licensed marijuana businesses, such locally adopted ordinances includirrg in part localbuilding and fire codes, and zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, on January 16,2014, the Washington State Attorney General issued an Opinion regarding local regulation of state-licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers (AGO 2014 No, 2), concluding in part,"... that I-502 left in place the normal powers of local governments to regulate within their jurisdictions. . .. Local governments have broad authority to regulate within their jurisdictions, and nothing in I-502 limits that authodty with respect to licensed marijuana busines ses." WHEREAS, the State Supreme Court on May Zl,2015 held that local land use development regulations may be applied to medical marijuana operations and the same logic would apply if there was a court case regarding whether state law pre-empted local development regulations relating to recreational marij uana. WHEREAS, marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act,2l U.S.C 801 et seq. State and local regulations do not preempt federal law. Individuals and businesses involved in the production, processing, sales and possession of marijuana could still be subject to prosecution under federal law. WHEREAS, however, the U.S. Justice Department issued a memorandum dated August 29, 2013, stating that while marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law, that "based on assurances that those states" (Washington and Colorado) "impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Departrnent has informed the governors of both states that it is defening Ordinance No. 0zl-060&15 re: Production, Processing, rnd Rctailing of Recreational Marijuana in Jefferson County its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time." The same memorandum requires the states to implement and enforce their regulations. WIIEREAS, county stafe including persons from planning, law enforcement, public health, prosecution, as well as the County Administrator, met during 2013 to determine if any changes to the County's current regulatory structure would be required in order to accommodate the then-anticipated recreational marijuana business uses at a scale, intensity and locations that would be consistent with this county's countywide planning policies, its Comprehensive Plan and the generally rural aesthetic and character ofunincorporated Jefferson County. Pursuant to JCC 18,10.010 the production of marijruma \.r/Ers deemed a rype of agriculture, a use that the county's land use planning seeks to encourage, WHEREAS, agriculnral policies and regulations include provisions of Jefferson County Code Title 1 8.20.030. including: r agricultural activity is an allowed use within all zoning designations; . commercial agricultural activity in certain circumstances is exempt frorn stormwater management permining for primary agricultural activities; . agriculture activity is exempt for obtaining building perrnits in certain circumstances; r Agricultural activities occurring on all rural land use districts except Rural Residential 1:5 are protected by so-called "right to farm" rules that provide notice to adjacent, non-agricultural parcels that agricultural activities do not constitute a nuisance; r Accessory uses in Agricultural zoned land are exempt from obtaining building permits in cetain circumstances; and o Accessory uses include commercial production and sales of locally grown or produced agricultural products, construction of structures, farm worker housing. processing, packaging, wholesale and retail sales of agricultural products, commercial sales, repair and maintenance of farm equipment, storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or products not related to agricuiture, agritourism, tounsm events not related to agrioulture, classes, Iumber mills, harvesting, sawing, processing, assembling and selling lumber. WHEREAS, although Jefferson County has determined that the production of marijuana is a type of agriculture, it also has characteristics which differentiate it from other types of agriculture and it therefore requires specific regulation and review of proposed developments due to the unique factors involved with marijuana, including: r It is illegal under federal law and the f'ederal Department of Justice policy *n,.;l states that legalized marijuana must have "strict regulatory systems." J. The State of Washington Liquor Control Board (WSLBC) has strict regulations specific to marijuana, at WAC 314-55. r A license issued by the WSLCB is required for anyone to engage in marijuana production, processing and retailing. 2-Version 1.4 Ordinance No. 04-0508-15 re: Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Mr{uane in Jeffcrson Countv Experienoe to date in Jefferson County has shown a majority of marijuana license applicants propose locating on Rural Residential land, giving rise to potential land use conflicts with adjacent land uses, i.e., residences. Its illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recrearional marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance" stafus being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County. Certain extraction methods involved with marijuana processing use potentially hazardous substances to human health and the environment. o Imposing development regulations specific to recreational marijuana will allow the County's planning department to impose conditions on permits issued, thereby allowing the County to require applicants to mitigate any probable significant adverse environmental impacts ("PSAEI") which might occur as a result of producing or processing marijuana.. Because recreational marijuana is only recently lawful, applicants, the County and the State do not know what PSAEI. if any, will arise from producing or processing marijuana but should have the tools in place ahead of time to mitigate any PSAEI which do occur, It is important to have these regulatory tools in place should they be needed to be proactive rather than reactive. WHEREAS, during the weekly op.rr rub Monday October L4,2013 staff briefed the Commission, infbrming them, according to the approved minutes for that meeting, "that existing regulations of the County and the WSLCB should be enough," based on the nature of marijuana operations then anticipated by the County, and thereafter no amendment or further review of the County's regulations was undertaken. This was based on the concept that the production of marijuana was merely another form of agriculture. WHEREAS, during the license application window which subsequently began November 18. 2013, the WSLCB has, with respect to unincorporated Jefferson Counly, received several dozen state license applications from persons and firms seeking to produce marijuana and/or process it and the vast majoriry (approximately 90%) of the applicants seeking to locate in unincorporated Jefferson County have requested state licenses to both produce and process marijuana. WIIEREAS, the applications to the state for producer and"/or processor licenses in unincorporated Jefferson County are for locations within various land use designations such as 1) agricultural lands 2) light industrial/commercial, 3) light industrial, 4) rural residential, 5) rural forest and 6) rural commercial. Each of those land use designations listed immediately above has a distinct purpose (and related public policy behind it) in ths counry's Comprehensive Plan and developrnent regulations and thus raise different compatibiiiry issues in relation to the PSAEI from the production or processing of recreational marijuana unique to each particular land use designation. a a a 3-Yersion 1.4 Ordinance No. 0406t1&15 re : Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuanr in Jefferson County WHEREAS, the County's curent development regulations in the land use arena do not impose any land use permitting requirements on growing marijuana, although the processing of marijuana in most land use designations requires a County land use permit as an accessory use or "cottage industry." WI{EREAS, state, regional and local regulations and./or permitting regarding potable \r,ater, adequate water, waste water and surface water discharges. the proper handling and disposal of solid waste, food processing, and air quality are, and always would be, applicable to any applicant seeking to enter into and undertake eny one or some of the tlrree recreational marijuana businesses available to citizens tfuough the WSLCB licensing process. WHEREAS, two public hearings were held related to enacting temporary moratoriums in Jefferson County on recreational marijuana, where the citizens have addressed the County Commission during the public comrnent period of the Commission's open public meetings expressing great concem that the production of marijuana is not typical agriculture and that both production and processing should be the subject of additional development regulations not currently found in the applicable land use and development regulations, WHEREAS, it should be noted that there has been citizen support exp,ressed at the public meetings of the County Commission for encouraging the production and processing of marij uana within unincorporated Jefferson County. WIIEREAS, the outdoor production of recreational marijuana must cornply w'ith numerous state regulations such as enclosure with an 8 foot high fence and securitv measures that help make it distinguishable from more recognized and stereotypical forms of agriculture. WHEREAS, based on actual state license applications reviewed by the County and still pending before the state, it now appears the potential high profitability of recreational marijuana is attracting investments in marijuana operations and developments of a larger scaie and higher intensity than the County previously anticipated in some land use classifications, said larger proposals having resultant PSAEI not previously known or planned for, again making it unlike the more traditional existing agricultwe found in Jefferson County. WHEREAS, recreational marijuana production and processing in the absence of regulations rnay result in a scale and intensity of activities that are inconsistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies to maintain rural character in rural residential lands, WHEREAS, permission to undertake recreational marijuana production and processing has been sought at a scale and intensity exceeding the scale and intensity of agriculture which has occurred so far, and may therefore result in PSAEI such as increased traffic, noise, light, hours of activity, odors, water supply withdratals, and surface and ground water pollution. WHEREAS, in order to balance the supportive goals and policies for agriculrural uses, including but not limited to recreational marijuana, with comparable support for other land uses, it has been appropriate to review regulations for the potential scale and intensity of recreational marijuana under the County's existing regulations and make such regulatory 4-Version 1.4 Ordinance No, 04-0608-15 re: Production, Procesing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Jefferson Coung- changes as found necessary so that potential impacts between incompatible uses can be avoided, reduced or mitigated, for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of all Jefferson County citizens and businesses as well as its overall rural character. WHEREAS, on July 37,2014, an interagency meeting was held in Jefferson County to discuss roles of various state agencies along with the County in marijuana licensing. This meeting revealed a general absence of regular coordination among agencies at that time, including coordination with the WSLCB. Since that time, Jefferson County has increased coordination with several agencies when sending comment letters to the WSLCB on license applications. WHEREAS, in order to provide the County the opportunity to review and amend its regulations that would apply to marijuana production and processing, the Board of County Commissioners deemed it to be in the public interest to establish a moratorium intended to temporarily prohibit the acceptance of any development permit application that would be necessary for the siting, Iocation or opemtion of remeational marijuana producing and processing at certain locations said moratorium was duly passed by the County Cornmission on August 11,2014. WffiREAS, an extension and revision to the initial moratorium was duly adopted by the County Commission on February 9,2015. This moratorium will expire on June 11, 2015, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public meetings to address the issue of marijuana regulation on November 5, 2014, January 14, February 4, March 4, April l, April 15, and May 6,2015. The public record includes agenda materials and alt written and oral public cornments provided at those meetings. WHEREAS, a Planning Commission public hearing was duly noticed on May 6,2015 scheduling said hearing for May 20,2015. WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015 DCD at the County Commission's weekly public meeting staff presented to the County Commission the draft (unapproved) proposal that was to be the subject of the Planning Commission's public hearing to be held on May 20, 2015. The County Commission suggested some minor non-substantive changes to the draft Planning Commission version and waited for the results of the May 20,2015 public hearing and Planning Commission vote. