HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-02-2020 PC Agenda PacketJefferson County Planning Commission
MEETING AGENDA
Virtual Meeting (no in-person attendance allowed per Gov. Inslee’s Proclamation 20-28)
Phone-in information located at the bottom of this agenda
September 2, 2020
P: 360-379-4450
621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451
Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Regular Meeting
5:30pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation
Call to Order/Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of previous Meeting Minutes
Planning Commissioner Updates
Director’s Update
SMP Periodic Review Update
5:35pm Observer Comment
See Observer Comment Conduct, below.
Regular Meeting Business
Deliberations and Recommendation to BoCC on Preliminary Docket of Suggest
Comp Plan Amendments .............................................................. Mike Nilssen, Chair
Discuss next steps, next meeting .............................................. David Wayne Johnson
Election of Officers ........................................................................ Mike Nilssen, Chair
Adjournment
Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
Observer Comment Conduct: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name
and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is …
1) An optional time period dedicated to listening to the
public, not a question and answer session. The
Planning Commission is not required to provide
response;
2) Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time;
3) Not a public hearing – comments made during this time
will not be part of any hearing record;
4) May be structured with a three‐minute per person time
limit.
Virtual Meeting Phone-in Information: You can dial in using your phone by calling: +1 (646) 749‐3122
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETING MINUTES Virtual Meeting (no in-person attendance allowed per Gov. Inslee’s Proclamation 20-28) August 19, 2020 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Public Hearing Regarding Preliminary Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments
5:35 pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation
• Call to Order/Roll Call
District 1 District 2 District 3 Alen: Present Coker: Present (tardy) Koan: Excused Miller: Unexcused Sircely: Present Smith: Present Hull: Present Nilssen: Present Llewelyn: Unexcused
• Approval of previous Meeting Minutes
o Minutes for 08-05-2020. 5 yays; 0 nays; 0 abstentions.
• Staff Overview:
o Revised Preliminary Docket ................. David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
o Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Plan Update .... Monte Reinders, Public Works Director
o MLA20-00039 Seton Rezone ................ David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner Public Testimony
• The Chair opened the floor to public testimony and comments from 8 people were
read 1 comment was forwarded to all Planning Commission Members for review.
All comments can be found at:
http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/0/fol/2472974/Row1.aspx 6:34 pm Closing Remarks (Chair)
• The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 09/02/2020 at 5:30 pm
virtually using gotomeeting.com.
These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2020. Michael Nilssen, Chair Nicole Allen, PC Secretary/DCD Office Coordinator
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission
1
TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jefferson County Planning Commission
DATE: May 1, 2019
SUBJECT: Jefferson County Planning Commission’s Report and Recommendation for the
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket
The Jefferson County Planning Commission has conducted its review of the 2019 Preliminary Docket and
forwards this report and recommendation to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC). This report
identifies those suggested text amendments the Planning Commission is recommending for consideration by the
BoCC during the annual amendment process. We have based our recommendation on need, urgency, and
appropriateness of each suggested text amendment.
On April 17, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to accept testimony regarding the
four suggested text amendments on the 2019 Preliminary Docket. Seventeen members of the public provided
verbal testimony and eight letters of written testimony were received. The public hearing record was provided
to the Board on April 29, 2019 by the Department of Community Development.
The Jefferson County Planning Commission, representing the express will of the citizens of Jefferson County,
respectfully requests the opportunity to revisit the current marijuana regulations in order to refine, revise and
improve current regulations.
Further, the Jefferson County Planning Commission is advocating that the time to address pressing issues of
affordable housing with ultra-low-impact and impact-positive development is now.
We depend upon the Department of Community Development (DCD) to assist with the cultivation and analysis
of new approaches and ideas, especially when those new proposals are of an urgent planning nature. Because
we rely on the department to provide community-based planning and analysis, it is critical that we fund
additional DCD work in the public interest in ways that are unattached to permit fees and are compatible with
the Department’s everyday operations. We submit to you the following recommendations regarding which
suggested text amendments should be placed on the Final Docket:
Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommendations on Final Docket
2019 Comprehensive Plan & Unified Development Code Annual Amendment Cycle
2
2019 Suggested Text Amendments on Preliminary Docket
1. MLA19-00018. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan and UDC to rescind provisions of the Forest Transition Overlay (FTO).
• Need:
o This suggestion is needed. Jefferson County must maintain the ability to grow in a
sustainable manner. The existing FTO permits forest land in a highly limited manner to
be converted to rural residential.
• Urgency:
o The proposal is pertinent and the Planning Commission recommends that it be included
on the docket for 2020.
• Appropriateness:
o This suggestion was identified as an action item in the Comprehensive Plan’s Natural
Resource Element Action Plan.
Through a motion with seven (7) in favor and one (1) opposed, the Jefferson County Planning
Commission recommends that MLA19-00018—Rescind the Forest Transition Overlay provisions of JCC
18.15.571—not be placed on the 2019 Final Docket; and through a second motion, with unanimous
approval, that MLA19-00018 be re-addressed for placement on the 2020 Final Docket.
2. MLA19-00019. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