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held its public hearing on May 20,2015 and after receiving written and oral comments from citizens, voted 6-0 to send its recommendation to the County Commission. The recommendation was not substantively different from what the County Commission had reviewed on May 18th and included the non-substantive changes the County Commission had suggested on May 18th. WHEREAS, on May 21,2015 there was a Special Meeting of the County Commissionto consider the Planning Commission recoffImendation regarding recreational marijuana and to deliberate on that recornmendation. After another presentation by staff and much deliberation among the three County Commission members, the County Commission decided to accept the 5-Version 1.4 Ordinance No. 04-060&15 re: Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Jefferson County Planning Commission recommended regulations without further changes and directed staff to prepare an Ordinance that rryould formally enact the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the County's development regulations, specilically amend and revise Title l8 of the Jefferson County Code. WtIERf,AS, the County Commission concludes that this proposed recreational marijuana code amendment maintains a balance between providing residential uses and agricultural uses, and supporting economic development by providing for recreational marijuana activities while also upholding community held values for maintaining "rural character" and meeting the adopted intent of various zones as identified in JCC 18,15.005;by controlling the size and placement of structures, and requiring permit conditions such as landscape screening and setbacks under which recreational marijuana activities are authorized in various land use zones in the County. WIIEREAS, the notice provisions that will apply to applications to undertake a recreational marijuana enterprise will 1) encourage dialog beni,een an applicant and hislher neighbors about the proposal and 2) inform the neighbors ofthe proposal. WHEREAS, the proposed performance standards for recreational marijuana as well as the amendments to the we table will provide the Countv's planning department with proactive tools allowing the planners to condition perrnits granted pursuant to these sec.tions and thereby will serve to mitigate the PSAEI. if any, generated by or likely to be generated by any application related to recreational marij uana, WHEREAS' the County's Department of Community Development Departrnent has reviewed these proposed amendments to the County's pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act ('SEPA") and undertook the following actions, A pubtic notice including intent to amend the Title 18 JCC, the Unified Development Code, availability of environmental documents and a pending SEPA determination of nou-significance was duly published in the County's offrcial newspaper on May 6,2015 and sent to the County's official SEPA distribution list. The notice stated the 14 day comment period, which ended on May 20,2015. There were no conrments on the pending SEPA detennination during the comment period. On May 22,Z0l5,the County's SEPA Responsible Official issued the final Determination of Non-Significance. WHEREAS, these proposed development regulations are authorized by the Planning Enabling Act. codified at Ch. 36.70 RCW. the Growth Management Act, Ch. 36.70A RCW and Ch. 314- 55 of the Washington Administrative Code. WHEREAS, adoption of these proposed development regulations is authorized by and pursuant to the general police power provided to local governments such as Jefferson County by the Constitution of the Srate of Washinglon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED as foltows Section One: The County Commission adopts the "Whereas" statements listed above as its Findings of Fact in support of and as the basis for adoption of this Ordinance, 6-Version 1.4 Ordinance No. 04-0608-1Ae: Production, Processing, and Retailing of Recreational Mariiuana in Jefferson County Sectig.n Two: Table 3-l found in Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (or "JCC") and codified at JCC $ 18.50.040 is repealed in its entirety and hereby replaced with the version of Table 3-1 found in Attachment "A" to this Ordinance. Section Three: Table 3,4.-1 found in Title l8 of the Jefferson County Code and codified at JCC $18.18.040 is repealed in its entitety and hereby replaced rzr'ith the version of Table 3,4- 1 found in Attachment "B" to this Ordinance. SectiqTr Iouti iCC $18,20.030 is repealed in its entirety and hereby replaced with the version of JCC $18.20.030 found in Attachment "C" to this Ordinance. Section Five: There is hereby added to the JCC at Chapter 18.20 JCC a new section entitled "Recreational Marijuana Performance Standards," the complete text of which is Attachment "D" to this Ordinance. Section Six: This Ordinance shall become effective as of the date it is executed by the members of the County Commission. Section Seven: If this Ordinance is adopted before the close of business on June 1 I , 2015, then this Ordinance repeals and makes void the most recent "Moratorium" Ordinance relating to recreational marijuana, the Ordinance known formally as Ordinance #01-0209-15 Section Eisht: The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circum.qtancg.s shall remain valid and unaffected. t1't t. S orlrn e,zoll,1 L .o'( Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form Only: 6 David /'lvarez County Board of County this B t5 -furttr"*fl-co.'' JE,FFERSON COLII{TY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David van, Member Kathleen Kler, Member t Dg'l a, a Phit Deputy Prosecutin g Attorney 7-Version 1.4 ORIGINAL394129 DECI,AIIITIOTf OF PROTECTTIIT: COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AND EASEYIENTS ['OR WOODW.{Y LARGE I..OT SUBDTVISION I.IO REAL EST'ATE Know all nren by these presents:co That J A L Associates (herelnsfler referred to as trDeclsrantl), renl property descrlbed as r portion of the }forth 1/l of tfte 10, Townshlp 26 North, Range I West, eituate ln Jellersoo Itashlngton,and rnore eommonly known as lYoodwoy (herelnafter referred lo ng ('the Plat')r makes of easementsr covenanls snd reslrictlorrs on the ln the Plat (herelnsfter reforred to ss "Lotsr), hereby decloratlong shall by lat and shall be for the beneflt of ond Ilmlmtions and benoflts hereof. 1. &800gg. T[e purpose of the according to the terms of the llmitotloru ls to ensure the properay orvo€rrr gr!rlted non.exclusive rcsponsible for loldttty or from from such dralnrgo Lot ghnll be of the Lots ln the Plat orc hereby wlth oach other and wlth tha publlc for outdoor burnlng corrlod 0n 0r permltted upon any ond lhers sholl lro no burnlng of tho followingr wot 0r be 0v0r,under and along tho rotdwRy locoted that thc owncr of cnch lot sholl be sololy molntcooltcs of tho enlronce to hls lotfrom such further lhat thc ontrsnse to eoch lot o cultorl adoqurto to provklo for such rondwny or publlo road. noxlousr lllcgol, or olfonslve u$e 0f lnnd shall be crrrled on done lhreon whlch rtBy thc Plut AUo 2 6 1996, nt oll llmos, vJi 558 ,,,,,ljlj2 garbf,ge' deed nnlmals, asphalt, petroleum productsr tt i,.tted woort, ptastlcl or tny other subslance the burning of whlch resuhs ln a noxious or toxlc resldue or emlsslon. S. Commerclal Uses Prohl.bltg!. Each Lot withln the Plat shsll be used for resldentlsl purposes only, und no Lot shsll be used for conrmercial purPo3es, provlded, however,that this restriction shall not preclude lhe renlal of a home on a n)t Lot for residential purposes, or preclude the conductlon of r busl resldence pursurnt to and ln full compliance rvith Section 6.50 of County Development Code, entltled Home Buslness and Cottage nesS within a nd any other applicrrble regulotions. 6. @gE. No livestock, poultry, pets,0r other nni kept on nny Lot wlthln the Plst for commerclal purposes. A small nu be kept for thc personal ure and erjoyment of the residents of su that such anirnals are confined to the property of the owner rnd provlded further thtt snld anlmals do not become an an nelghborhood. nnce to the 7, Ug4filg. No huntlng or practlce rvlth flrearnrs or bows and arrows shall bo carried on 0r permltted Plat, 8, Fxplotivo Deyiceq. The firetrnrs, or ony other explosive devlce ls prohlblted wlth 9. Trallers nnd RVq, No tionolvehicle shallbe stored or used as n permlnent res 0n irr tho Plnt; providod, however, thst I trollerr comp er or recrcot bont rnay he lemporarily placed on a Lot for a perl od of not more each calendnr year. Recreatlonalvehlcles or travel trailers duly on the publlc hlghwoys lnd boats orr llcenscd trnilors mny bo storod lhnt a permnncnt rcsldenco cxlsts on snid Lotg. I0.n Trnsh, obnndoned vehlcles, or Junk shell nol bo permlttod to ownir of lhc wllhln the Plot nnd shnll bc promptly rernovod by tho lcle thnt ls lntcnded for trnvelon publlc hlghwayt nruy be kept or lhln thc Plnt unless lt ls currently lo llcensed. No clwelllng 0r appurtenrnlstructure shnll be c pormllted upon flny Lot unlesr ll eonforms to nll locnl lruilrlirrg codes nnrl lhc dwolllng or slructuro nko conforms to tho followlrrgr A, Uport tlto contmcneenrent of constructlon ol rrny dwolllng or othor strucluro oil tny Lol wlthln tho Plnt, rnld congtructlon lhnllbo pursuorl 558 'tu 8[Jlv0L rlillgently and contlnuously until tho silbstrntlnl completlon of sald constructlon shsll be {lnished withln eighteen (18) months after seld commencement of sald constructlon. B, No dwelling shall be erectedr placedr or rltered 0n any Lot unlesg It wss constructed or mnnufictured ln 1995 or later and is lnstolled on a conllnuoug nnd permrrnent foundqtlon. C. No clwelling shnll be erectedr phced, or altered has rn enclosed floor arm ofnot less than 900 square feet (not Includlng garsges, porches, breezeivrys, And outbuil of not less than 4ll2feet, D. Any structurc on ony Lot rvhich is in pnrt by fire, wlndstorm, or other casualty shrll be or all debris shlll be remoyed and the Lot restored to with reasonablo promptness, but in no event no tnter easualty, fter the date of such E. No dwelling shall be , or nltered oil eny lot unless it , shlngles, masonryr vinyl or ave fln erterior finish of trred paperr tarred shingles, or sldlng, F, Exterlor yard rrg lighh shall be lnstelled snd shieldetl go that no unless lt pltch hrs rn exterior finish of wood other quallty mrterinls. No st t onto other lots wlthln the Plat. No ll be used on sny Lot wlthln the Plrt, common Lot llnes shnll he compored of rls ond shollnot constltuto a vlsutl bodor grtde. erterlor mercury G.. conventionol Itlghar thnn slr v Tlrc$e covennnts nnd rertrlctlons shnll ru wl upon nll purchnserr nnd rll porsont rqtrlctlonr msy bo nntcndctl lry theTh of the ownori of tho Lols wllhtn tho Plnlt provldedr however, thc Ploh ol tlerlgnntod by tho Survey, shall rcprescnt one votc whcth ln comnron or ln oggrcgnlo 13, VlolOtlons, If thc owncrs of lots wlthln tte Plnt, 0r lny of lhcmr or nuy of tholr holrs or tuccclroru ln lntorost, shnllvlolntc nny of tho covennnts or rcrtrlctlonl hcreln ionlnlnodr lt shnll bo lnwful for nny othor pcilon 0r pcrsors ownlng nny renl vtt 55tl ,01884 12, nffi property wlthln the Plnh or hovlng a vendee's lnteresl under I real estnte contrnct to purchase rny rerl property wlthln the Plal, to prosecute a proceedlng rt law or ln iqulty rgolnst the person 0r persons violating or attempting to vlolste any such covensnior restrlctlon anrt elther to prevcnt srld person 0r persons from so dolng or t0 recover damages arising frorn such vlolutions. ctlons by a0r14. Ipvdidstiq!. Invalidation of any of these covemnts tudgrnent of any Court of competent jurlsdlctlon shallln no rvny other provlslonsr whlch shall remaln ln fullforce nnd effect. affec of the , the owne r of the Plat hos 1996, JAL By i;i:i -;,;i0 lll J,'b,;ffi,itsa#F str rrrt,\.th,'.-i r'..'i Lr,' ffl,Lr,$f rqP0Firv , tl*I,t:, i,i l ri,',11."j* ! I,,, htlu,.[Jbn)" ,. onth STATB OFW COUNTY OF On thlr J, Dnrbcr, crccutaj tho vol acl lo hrntl urd otllchl lcll herclo aflhul tha dny and ycar ln thh ccrtltlcato Warllngton, My commlrlon 558 'r.,81J5 NOTABT rfr PUEUO ,lttttt VOL IN Decloratiort, thls of nnd lo Greculo tho uld lnrlrumcnl, March 22d 2019 Public Comment RE: TYPE ll LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-00102,TaxP Dear Mr Johnson, I am writing today in regards to the proposed marijuana production facility being proposed at 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene. I am the third generation to own a piece of property located directly downhill from the proposed site. My family has owned the land for over 60 years. lt has served as an escape from the noise, pollution, and industry of the city and has provided a beautiful and peaceful place to relax in nature. While I fully support both Cottage lndustry and the marijuana industry as a whole what is being proposed here is not in keeping with the spirit of the Cottage lndustry regulations and the plan as described do not fit in with the harmony of the community surrounding the proposed site. I request a public hearing be held to allow our community to express our concerns and have our questions be answered. Below I have outlined several issues that I believe highlight why this permit for Conditional Discretionary Use should not be granted. 1. Violation of Cottage lndustry Codes: Two (2) 5,000 square foot buildings and an 840 square foot modular building speciflcally to be dedicated to the production and processing of marijuana are being proposed. According to the Cottage lndustry regulations (JCC 18.20.170 (o))"ln no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry." The proposal exceeds the limitations of the regulations by 5,840 square feet. 2. Violation of Cottage lndustry Codes: Additionally in JCC 18.20.170 (o) "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with the neighboring properties." Two (2) 5,000 square foot building is equivalent to nearly a quarter acre of land. There is no other such structure anywhere close to the proposed site and the neighboring properties are all secluded forest land with small homes. ln no way would this type of construction be considered "in character with the neighboring properties." 3. Violation of Cottage Industry Codes: According to email correspondence between David Johnson, from Jefferson County, and Jessie Williamson, the owners of the land in question, the main purpose of purchasing the land was to produce and process marijuana. Applications for Conditional Discretionary Use were sought prior to seeking a building per4it for a primary residence and even before purchase of the property was complete. According to the Cottage lndustry regulations ((JCC 18.20.170 (n)) "The cottage enterprise is an accessory use to the residential use of a dwelling unit." The correspondence would suggest that residential use is not the primary goal of the property and rather the Cottage lndustry is the sole purpose and primary use of the property, which is not the intent of the regulations. 4. Overuse of water in aquifer: Our well is located roughly 2,000 feet downhill from the proposed site and more than likely shares the same aquifer as the newly drilled well on the land in question. According to the "Water Well Report" (BKU535) the proposed use of the newly dug well was "domestic"; however, it will be used to supply water to an industrial scale marijuana production and processing facility The amount of water potentially needed to produce marijuana on the scale suggested in the proposal could have adverse effects on the amount of water available in the aquifer and cause our well to run dry. 5. Potential for contamination of aquifer: Additionally the chemicals used to both produce and process the marijuana could enter the ground water through the on-site septic system and contaminate trAn 2 5 2019 13 trvil r:,s,\5 G the water downhill from the site and potentially pollute the water in the aquifer. Additional on-site studies and reports should be made available on both the availability of water in the aquifer year round and the potential for contamination prior to the approval for conditional usage of the land. 6. Noise: The Toandos Peninsula is dominated by forest land and residential homes and offers tranquility in it's lack of noise. The air handling system of the proposed building to attempt to lessen the odor emitted from the production and processing of marijuana will undoubtedly negatively affect neighboring properties. The constant hum of the system can be heard from a long distance at the owner's current facility in Port Townsend. The proposed project shows building just 20 feet off their property line leaving no doubt that if their immediate neighbor ever developed their land they would never experience any quiet and therefore negatively affect their property value. 7. lnvasive Smelll Without a doubt the production and processing of marijuana produces a strong pungent odor that can spread for miles on hot days. The majority of the time an air handling system with proper charcoal filters can eliminate the majority of the odors emitted into the surrounding areas. During peak bloom of the plants and during the drying period however it is nearly impossible for any system to filter out the odor produced. The noxious odor will, without doubt, have negative effects on the ability to surrounding property owners to enjoy the outdoors. Unlike the current marijuana production and processing facility located 5 miles north of the proposed site, which sits on a 99 acre plot far away from the road and neighboring properties, the site in question sits on 5 acres 30 feet off the road and 20 feet away from the neighboring property. 8. Loss of Property Value: A large portion of the appeal of our community is its serene tranquility and natural beauty unvarnished by industry, noise, and noxious orders. The proposed industrial scale operation will have adverse effects on what makes our community valuable to us and to others. There are countless news articles regarding decrease in property values surrounding marijuana production and processing facilities in every state that has legalized it. This operation is proposed to be located on a 5 acre plot of land that is 272 feet wide and 805 feet long. lt is located in a residential subdivision and is across the street from another residential subdivision on a 2 mile wide peninsula. There is no question that this will have negative effects on the value of the surrounding properties. This type of operation belongs on a larger parcel with structures and buildings more isolated from a road and from property boundaries. As I stated above, I support both Cottage lndustry and the marijuana industry; however, I believe that there are responsible ways to conduct these types of industry in the county. A good example of a well located, similar operation to the proposal is the "High Point" marijuana facility located 5 miles north of the proposed site. The High Point facility is located on a large plot of land, setback 500 feet from the road and the nearly 100 acre parcel is bordered by over 700 acres of managed forest land owned by the State and Pope Resources. ln the case of the current proposal, to permit an industrial scale marijuana production and processing facility in a residential subdivision, the county's approval of such a request for Conditional Discretionary Use would be irresponsible and reckless. Thank you for your consideration, Ryan Schroeder and the Schroeder Family 3'15 Kens Way, Quilcene, WA 98376 March 22,2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: MLA1&00102 Type ll Land Use Application by Tracy \A/illiamson for a cottage industry to produce and process Cannabis on a rural residential5.4S acre parcel located at 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA, Jefferson County Parcel #601-1 05-01 3. Dear Development Review Division, Our comment on the proposed application is as follows. We are property owners in the Coyle area of Jefferson County. Any proposed land use actions that could potentially decrease our property value is not in our best interest. We strongly oppose the granting of this application in a rural residential neighborhood. Please add us to your mailing list to receive notice of any other public particulars regarding this application. Sincerely, t q a\/ Ronald E. LeMay Margaret A. LeMay P.O. Box 345 Kingston, WA 98346 [lAH 25 2019 tr@ V[EIfl}HJ Hi i;il **J March 22,2019 Public Comment Regarding: TYPE II LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-OO102, Tax Parcel 601105013 (9709 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376) To David Wayne Johnson c/o Jefferson County Department of Community Develop Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Roland & Colleen Faragher-Horwell 471Dietz Drive Quilcene, WA. 98376 Dear Sir, We are full-time residents of the Coyle community on the Toandos Peninsula. We appreciate the opportunity to have you consider our concerns regarding the cottage industry (cannabis growing & processing facility) being proposed at 9790 Coyle Road To be clear: we would like to see the application for the facility at 9790 Coyle Road be denied by the county. We believe the following concerns support such a denial. 1. The proposal conflicts with literal wording of Jefferson County's Cottage lndustry code. Jefferson County's Cottage !ndustry Code establishes the following expectations of cottage industries - each of which would be violated by the proposed facility: a) "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in chafaotet with neighboring properties." b) The code only authoizes "such activities (that) can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity... c) "All structures and activities shall be so located (away) from adjacent propefties to avoid disturbance throuqh qlare. noise. dift or other nuisances or hazards." d) "No use shall be made of equipment or mateialwhich produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and eniovment of adjoininq and sunoundinq pfepely." 2. The proposal conflicts with the spirit of Jefferson Gounty's Cottage Industry code: The official purpose of the cottaqe industry code is: o "To provide for small-scale economic development activities on residential parcels, subordinate to the primary residential use". Lof2 trGtr[Vtr l-ilAR 2 q I201 March 22,2019 Public Comment Regarding TYPE II LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-OO102, Tax Parcel 601105013 (9709 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376) During a recent public Q&A session with the property owners, the question was asked: 'Why do you want to move your facility from Port Townsend to Coyle" - the answer given was (in part) that they are motivated due to the lower costs of operating in Coyle. This motivation is clearly not in line with the spirit or intent of the cottage industry code. The applicants are primarily interested in establishing a business and are using the cottage code's requirement to have a small residence on site as a mechanism to get approval. This is invertinq the puroose of the industry code to have "pnmaty restdenfial use" be "subordinafe" to the cottase industry. The proposeel residence is secondarv to the proposed business 3. lf approved, the proposed cottage industry establishes a horrible precedent for the county: !n light of concern #2 above, approval of the proposed facilitv at 9790 Covle Road will establish a referenceable precedent for anv small business owner (whose business is not in conflict with the tvpes allowed bv the cottaqe industrv code) to save monev bv relocatino to a rural/residentia! area so lonq as thev ensure there is a residence adiacent to their business.This is in conflict with the purpose of the cottage industry code and it is a very slippery slope for the county. With each new cottage industry approval, rural/residential areas incrementally transform into light industrial areas. This is not what anyone who lives in these areas expect or want. Roland Faragher, ( Colleen Faragher-H 2 of2 4. Property Values Negatively lmpacted It is common sense that having a business adjacent to a rural/residential property will detract from the rural/residential property's value and salability. Approving the cottage industry application in question, places this unfair burden on nearby property owners. When a person buys a tract of land in an area that is zoned as rural/residential, they anticipate some stability in that zoning - this stability would be undermined bv the approval of cottaqe industries that are reallv not "subordinate to the primarv residential use". For the reasons listed above, please deny the application for the cottage industry at 9790 Coyle Road in Coyle (Quilcene). Thank you for considering our concerns and request. Sincerely,F March 22,2079 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Type l! Land Use Application MLA18-00102 As a resident landowner on the Coyle Peninsula, I would like to request that this application be elevated to a Type ll C(d) land use permit application, requiring a public hearing at a minimum and a decision by the Hearing Examiner. Further, although a SEPA exemption is mentioned several times in emails in the record, the justification for that exemption is not defined in the material I have read, and I believe it should be addressed. The reasons for this reguest are inconsistencies in the application's assertions and unknowns relative to mitigation of effects that require more information and perhaps more documentation. Examples of inconsistencies in the SupplementalApplications CU filed 71118/tg include: o Paragraph 2: "property is located in remote area off the Coyle; there are no established residences in the surrounding lots". This is simply not true; there are at least 7 established residences on two sides of the property. Further, dozens more permanent residents pass the location daily en route to homes south of there. o Paragraph 4: Building dimensions proposed are conflicting and confusing. lmmediately proposed are a small residence, a 5,000 sf pole barn, a modular building of 840 sf, and later another 5,000 sf building. However, in the Cottage lndustry Application, the assertion is made that of the total 238,709 sf of property only 2,000 sf will be used for business. o Paragraph 6: the application claims no excess of pedestrian or vehicle traffic, and that the only people frequenting the property are family. Yet the application proposes two parking places for the residence, 3 regular and 2 ADA spaces for the facility. lt also asserts in Paragraph 11that community benefits might include the provision of jobs. For these reasons alone I believe this application requires more scrutiny as well as documentation of minimal noise, odor, air pollution and storm water volume capture that is presented. This application represents a significant diversion from the residential nature of the area and deseryes intense evaluation of its potential impact, as it will set a precedent for similar applications going forward. J 136 Gereaux Lane Quilcene WA 98376 MAR 2 5 2019 tr tr [Vtr Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 360-808-5039 msmitch@embarqmail.com March 22,20L9 Jefferson County Dept. Of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Type II Land Use Application, Ml-A18-00102 Applicant: Tracy Williamson Site Address: 9790 Coyle Road Conditional discretionary use permit to Produce and process cannabis in a Rural Residential zone Dear Project Planner David Johnson: Please do NOT allow this use of property in this location. A marijuana grow operation is not in keeping with our already developed, established neighborhood. While this site may appear forested and remote, there are actually a number of private, full-time rural residential properties and people here, who have called The Coyle home for 20 years. My home is in the large lot subdivision of Blueberry Hill, located at the 9 mile marker of Coyle Road, directly across the two-lane Coyle Road from this proposed enterprise. There are seven full-time, very private residences here. Two 5,000 sq. foot buildings of marijuana would bring traffig machinery, fan noise, lights and noxious odors, all disrupting the peace and quiet we have come to cherish and expect. Additionally, I would like to reiterate and incorporate in my argument against this project the concerns outlined in the Letter of Bonnie Story, 293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene, WA 98376, raising: Violation of Cottage Industry Codes Violation of subdivision CCR agreements Unreasonably close to existing fulltime residences Invasive Smells Crime problems Loss of propefi value Noise. For all these reasons, please, do not allow this to go forward Sincerely, uAn 25 20,9 l=,la-0 tr 7n A/L,l+" L- Marilyn S. Mitchell ur J , tr@tr[Vtr [lAR 2 5 2019 3-22-19 Public Comment RE: TYPE ll LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-00702,Tax Parcel 501105013 Dear Mr. Johnson, I am writing to express several serious concerns about the cannabis growing, processing, and packaging facility being proposed, by way of a Cottage lndustry, for 9790 Coyle Road in Quilcene. But first I want to tell you what the county and you did RIGHT! vou approved a proper location for a cannabis growing processing plant at mile 5 on Coyle Road. No neighbors, no lawsuits, no hassles, perfect location! Now ! will tell you what I am concerned about with this current land use application. #1 Violation of Cottage lndustry Codes: Jefferson County's own Cottage lndustry Code states that "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties." The code only authorizes "such activities (that) can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity... All structures and activities shall be so located (away) from adjacent properties to avoid disturbance through glare, noise, dirt or other nuisances or hazards." "No use shall be made... to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." The proposed proiect fails the test completelv. #2 Unreasonably Close to Existing Adjacent Full-Time Residences. This project, which the proponents hope to expand up to 10,000 square feet of industrial space, is located within 600 feet of established full time resident homes in an immediately (er{-TP I adjacent residential subdivision. The applicant claims that neighboring properties are uninhabited and/or undeveloped. This is completely false. Thank you for your consideration. Kathi Boyker 65 Dellwood Road Qu wA 98376 t, I lL 1 Barry & Barbara Lanum tt94L Fairway Circle N Dr lndianapolis, lN 46236 March 24,2OL9 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject:MLA18-00102 We would like to receive notice of any hearings and receive a copy of any decisions made regarding the above Permit Request. Respectfully,#ry C ,/*.* /l*!,*)"** Barry & Barbara Lanum tr trOVtr ]',lAR 2 6 2019 David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: BARRY LAN UM < blanum@comcast.net> Monday, March 25,20L9 4:52 PM David W. Johnson Jefferson County Public Notice MLA18-00102 MLA18-00102 Comments from Lanums.docx;Woodway Covenants Recorded Aug 26 1996.tiff; Jefferson County Public Notice.tif To: David Wayne Johnson Attached please find a copy of Public Notice MLAI8-00102, a word document containing our comments on the notice, and a copy of the "Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions and Easements for Woodway Large Lot Subdivision". ln addition to this email, we have sent copies to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development at the address given on the public notice. We would like to receive notice of any hearing, and a copy of any decisions that are made. We hope you will seriously consider our concerns when making a decision Respectfully, Barry & Barbara Lanum 1 tr trOVtr Barry & Barbara Lanum 11941 Fairway Circle N Dr lndianapolis, lN 46236 March 24,2Ot9 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 62l Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Subject:MLA18-00102 To: Project Planner: David Wayne Johnson We are Barry & Barbara Lanum and we own Lot 2 in Woodway Large Lot Subdivision, adjacent to Lot 3 that is trying to obtain a permit as a Cottage lndustry to produce and process Cannabis. When we purchased our lot in 1998, we specifically selected our lot for its ability to keep its value through the long haul. We wanted the lot to be in a rural enough location to avoid getting caught by urban sprawl, and we wanted a place that we believed would be a nice quiet neighborhood 20-30 years down the road...when we would build our home and retire in Washington state. Now after twenty years of investment, just when we're reaching the age where we can begin to think about retiring, we're seeing our dream placed under attack with less than two weeks to respond to the notice. Obviously, this has been going on for months, but honestly, the first we knew about it was Friday, March t5,2OL9 when we received the Public Notice in the regular mail, and it states we only have until March 27,zOLg to comment. From our point of view, this whole deal feels as if it's being pushed through very rapidly, as if they want everything approved before anyone notices what's happening. According to the documentation on the web site, the permit process was started before Williamson's even owned the land. They were applying for a Cottage lndustry Application before there was an address, much less a house. Williamsons didn't want to purchase the land unless they were sure everything would be approved -they're building a business, not a house. The house is a by-product, something they have to do to make this work. What made them confident enough to go ahead? I understand, they had to get a letter from the previous owner stating that it was ok with them to move forward. Champions just wanted to sell the property and the ability to be able to get a permit was a condition of the sale of the property. ln the project description, it states Williamsons want permission to build two 5000 sq ft buildings. "The proposal must comply with ... Cottage lndustry regulations under ICC L8.2O.17O" tf you look up Jefferson County Code (JCC) L8.2OJ-7O ltem (4) describes cottage industries and (o) specifically states, ..."1n no case shall more than 5000 square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry." So, are you going to allow them to have twice the amount of square feet that the Jefferson County Code allows? That makes no sense. How can that, alone, be compliant? When we were ready to purchase our land, our Realtor, Terry McHugh, made sure we were well aware of the covenants that came with the land, and that we could abide by them. Why then, do the new [lAR 2 6 2019 l, - .., .- -., -. . *J owners in Lot 3 (who had the same Realtor) not have to abide by the covenants? Were they not told of the covenants? Woodway Large Lot Subdivision is comprised of four lots and is called a subdivision for a reason - it's supposed to only consist of homes, not businesses. Covenant item 5 - "Commercial Uses Prohibited. Each Lot within the Plat shall be used for residential purposes only, and no Lot shall be used for commercial purposes, provided, however that this restriction shall not preclude the rental of a home on a Lot for residential purposes, or preclude the conduction of a business from within a residence..." We don't want to live next door to a smelly, noisy, processing plant. The fact that you even have to have noise and air quality studies, is not a good sign. Covenant item 3 - "Nuisance. No noxious, illegal, or offensive use of land shall be carried on or permitted upon any Lot in the Plat nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to any Lot owner in the Plat." We don't want to live next door to an ugly processing plant. They state, "Our building will be a steel metal building, allowing no light to escape." How can you hide two 5000 sq ft buildings when they are 25 ft from our property line? Covenant item 11- Buildine Restrictions E. "No dwelling shall be erected, placed, or altered on any Lot unless is has an exterior finish of wood siding, clapboards, shingles, masonry, vinyl, or other quality materials..." Can these covenants be changed? Why, yes, yes they can. Covenant item 12 - Covenants Running with the Land. "These covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all purchasers and all persons claiming under them. These covenant and restrictions may be amended by the affirmative vote of 70% of the owners of the Lots with the PlaU provided however, that each Lot within the Plat, as designated by the Survey, shall represent one vote whether owned in common or in aggregate." The problem is, 3 out of 4 owners like the covenants just the way they are - that gives us 75% of the vote - the Carvers on Lot 1, the Lanums on Lot 2, and the Gilligans on Lot 4. We bought our land with the understanding that it was strictly residential. We find this is now in jeopardy. We know as a project planner that you do not care about the covenants and it is not your responsibility to see that they are upheld, but as land owners, we do care. We can see the quality of our lots diminish and the value of our property dropping. lt's clear we aren't all in agreement about whether this permit should be granted or not and we'd like a public hearing. lf the permit is granted, the covenants also give the rest of the land owners permission to prosecute to recover damages. Covenant item 13 - Violations. "lf the owners of Lots within the Plat, or any of these, or any of their heirs or successors in interest, shall violate any of the covenants or restrictions herein contained, it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any real property within the Plat, or having a vendee's interest under a real estate contract to purchase any real property within the Plat, to prosecute a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant or restriction and either to prevent said person or persons from so doing or to recover damages arising from such violations." lf the permit is granted, we either watch our investment fade away, or we band together with our neighbors and file a civil suit against the Williamson's. You have the power to grant, deny, or request a hearing concerning this permit request. We urge you to preferably deny or, at the very least, request a hearing. Respectfully, Barry & Barbara Lanum ---0{5^*7 C /a41/L/'rz\ Please see attached covenants. e",L*he* MAn 2 6 2019 394129 ORIGINAL DECTAILTTION OF PROTECTTVE COVENANTS ANII RESTR.ICTIONS ANOEASE*'ENTS rOR WOODWAY LARGE LOT SI]BDIVISION Know ell mcrr by rhesc prcrcntsl BY S trurnru:E&P4 That J A L Arsociates (hcrelnafter referrcd to ac sDeclarant'), orrucr of tbrr ccrlainrcal property descrt0cd es r portion of thcNorlh llt of thcSoutherst U{ of SectlonI0' Townghlp 26 North, Range I Tlcst, rituatc In Jeffersoa couaty,,sletc ofwashlngton, rnd morc comraooly known rs woodway Lrrge Lot iubdMsioo,(hercinafter referred to rs qthe plat.), bereby mrkes drc following declantlou of eascmcotsr coveoants and rcstrictloos od the impror.cmcnt end use of Iat ln the plat (rerelnafter reforred to as &Lots'). hcrelry rpecl$.tog tlrat thcge declaratlons shelconstitutc coYeneots to ryn with satd rest property, as provlded by law, aoO "t oii-t" -blndirtg oo all parties eod rll pcrsons cldming under thcm and foi t6c beoefit of end lloltstlon upoa att futurc owncrr of the Lots lo O" uot, .".ordUg to ihc Gr.o3 of thcIlm[ntions rnd beuelia hereof. - 1. hrroosc. Ttc purlroc of thc mstrlctlonr end llmitldooe b to eornrc thousc of thc propcrly ln rbc Ptrt for .firrcffyc sld bcncf,chl purpocc., to pr:rant thelopalnucat of thc rrtnctlvencss of the propcrty, to pre*.oi ""L".1rid thcrety to sccrrre to crclr propcrty ouacr the full bcocfl oal! caloyaeat af his propcrlry wirt nogreater rcgtric{lotr uporr thc ftee rnd undblurbcd ,so oihl" property thco ls ncccrSS(y 30 ensure lhore edvenleges to other property orvocrr. 2. comnron Eesemenl Thc owners of rhe r.ots in the plar are herebygdnted non-exclusive ces&nrents ln comrnoo wirh each othcr and wirh the p,rt ti" fo1.p!{Pjser ofingress, egress and utilltlcs over, under and along thc roedway locatcdwithin ttre Phti provided howaner, thst ahe owncr of each toi *ell bc sotcty rcspoasible for the constr'uctlon and melntcrunce of the eatr.ncc to hlr tot iroo such roadway or from thc pubtic roadi rod provlded furrlrer that tha ontrancc to crch lotfrom mch rordwoy or publlc road choll Indudc a c-ulrcrt rdcquate to provldc fordrrlnege ofrurface reter rtong sucb roedray or pubtic rood. 3- liulgance. No uorlous, lltcgal, ot offcnrive usc of land rhefl bc clrrled on. or porariltcd upon ury lal la thc Pla( nor shill auytLlog be done tAercon whlch mry bc or becomc rn onnoyaoce or nulsonce to rny Loi owoer lo thcpret. _ - {-- _oqtdoor}-urnlns. All ourdoor burnlng orrlcd on or permittod upon any I.ot chell be rttcnded st rll dmcs, and thcrc rhtlt be oo burnlng of th" Ott"wiog, *.* NO REAI. ES'I'.{'IE SALES'I.AX RE'.UIRET) @UNTY 'TRIASUIIER AUG 2 6 1996 v{ri ijltE -., UUz ila$tu;J, gerbrgg deed rnlmd$ Tnhrg petrolcum product$ trertcd roo4 plrrilc, or eny other rubtlocc lhc buraing of whle.h rcrulg ln r norious or torlc dlduc o. ortitton 5. Commercht Urcs Prohlbttd. E ch ht wlthlo thc Plat ehrll be lscd for rcsldcatlrl purpcc. onln and no ratsbell boruod forcoomerchl purposcs, PttttldG4 honcvcr, at t lhlt rcstrlction rhrtl not prcctudc lhc rcntri of e hooc on tnyLa lor tsiilanlid purporcr, or prcclude (fic conduc0on of r buslncrs from ,irithin e rcsldcuoc porsunt to rod ln frrll comptianccrith Set{ba 650 of thcJcffcrsoo county Devclopment code, eutlttcd Eome Buslncsr ard cottagc rndustrlcr, eud any othcr appliceblc regula0ons. 6. Anlmah No tivcstoclq poultry, pcts, or othcr anrruals rha[ bc kcpt on any I-ot wlthln thc Pht for commerclat purposcs. A small numbcr of pctr mey bi kept foc the gsonal urc and eajoymcnt of thc rcsidents ofruch Lof provirlcd thet ruch enimrls ar6 confind to lhe propctty of thc owner of thc anlortr, ead provtdcd firrthcrrhit sald anlmds do not bccomc ao rotrolrarcc or nulrancc to thc nclghborhood- 7. Hunting. No hundng or outdoor trrgct prectlcc rylth flrceirur or bows sod rmotr rhrll be crrricd on or pcrmlttcd wttttn thc plrt. -& E44vc Dcrfcc* Thc dbelrrgc of ftrrrorlc,ltrcrruq or ruy othor crplosivc dcrlcc ls prohlbltcd uttbls thc Pirt 9. Tretlcrr end RVs. No tnilcr or recrcrtionrt ve.hlcle rhrll be rtorcd or uscd al r pcrusretrl rcrldcnccon Lots wit[ia lhe plat; providodrhowcrcr, thrt I traller, campcr or rccrcltional vehicle and boat mey be temporrrily placcd on a Lot for e perlod of not morc thrn slx monlhs cach colcndar yc.r. Rccrcattorrl vetlctcs or trevel treilcru duly liceosed for travcl on the publtc htghryays end boatr on liccnscd treilefl mey bc stored oa lats provtdcd thrt r permaoent recldetrco cx'rsts oo said Lots- I0- Ertcrlor Aoocerrncq Ttsb, rbaudoucd r.chlclar, or fuo& rhett not be pcrmltted to remeln on rny Lot rtthln thc Plat and rhatl bc promptly rcmoved by the owncr of thc Lot No vchlclc lbst tr latcodcd for trweloa publtc blghrayr may be kcpt or storcd on lotr wlftln thc Pht unlcsr it ls currcntly m ficcurcd. ll. Bulldlnq Rc.trtdlou. No dwdtiag or appurtornt rtructure rhelt bc crecrcd placed or pcrnlttcd qloo rqr Iat unlccr lt conformr to all locel building codcr aod uolccs thc drctling or $ructurc elro conformr to the following: A. Upon the oDmmencement of coostruction of eoy drvelling or other structurc on rny r,ot wlthln tlrc Plat, srld coustructlon rhol be pursued voi Ir58,0,8[fJ ry dillgeotly rnd contlououdy until thc rubstanthl complctlon ofuld construc-tton rhrll bc finishod ttithln elghtcco (18) ruooths rftcr seld commeooeocot of sild conrtrucllon B. No drelliog rhetl bG Grcctcdr pltccdl or rltcrcd oo roy Lot unlegs lt wrrr construclcd or urnufacturcd ln 1995 or letcr end [r lortrlled on e coutlnuour rnd pcrmracnt foundrtloru G No dwclliag shdl bc Grcctc{ prccd, or rltercd on !try Lot uolcss lt has en cndosed lloor arca ofnot lcs thrn 9fi1 rgurrc fcct off,oor arce (not lndudlng grrrgc$ porcher, breczerayq rnd outbuildiogr) rnd hls a roof pltch ofnot lcss then {/12 feer D. Any structurc on any llt which is destroyed ia whole or in pert by Iire, wlndstorm, or otbcr caurlty rhall bc restored or rcbuilt' or rll debrit shall bc rcmovcd and thc Lot rcstorcd to e rightly condition with rcesoneble promptnas, but in no evcnt no laler than two ycrrs after thc detc of ruch cuurlty. E No dwdliag rhrll bc crcclc4 phocd, or dtercd oo roy Lot uoless it hrs eu crlcrlor 6ni$ of wood ttdry; drshoordr, rhlogtcs, mrrooly, vinyl or otbcr qudlty nrtcrirlr. No.tncturc rhdl beve rn crtcrior fioirh of trrcd plpcr, ferrcd rhiaglca, or othcr tyryc of terrod ddlng. F. Erlcrlor yrrd ligttr and drclling lights rhdl bc lnstellcd end rhielded so that no dlrect llght shlncr onto otlrcr l.otr wlthln thc Ptat. No ertcrior mercury vspor lighting ehtll be uscd on aoy [.ot wlthln thc Plat. G. 'Fcodng croctcd along ommon Lot llncs shall bc composcd of convcntionel deslgn rrd metcrtek rod rhall not constitute e vlrual titrrier hlgher then rh (q fcc( rbovc gndc. l?- Covccants Runnlne wlth thc llnd. Tbcsc coycrrrnlr and rectrlctlonr rhell run wlth tbc laod rnd fiall bcbldtog upon tll purchrsen and ell.pemonr chlmlog undcr the.r" Ibc* oovcarnlr rud ncrtrlctlou mry bc rucndcd by the eftlrmetlvc volc ot?l0f6 of thc owncn of thc Lotr rlthltr the Pletg providcd, howerrcr, thrt crch l,ot wlthln thc PlaT es derigortcd by tbc Survcy, shall rcprcscnt onc votc whcthcr owncd lo commoo or lo aggregrta 13. Vlolrtlons. If thc owners of tots rithin thc Plet. or 8ny of them, or any of thclr heirs or tuccetronr ln lntcrcrt, shall vlolrtc any ofthc covenentr or rcrtrlctionr hereln conteinod,lt rhrll bc lrwful for any other person or pcrsont ownlng rny rerl voi 5llll ,.-884 ffi propcrty rlthla thc Plet, or hrvlng e veodcc'r lnlcrest undcr r rcel crtele conlrrct to purctesc rny rcrt propcrty wlthttr thc Pht, 0o proccortc e proecdlng et law or in Gqulty rgelnrt thc pcnon or pcrroor violatiog or rttcmptlng lo vlolrtc eny ruch covcnaut or rcrtdc{lon end dthcr to prcrcnt rdd lErron or pcrro[! frorn co dolng or to recover drmrgee rrbing fmm ruch vlohtlons. l{. &yflidfliq& Iovrlkletioo of eny of thcsc covcnrntr or rcrtricllous by r f udgruart of eoy court of cohpctcnt lurlsdlctloa rhall ln no rvey efiect eny of the otbcr provlslons, whlch rhell rcmelo ln full force end dcct. IN the owner of the Plat has crccutcd thc forcgolng, Dcchntion, thtt JAL of 1996. l;crj_l:-:r.i lil ;Pt..-ffctt$#2 $r JEFFERsorfii;Effimiry . rror""; ;:i, l rii., :.-.ti 3i *r, w$,)_o STATE OF WASIIINOTON @UNTY OFS}IOTTOMI:IH WnNgIS E, t rd rnd ofiU.l sl tas rllird Oc de; rad ycer h thb octtificetc SorGrrtlEl. rd lt/utfuro. rcridia3 My coauirrioa ) )g. ) uodr, ly'd aryd / / ,r995.pctulyrgecrrdbc&recArdrcr J- Bubcr. ho*r lo c b bc Oc *ocrel Perts o( tAL Asnb+ ltc pnrSip lhet crcorat ltc forBeaag h*u*al, rd tfudoftod ttc nld la*ua 5 bc lic tttc rnd rolcarty u rd docd of rdd putacr*fu for ltc an ead gnpoccr thcrdo oaubool. rd o alh lrlGd thr.Lrlr rdtqirldbcrd. lDc dd hrtruna& aTca NOrAd -*-ru8tjc voi 55ll -.,81J5 St tc --t-4 March 24,2019 Mr. David W. Johnson Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Type II Land Use Application, MLAl8-00102 9790 Coyle Road, Parcel Number 601-105-013, aka 860 Old Coyle Road Dear Mr. Johnson: Square Peg, Round Hole. This is our main comment regarding the above proposed development. After reviewing all materials for this Cottage Industry application, it is apparent that the applicant does have plans for (2) 20'tall buildings totaling 10,000 sq feet. On 5 acres of vacant land to also include a house. That doesn't seem objectionable ...until reading the fine details. We are confused how a current corporation (Outback Bud Company, O.B.C.,LLC, $701,368 in cannabis sales '15-'19) can justifiably be moved to a rural residential neighborhood and turned into a "Cottage Industry". Then be placed within sight, sound and nose of close neighbors. We are not one ofthose neighbors, but drive past this property every day. We are concerned that others will follow suit quickly. If one 5 acre parcel can be turned into Industrial and Commercial use, then all 5 acre parcels in Jefferson County can. This is not planning. Applicant(s) are also looking towards a future when cannabis operations will be treated like a winery or brewery, with "Kush Tourist" tasting and buying from the production site. O.B.C. supports HB-1995, a Craft Cannabis Farmer to Consumer connection. We have enough problems with unsafe driving on The Coyle. Simply ask the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department or Quilcene Fire Rescue for statistics. This would be perilous. If Jefferson County approves this Cottage Industry permit, it will result in an inappropriate and unstoppable precedent. Thank you for consilering all angleq of this project.fu-M@ry uAR 25 2019 e e I V e 301 Eaton Road, Quilcene (Coyle), WA 98376 3-24-19 Public Comment RE: TYPE ll LAND USE APPLICATION, M 6011 0501 3 Dear Mr. Johnson, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the .Cottage lndustry" being proposed for cannabis growing, processing, and packaging at 9790 Coyle Road. I am a fulltime resident on Kens Way and have lived here for over 25 years. I bought land and built my own home because I am in love with the rural lifestyle and tranquil neighborhood. l'm afraid the tranquility of the neighborhood will be disrupted by the noise and odors from a cottage industry that is being considered so near my driveway. My concerns are that the noise from the fans for the growing and processing of marijuana will be heard all along Kens Way where I walk daily and the odors will keep me from my walk to the mailbox. Further concern is from the criminal elements attracted by a marijuana plant so far removed from the city and without adequate police and fire protection. If this business is required to have a fence and security measures in place 24 hours a day, where does that leave us folks that live here, unaccustomed to living without having to worry who is prowling around? One last issue is that for several years my well has been running dry in the peak summer water usage days. My concern is that the marijuana growing operation uses so much water that I may experience longer outages each summer. That would be unacceptable as I have been here for a very long time and feel intitled to use of the waterbeforeabuS!neSS,pleaSerememoerInlSlSaresidentiatneig I hope you find it necessary to hold a public hearing so that more issues can be presented before the site is approved for a cottage industry. Sincerely, Rosalyn Roberts 1201 Kens Way Quilcene, WA 98376 3-24-t9 Public Comment RE: TYPE II LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA1 601105013 Deor Mr. Johnson, f om writing to express my concerns regording the"Cottage fndustry" being proposed for connobis growing, processing, ond pockoging o't 9790 Coyle Rood in Quilcene. This is o rurol oreo locoted in the heort of forest lond mostly owned by the DNR ond Pope Resources. The folks thot live and recreatehere do so becouse of the quiet forested otmosphere ond wildlife. This oreo is best summed up os o ploce where you con heor thebreeze ond breothe in the fresh oir thot smells of trees ond eorth. To ploce o morijuono processing plont right in the center of this porodise is not only unconscionoble but obscene. f cqn't understond why the county would ollow such o thing. Let's get something stroight, f om not opposed to someone storting o smoll "cottoge industry" in their bockyord to own q smqll business. Howeve?, this is a perverted ottempt to move on estoblished processing plont from o business pork in Port Townsend (where it belongs) ond turn it into o "cottoge industry" in order to moke more money. ft would oppeqr the residence is only being ploced on sate to meet regulotions. f hove octuolly visited the business in Port Townsend ond found it is surrounded by bod (in my opinion) odors ond noise from the large ventilotion fons reguired to refresh inside oir. This noise wos oudible even in the industriol pork neor the highwoy, f con only imogine whot plocing this business in our rurol ond guiet oreo would do to our serenity. f om olso concerned with the omount of Rqdio Frequency Rodiqtion (RFI) generoted by morijuono grow opetotions. Being q licensed (ond ovid) hom rodio operotor f enjoy the low RFf of the qreo compored with the cities. There o?e seve?ol concerns roised by the Amoteur Rqdio Reloy League (ARRL) ond occording to ARRL General Counsel Chris fmloy, "ARRL has received numerous comploints from Amoteur Rodio operotors of signif icont noise in the medium ond high frequency bands between 1.8 MHz ond 30 i5 20/9 &l aru MHz from'grow lights'ond other RF lighting devices generally.-The level of conducted emissions from this device is so high thot, os o procticol mottet,one RF bollost operoted in q residentiol environment would create preclusive interf erence to Amoteur Rodio HF communicotions throughout entire neighborhoods." https://www.pressherold.com/2017l02l28lmorijuono-grow-lights-ore-cqusing-stotic- f or-hom-rod io-operotors/ httos: / / int erf er encetechno looy.com/mor i iuono-orowino- I ioht s-int eef ere-qmoteur- radio/ Another concern, which might bethe lorgest one, is thot being in o rurql areowehove hqd little crime due mostly by being out of the "drow" for onyone other thqn hikers, bockpockers ond hunters. When this operotion is relocoted (neor our drivewoy) thot ls required by low to be f enced ond videotoped 24 houns o doy, it presents o greot concern to oll of us. The West side of the proposed business borders on the DNR fonestlond in which our drivewoy cuts through. f con visuolize curious persons and/or criminols trying to goin occess to the site ond "exploring" our neighborhood for personol property, tools, eguipment , etc. fn conclusion f truly believe thot relocoting on existing business from o business pork to o rurol neighborhood woslis not the intent of the county commissioners when they developed the "Cottqge fndustry" rules ond this relocotion must be stopped now. f think it would be most oppropriote f or the county to schedule o heoring in order f or more individuols to express their concerns ond not just "rubber-stomping" opprovols. Thqnk you for your considerotion, Steve Dote 702 Kens Woy, Quilcene W A 98376 uAn 2 6 2019 tr Vtr 233 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 March 25,2019 TO: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Attention: David Wayne Johnson Regarding Land Use Application MLA 18-00102 Dear Mr. Johnson: I am writing to state that I do NOT support the proposed application for a "Cottage Industry" in my immediate neighborhood. While I have no objections to marijuana farming and production per se, I have grave concerns about water usage. We have a low-producing well, and the proposed operation seems likely to draw down the water table and impact properties upslope. I am also concemed about the impact of the proposal on property values in this area, as it seems likely that this operation may have a damaging effect. Please advise me of the date of the public hearing on this issue, which I plan to attend. Thank you. Sincerely, Terri Murphy-Nr ffii l, ii rl To: Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA. 98368 Attn: Project Manager: David Wayne Johnson. From: Bruce & Laurie Carver, Land owner Woodway Large Lot Subdivision, Lot 1 85 Kens Way, Quilcene WA. TP # 601-10-5011 March 25,2019 Subject: MLA18-00102 It has recently come to our attention by a neighboring land owner, disappointingly not by the county or the landowner applying for approval of a Marijuana grow-op. located 9790 Coyle rd. TP # 601-105-013 of Woodway Large Lot Subdivision. Jefferson County has basically agreed to, and seems to be helping this current Jefferson County business owner apply for Type 2 Conditional Discretionary Use Permit (Under The Radar). After discussions with the DNR. they have informed us, all land over 2 acres in size designated by having timber of 7 years or older. Must apply for a conversion option harvest plan and SEPA review. They explained to us, anyone developing land without going through this process,violates County and State rules of converting rural or designated timberland to commercial use. This WAC rule applies to homesites as well as business development. Due to the fact, the Williamsons have already been in process of development, they are in violation of this rule and this property should be placed in a 6 year moratorium. We strongly oppose approval for the permitting of this business. We will have no recourse but to execute our legal right to a civil lawsuit that protects our asset. I am confident the other landowners in this subdivision feel as strongly about this as we do. The permit applied for, goes against State and County protocol and most important, the rules of our covenants. These covenants are why we bought this property. We strongly advise you to disapprove this application for a commercial grow business in this rural setting. In addition we would like to request a hearing concerning this application, and to be notified in writing of any and all decisions and future developments of this application. Bruce & Laurie Carver. POBox2294 Sequim, WA. 98382 Curlynkay@gmail.com 360-4s2-6452 I{AR 2 ? 2019 i ,J th ( JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE II LAND USE APPLICATION IuLAl8-00102 APPLICANT: TRACY WILLIAMSON 2OO5 NW PETERSON ROAD POULSBO WA 98370 ,N ( Fo{u(s %o-31+ -aY@ so*t*u Application Received Date: November 8, 2018 Application Complete Date: March 4,2019 Application Notice Date: March 13, 2019 SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: 9790 COYLE RD Parcelnumber60l-105-013 in Section 10, Township 26N, Range 1W, WM, Woodway Large Lot Subdivision Lot 3, located at 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA 98376 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES: Type ll Conditional Discretionary Use .C(d)' permit for a Cottage lndustry to produce and process Cannabis in a Rural Residential zoned 5.48 acre parcel under State License Number 416544. The project includes two (2) 5,000 square foot buildings with 2,000 square feet dedicated to processing cannabis, and the remainder used for production. The proposal must comply with the conditional use criteria under JCC 18.40.530, Cottage lndustry regulations under JCC 18.20.170, Marijuana regulations under JCC 18.20.295, and is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(lXbxiii) and JCC 18.40.750(1)(c). The'C(d)"process requires public notice, but no public hearing unless deemed necessary by the UDC Administrator under JCC 18.40.s20Q\.iU, COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS: The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of \J Commun and view documents online here:All interested and participate inon the application; (b) receive notice of any hearings; and (c) receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, yVA 98368, (360) 379- 4450. Comments conceming this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on March 27,2019. lf the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: lf deemed necessary by the UDC Administrator, any public hearing notice shall be published separately at least 10 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the staff report will be made available at least seven day calendar days prior to such a hearing. Project Planner: David Wayne Johnson, 360-3794450 1 85 Kerus u)^^(+ 6"tto5o( I Jefferson County Department of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan St Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Type !l Land Use Application MIA18-00102 I am a resident on the Toandos Peninsula and am requesting that the above application be subject to public input and also decision making by a Hearing Examiner, not staff. My concern stems from many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the subject application. Three examples are delineated below. . The most egregious is in Paragraph 2. "Property is located in a remote area off the Coyle; there are no established residences in the surrounding lots." ln fact there are at least 7 residences on two sides of the property and more across Coyle Road from the proposed project. These residences would be severely impacted by odor, noise and traffic resulting from the project. . Paragraph 2. The application claims no excess traffic with only family visiting the property. Yet the application describes 7 parking spaces and the promise of jobs. There is no mention of delivery vehicle frequency. . Paragraph 4. ln the Cottage lndustry Application is mentioned that only 2,000 sq ft will be used for business whereas in the Land Use Application is a proposed 5,000 sq ft barn and and 840 sq ft modular building and later another possible 5000sq ft building. These examples are an indication that this project needs more scrutiny and also input from those citizens impacted by the proposed business. Sincerely, h/Gary W. Elmer 136 Gereaux Ln Quilcene, WA 98376 ,tAn 2 5 Zrlq I TO David Wayne Johnson Jefferson County Department of Community Development 62l Sheridan St Port Townsend WA 98358 FROM: Chris Clegg and Nancy Slough 915 Kens Way Quilcene, WA 98376 Mailing Address: 11215 2nd Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 RE: WPE ll LAND USE APPLICATION, MLA18-00102, Tax parcelO011O5O13 Dear Mr. Johnson, We are writing to express our concerns about the cannabis growing, processing, and packaging facility being proposed, by way of a Cottage tndustry, for 9790 Coyle Road in euilcene. Cottage lndustry Code Violation: When Jefferson County implemented the allowable Cottage lndustry designation on residential parcels it stated that the activities were to be... "subordinate to the primary residential use...and that such activities [can] be conducted without substantia! adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity. 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." yet a cannabis plant is likely to create, at minimum, both high levels of odor and noise. Creating the potential for major infringement on the other residents who choose to live in rural Jefferson County primarily for the peace and quiet it offers. The proponents of this project are planning an expansion of up to 1O@0 square feet for their facility. Such expansion would be a full-fledged industry and totally inappropriate in a neighborhood of residential homes. Federal lllegality. Jefferson County itself found the "illegolity under federal low moy cause those locotions where recreotionol marijuano is produced (grown) or processed to be on "ottroctive nuisonce,, for criminals, vondols and minors, soid "attractive nuisonce" status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County." (Ord. #04-0G08-15 at p.3, version 7.4) Coyle residents have been told that it is not reasonable to expect a sheriff response to a crime in progress in less than an hour. Certainly no home owner, wants an "attractive nuisance" in the neighborhood causing an increase in residentialcrime. Environmental Concerns. ln 2013 Jefferson County noted that "the County ond the Stote do not know what proboble significont odverse environmentol impacts ("PSAE|'), if any, will orise from producing or processing morijuono.." (Ord. #04-0608-15, p. 3 versionl.4). Over the last five years has further research been pursued in Jefferson County to shed light on this question? Scientific studies on the environmental impact of marijuana production have been conducted elsewhere. For example, Ashworth and Vizuete have recently (2017) reported that studies investigating this question have "identified potentially significant environmental impacts due to excessive water and energy demands IAR 2 s 2019 G tr VI tr A }>-*. and local contamination of water, air and soil..." (p. 2531). Furthermore,"Connabis spp. require high temperatures (25-30 degrees C for indoor operations), strong light, highly fertile soil, and large volumes of water (around twice that of wine grapes)." Do we currently know if our local water supply, and electric grid (if the main power source) will be able to support the marijuana growing operations proposed without adverse effects (e.9., to our well water)? (Reference: K. Ashworth and W. Vizuete, Environ. Sci. Technol .,2017, 51(51 pp 2531-2533. High Time to Assess the Environmentol lmpocts of Cannobis Cultivotion.l What power source will be employed for the grow lights and fans needed in the facility or in case of a power outage? Generators have been found to produce more than three times the CO2 of facilities powered by the grid (reported by Ashworth & Vizuete, 2017) and can be extremely noisy as well. Does Jefferson County have a way to measure the carbon footprint of marijuana nroducinq facilities? We hope that you will consider the very real impact that a marijuana facility may have on property values, the neighbors' quality of life and the environment. Hearing Request. Due to the possible deleterious effects this facility may have being in such close proximity to our home and others' in the neighborhood, we request a land-use hearing prior to the county granting a permit for its construction. Additional issues to be addressed at this hearing would include how the zoning regulations will be enforced if the permit is allowed. Does the county have an inspection process in place? How will the county protect the neighborhood from any infractions that might occur in the future? We appreciate your attention to this matter. trGtr[VIE TAHZ7ilN --1 lMarch 26,2019 ,I 'ilMl Jefferson County Depaftment of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Type ll Land Use Application MLA18-00102 We are full time residents in Coyle and are writing to express concerns about the proposed permit for a Cottage lndustry to produce and process cannabis along Coyle Road. Like most residents here, we value the quiet, tranquility, and the healthy natural resources of our area. We also enjoy the strong commitment to community in this area. As such, we are concerned about the referenced Land Use application, and request a public hearing as several aspects of the planned project do not seem to be in compliance with Jefferson County Code (JCC). There are concerns about the facility itself, concerns about surrounding properties, and concerns about community impacts that merit funher consideration per the JCC. It appears that this use is not consistent with many of the components of JCC 18.20.170 Cottage lndustry. Specifrcally, it does not seem to be aligned with the Purpose of the Code o 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". We believe, as planned, there will be an adverse impact. Further delineated "The cottage enterprise is an accessory use to the residential use of a dwelling unit..". lt is clear from the documentation that this property was purchased primarily to be the location of a marijuana farm, not a residence. The code also states that "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties. ln no case shall more than frve thousand (5,000) square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry. " A structure of this scale and nature is not in character withe the neighboring properties. Additionally, the applicant has stated the intent to build two such structures (allowed under the code). Occupied parcels nearby are residences, not manufacturing facilities. While the adjacent properties are either vacant or timberland, the impact of having a D) ltll trS r'Sil manufacturing facility on the referenced property will likely deter others from building a residence nearby further impacting the neighborhood. Another reason to elevate this to a Type 1 1 C(d) permit is non-compliance with JCC 18.40.530 a and c at a minimum. The proposed use is not "harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appeared with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property..." (18.40.530.1.a). The nearby area is clearly residential. Property values will likely go down as a result of this facility which in conflict with JCC 18.40.530.1.c, "the conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses of property in the vicinity of the parcel". Sections l,J, and L are also in question. Additionally, considering the precedence and impact this land use could have on the residents of Coyle and others in Jefferson County, we think it is important that a public hearing, and hearing examiner is involved. Thank you for your consideration oryW 510 Smith Lane Quilcene, WA 98376 206-225-7505 trc tr[V /E--'r IIAR ,7 Z11E 0t: and Joanmarie trGtr[V [4AR 2 7 ZOtg tr Gary Williams 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 March 27,20L9 David |ohnson, Project Planner Dept. of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: MLA18-00102 Type II Land Use Application, Conditional Discretionary Use Permit Tracy Williamson, Applicant 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA Parcel 601105013 Dear Mr. )ohnson: Tracy Williamson seeks a permit to build and run a marijuana production and processing plant directly across Coyle Road from the Blueberry Hill Subdivision. Blueberry Hill consists of 10 five acre lots, bordered by state forest land. As a resident of Blueberry Hill, I object to approval of the proiect. l. Building and Operating a Mariiuana Factory on Coyle Road Would Violate State and Federal Law. A. Violation of Law - rCC 18.40.530. A commercial mariiuana production and processing plant at the proposed location would violate both local and Federal law. fefferson County Code 18.40.530 states that a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") may be granted only if 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. Mr. David fohnson March 27,2019 Page 2 Nothing about this proposed commercial factory is harmonious or appropriate to development in place at or near the proposed factory. This is not a commercial area; it is zoned rural residential 1-5. Residents at Blueberry Hill live here to enjoy a rural, wild forest area. A mariiuana factory does not fit with the purely residential nature of this area, ]CC 18.40.530 addresses "the vicinity of the subiect property, " not just the Woodway subdivision. Blueberry Hill is directly East of Woodway, across a narrow, two lane country road, It is clear that the County must consider all those in the vicinity of the proposed factory. B. Violation of Law - rCC 18.40.295. This ordinance states marijuana "processing" is allowed as conditional discretionary with a cottage industry permit; however, there is no mention that the "production" or growing of marijuana is allowed as conditional discretionary with a cottage industry permit. Production and processing are not the same activity. The applicant intends to both produce (grow) mariiuana, and to process it for sale. fCC 18.40.295 allows processing but not production. C. Violation of Law - ICC LB.2O.!70. The applicant plans two 5,000 square foot buildings, but the Cottage Industry ordinance says: o. In no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the properry be devoted to the cottage industry. Applicant intends to start with an 840 square foot residence and a 5,000 foot production and processing plant, then add another 5,000 foot building later. This illegal project should not be approved. The Code is clear on the relationship between residential and commercial use on a Cottage Industry Permit,lCC 18.20.170[1) explains: 1. 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. Mr. David fohnson March 27,2019 Page 3 This proposed project would not fulfil the stated purpose of the Code. All of the illegality, nuisance, and crime listed here show clearly that the proposed marijuana factory cannot "be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity." Further, see |CC 18. 20.170(s) s. 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 sumounding property. Any afterhours business activities shall not have noise impacts discernable beyond the property boundaries. The odor alone will be a substantial violation of law. All of the problems and issues considered here relate to this - the proposed use would be "to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." D. Violation of Law - rCC 18.20.295.This ordinance requires eight foot fences. The CCRs, however, forbid any fence over six feet. How does the applicant plan to meet the requirements of law and the CCRs at the same time? This illegal project should not be approved. E. Violation of Federal Law - 21 U.S.C.801, eL seq. Although Washington state legalized marijuana, the United States government did not" For now, federal law enforcement is not prosecuting marijuana crimes but that could change at any time. That is particularly true here, where the Bangor naval base is near the proposed factory. We can pass local rules, regulations and state laws but they are all subordinate to Federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties constitute the supreme law of the land. State courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause; if federal and state law conflict, the federal law must be applied. Since federal law forbids the production and processing Mr. David |ohnson March 27,20L9 Page 4 of marijuana, the proposed factory is illegal. This illegal project should not be approved. F. Violation of Law - ICC L8.20.295. When |efferson County passed the ordinance allowing the production and processing of marijuana the County made a number of Findings of Fact. The County found the "illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational mariiuana is produced fgrown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance" status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated fefferson County." Ord. #04-0608-L5 at page 3. This neighborhood should be saved from the attractive nuisance status predicted by ]efferson County. We don't want criminal activity here. ll. Building and Operating a Marijuana Factory on Coyle Road Would Create a Residential Dead Zone. Woodway Large Lot Subdivision is currently unoccupied. If a commercial marijuana factory is built on Lot 3, what will happen on LotsZ and 4? Who will want to buy and build next door to an attractive nuisance? New members of this community will not want to raise children there, or enjoy a quiet retirement. Only a commercial enterprise would build next to a marijuana factory. When they do, we will live across the street from a strip mall or worse. Allowing the applicant to build a commercial business on Lot 3 would create a residential dead zone. Please do not allow this to happen here. lll. Building and Operating a Marijuana Factory on Coyle Road Would Violate CCRs in Place at Woodway Subdivision. A. Covenants Run With the Land. The Woodway covenants run with the land, and exist for the benefit of both present and future owners. Mr. David fohnson March 27,2019 Page 5 . . . these declarations shall constitute covenants to run with said real property, as provided by law, and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them and for the benefit of and limitation upon all future owners of the Lots in the Plat, according to the terms of the limitations and benefits hereof. Woodway CCRs, Exhibit 1, page 1, attached. Allowing a commercial project which ignores the CCRs would be unfair to both current and future owners. B. Commercial Use Prohibited. Woodway and Blueberry Hill were developed at the same time by I.A.L.Associates, so the covenants for both subdivisions are nearly identical. These covenants do not allow commercial use. 5. Commercial Use Prohibited. Each Lot within the Plat shall be used for residential purposes only and no Lot shall be used for commercial purposes, provided, however, that this restriction shall not preclude the rental of a home on any Lot for residential purposes, or preclude the conduction of a business from within a residence pursuant to and in full compliance with Section 6.50 of the Jefferson County Development Code, entitled Home business and Cottage Industries, and any other applicable regulations. Exhibit 1, page 2. The exception for a cottage industry doesn't help the applicant.Any such business must be conducted "from within a residence." That is not contemplated here. The "residence" is a scam, merely an excuse to build a commercial enterprise where it does not belong. C. Nuisance Prohibited. 3. Nuisance. No noxious, illegal, or offensive use of land shall be carried on or permitted upon any Lot in the Plat nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to any Lot owner in the PIat. Mr. David fohnson March 27,20!9 Page 6 Id., page 1. In legal terminolory, a nuisance is an interference with the right to use and enjoy land. It may be intentional, negligent or hazardous in origin, and must be a result of defendant's activity. Nuisances can include noxious smells, noise, or burning. See definitions.uslegal.com. Commercial activity in a quiet forest is nuisance enough, but here we also have the smell of mariiuana. Although applicant claims they will filter exhaust from the factory, marijuana farms and processors smell terrible. Drive by the pot farm near the 5 mile marker on Coyle Road. At times, the odor there is very strong. Nobody would want to live there. lV. Conclusion Please deny the application to build a mariiuana factory in our neighborhood. It would be illegal and in violation of covenants in place for 20 years. Sincerely, riT Gary Williams ) \t-hr OR I CI NAL394129 I, EC T.ATLTTTO}J Otr' DROTEC"TT\& COVE NANTS A ND N ESTTICTIO NS A ND EASEUENTS TOR WOODIV.dY LARCE I,,OT SUBDIVISIOIV I(now rll nrcn by thcc prerentu 'ftgt.I A L Assocl$ter (lrtrclnrftcr rtferrcd to rJ '.Doctrrrnl"), otvrcr of that ccrttln rcel property dercribcd rr e portion ofllcNorth t/l ofttrc Southeosr l/{ ofSectloo l0r Tornrhlp 16 North, [lrrge I Wrrt, rltustc ln Jelfcrton County, Slrtc of ll'arhlnglon, rnd morc cornmonly lmown rs lVoodway Lrrgc Lot $ubdivirlon, (hcrelnaltcr refrrred to tt "the Plrt")r bcrcby rnrter tlrc followiag declentlou of eortrnedlcr coeenonts end rcrtdctlort! orl tha improycmcnt .trd ure of l.ot ln the Ptrt (hcrelnrfler reforrtd to m "Lotsr). hcroby rpcclfrlng (hrt rhare drclnretlore rhrtl Couslllule core[rak to run with sru resl propcrty, ls provlded by lep, rnd strll be blndlng on rll prrtlcs lod rll pcrsons claiming under lhcm lnd for thc l,ens{Ir of and lirritatton upoa rll frlure ow[cm of the lrts ln rhe Plot, lscordlng to rhf lonru of thc llmltrtionr rnd bcrrcllg hereof, l. Ig*. Ttc purporc ofrhc tr*rtdtoat rnd lhltrtlonrt aocnlurc ab. nrc of thc 0ropcrtf ltr th. Plrl for rtlilctlvc rnd bcncfrclrl purgorot lo prrcor thc impdrmcnt of thc rtrrrctlyarcsr of rha proprrtr,lo prcvcat nnlrrncc, rod thcrby to eacuro lo orch }rryerty osnrr lh. hlll b+nelit rnd eofoyrucnt of hlc prrpcrty witb ao grcctcr rcrtrlctloi upon thr firr end undhturbd um ofhh propcrt, thso ls mctltl]y lo eilo/c lhorc rdvrnlageo to Othcr proporly orocrl. 2. Com+fon FglefnSE!. Tlre ownerg of rho Lotr ln ahG Fl&t aru hereby g0nred non-ercluglyc crrentfits lo commoo wlth orqh othcr end wilh tbc publlc for pur0osot aflngrcer, egrort end utllltlcr orrcr, underond alorg rhe rordwey located rvithin tlre Pleli provlded, howwtr., that rhe o*ncr of cnch lot rbetl De solcly rapondblt for the corslructldn aod srglntcattcc of tho cntrencc to hlt lot fronr ruch roadwly or from lhr pubtlc roadi ood provldcd furlhor thet thc ontrsncc to oech lot from roch rardrvay or publlc roed ahrll loqluds r culr.crt rdcqurte to provldo for drrlnrgc 0f iutficc wrler alortg tuch roldryny or pubtlc rotd. ,. Iig!$!gf, Ns rorlou$ lllegrl, cr olfrnrlvc e.c of hDd rhdl br ctrrtd 0o . cr Pornrittcd rpou rny l,ot ln rhc Ptrt nor rhall rnyr&log br donc lhcren xblch ory bc or becomG ro sflnorr]gc lr nukoncc tr rtry Lot owotl ln tbaPlru ;1. Qutdo0, 4u.rnlne. All ortdoor burnlng catrlcd on or permftted upon rny I.ot rhgll be rttsnded si lll tlner. ond thero ihlll b6 oo burolng of tho followisi, $et NO REAI, I:S-l'A'fE SALES'IAX I{F'.UIREN COUNTY 'NtI-I\SUIIER ryS rk*IYKn;a{,&{ry Au0 2 6 1996 vui 559 ...,9g2 JGtr[VL I\IAR 2 7 2019 ): )a drl g0rbrgq dcrd rolmrlr, mphrlt, petrolcum productr, trcrted rvood, plmtlc, or lny othtr lubslrnce lhc burning of whlclr rcrultr ln r soxious 0r lorlc rerlduc or emllrlon. J. corgcqchl u's Prohglrc{. Erctr Lor wttbtr rhs plri rtrl bc urcd hr rcrHcrthl purp6.. onln rrd no lal sirlt bclred far comncrchl porporc, Fo{dc4 hottvcr, llrt lbb ratdclioi rhrll oot prccludc tbt rcald cf r homo on rny I"ot lor rtrirtcntlrl porpotq or prccludc thr omdlctleE of r burlncu fron wilhh r rcrldcncc ponrrnt lo tad lE full comp[rmc vltl Scctlfi 6.110 of llc Jclfcruon Couoty llevdopncnt Codc, cnlltlcd Hornc Burlncsr rnd Coltrgc Indurlrla, rod rny other epplicrbh rquhllonr, 6' Anlmrlr. No liucslock, poulrry, nfli, or olhcr oulnulc shrll be kept on sny Lot wl(hln tbc Fht for comme rcht purporcs. A rmrll numbcr of petr mry bi kept for tlrc ptrto{t&l ure rnd cnJoyment of thc rcsidcolr of ruch Lot, provlderl thet ruch onirnrh rre conllnrd to lhc property of thc owrtor of tbe rnlmsh, rnd provlded firrllrer thal rAld anlmrlr do not bccomr rn rnnoyrncc or nulmrrco to llrc nclghborhood, ?. Hrrntinq. No huntlng or ouldoor lrrg.l prtcllce rylth {trcrrnr or borvs ond nrrowr rhrll be crrricd orr or pcrnrlllcd wtthtn thc Plrt, 8. F,rolqlivgDcYige, Thc dlschlrjo of llrcworks, flretrrnr, or ury othor ergloriva devlcc lr proftlbltcd wlttlo the Phr. 9. Trrllgl fpd BYl. No trriler or rocroitionrl vahiclc rhrU br rlored or ured tr l pcrmrnell rcrldcnce oo Lotl within lhe Plrt; provided, howeyer, lhrl e lrtllcr, c&mpGr or rccrcttlonel vehicte rnd boil mry hc lrmporrrily plrccrl orr I Lot for n pcdod ofnol morc thrn sh nron(hr cech celcndrr yctr. Rccrerllonrl vehlcles or truvcl lrellcls duly liccnred for lrrvcl on thc publlc hlghwryr rnd borr on liccnrcd tmllerr mry bo tlored on Lotc provkled lhrt r pernraoent rerldenco eristr on mid Lott. IO Extcrlor Aurrer$nco. Trarh, rbrodoucd vehlclcr, or funh $rll ilot be permltlctl lo rcmeln on roy Lot wllhln the Plrl rld rhsll bc pronrptly romovcd by the owncr of lha Lot. No vcblclc thrt b lntcrdcd for lrrvel on publlc bljhwryr mry bc hcpt or rlored on L,olr wlthln thc Plrt unlesr il lr currcntly ro llcenrcd, I l. Bulldlnq Rortfletlpn!. No dwcllint or sppurtcnlnl rtructurc thrll bc erccttd, plrced or pcrmlltcd upon lny Lot unlar lt conlormt 1o all locrl brilding coda rnd unler lhc dwelllng or ltrucluro rho conformt ao thc followiltg! A. Upon lhe 66rnDlsocGrroni of con*lrudloo of rny dwctling or olher rtructurs on rly Lot wlthln the Plal, mld conchrcllon chrll bc purrucd Y0i 5l:8 ,."8fI] dillgcntly urd contlnuourly until rbc lubrtrntht coarpl*lon of uld coilslrudlor rlrrll bc llniched rithln elghtccn (18) months rllcr uld comm*nccficnt of rold conrtrucllon. B. No dwtlling rhrll ba credcd, plrcrd, or rltercd on lny Lol unlcrr lt wrs conrlr$tcd or mroufscturcd ln 1995 or hter rnd b lnrtrtlcd on r coillnuour rnd pornlncnt foundrllon C, No dwclling rhttl bc crplcd, placcd, or rltorcd on lny Lol untcsr ll hm rR cnclored lloor lrer ofnol lcrs thrn 900 tqurrc fcct of0oor rrcr (not lncludkrg g.rrga, porcht, brceewtyr, rnd outbuildlngr) rod hrr r roof pltclr of not less lhan 4/12 fect. D. Any struclurc on lny Lot whleh ir dertroyed io whole or iu pert by flre, wlndrlorm, or othor crsurlty rhrll ht rcrtortd or rcbullt, or rll rtebrir rhnll bc rcnrovcd rnd thc Lot r*rlorcd to I righlly condition with rcrronable prompltre$, but in no cyatl r1o hlcr lhill two ycBrt Aner {he drts of ruch crruelty. E. No tlwclling rhrll bo crcclcd, gloced, 0r altcrcd on rny [,ot ualess it hrr tn exlcrlor frrisb of wood slding drpborrdr, tlrlnglec, masooryr vinyl or othcr qurllty mrlerirls. No rlructuro ehllt hrve an artcrior linirh of trrred I[pcr, trrrad shinglcs, or olher type oftrrred sldlng. F. Erlcrlor yrrd lighr rnd dnclling lights rhrll be lnstrllcd rnd ahieldsl to (hll no dlrect llglrt rhlner onto otl$r Lolr wlthln lhs Pht. No crlerlor mcrcrr? vrpor lighting rhrll bc urcd on rny lat wllhlo thc Pltt. G. Fcnclng crcctsd olong comnroo Lot llncr rhrll bc compnrod of coovcntional derlgrr rrd mrtrrlrlr ond rhell not conrtltnto a vltual brrrlor hlghcr thm rh (6, frc{ rbovc arrda 12. Covonrnlr.Srnnlsq rlth thc l.rrul. TLooe covcoratr ent rcelrlctloou rhall run wl(h thc trtd rnd lhdl bcblndtnl upor tll purcitrcn red rll p.nom clrlrnlng undcr thco. Thme covenrnlt rrd reotrlcllonr rney bc rnrcndcd by tbe rfllrmrllvc votc of ?0% of lhc ownerr of lhe Lots wltlln the flrtt provided, however, lbrl c*ch Lot wlthtn thc Phq er deigneted by the Survry, rhrll rcprererl onc yote whohcr owned ln common or lt og3regela It. Ildf[e4!, Il rhc ouaeff of lar rlthln lhe Plrt, or tny ef thcrn, or rny ol rhclr lclrr o, il]cccrrorr la lntcrolrrlrll tlotrtc roy of thc covcnlntr or rglrlctlonr lcrdn corl:lncdp h chrll bc hrful for rny other pcnofi or pciionr onllrg rny rcrl I vot 558 'r"88{ t I prop€rly wlthh the Plrt, or havlng l vendee'f lnlerest undcr I rcrl erlale conlrrcl lo purchesc rny rerl wlthln thc Plrl, l{. lOrflfulfliOl. Invrlidetion of rny of thcrc covcnanls or rcstrlcllons by r Judgnreut of rny court of compctent lurlsdlctlon rhall ln no wf,y afrect rny of thc other provlsloor, which rhall rcmrlo ln full forcc and cllccl. IN the owrlcr of tlre Plrt hrs ereculed lhc foregolng Dcclarnliort, tlrlr of t996. JAL l:r:r.-..-_y lj,i ,F__-,ypa;;f#, !,i[l#p m s- JEFFER Ef]gilrar [q ilF ]ry ,"rPJl';l', . ] .,,'., : ..r:,,lii rtu*ul STATE OT WASHTNOTON COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) )s. ) htwftaryd /.' /,lgg6,puurdlyrppcrrdbcfoctrrclrd*s ,. Bubcr, troum to oc l,o t ltl! 4ncf.l Pdncr of IAL Alsieer. Oc prmcrlrip lhrl crcculqt 0r foqol4 lrulritncfil. ud rtno*lodSod 0* lrjd lrutrumcrrl l,o tc thc lrc end uotmury ra Ura AooC of tdd Prnnctshlg for thc urcl rnd purprcc $€rcJn meatlonld, ud o.l orth urod $a hG ulr ernlrorlrtd o crocutc &c tdd htlrumrol. Wffi{8SS my }end md ofiicirl scd lrcrelo rflircd the dry rad yerr ln liir ccrdficrto ArcvG wriltct. Wuhln3too, rcddin3 My oommisloaroT aY -t-PUEL'C voi 558 ...,81J5 Slrtc David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: **ttu $wl#*{ lr#li lk{., *a1ie#gea{,r\ft*.}rum( ***ir*a i i**'rfi iartd I *a}*r{*mry* ry David W. Johnson Friday, March 29,20L9 9:30 AM Tracy Williamson David W. Johnson Public Comments M LA18-001-02 Public Comments.pdf Tracy/Jessie, Attached are the public comments received. Please review them and provide a response for each category of issue/concern. I will be busy next week with two important projects that have deadlines. I will also be out of the office the week of April 8th. Upon my return I will build a matrix of all the comments and concerns. We should then schedule a time to meet to go over the issues/concerns and talk about what needs to be done to address them, before moving to the next step which is a public hearing determination and scheduling. Tha nks ! David Wayne Johnson - LEED AP - Neighborhood Development Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development Jefferson County 360.379.4465 Mission: To preserve ond enhonce the quality af life in Jefferson County by promoting o vibrant econamy, sound communities and a healthy environment. ;f, SAVE PAPER - Pleose do not print this e-moil unless obsolutely necessory All e-moil moy be considered subject to the Public Records Act and as such may be disclosed to a third-party requestor. &trsgt** {*r*y *s*artflqf{r{ o{ Cottsttss#$ *frile$pm}t{ $.,, 5= 1 r"fr#tr AP Hff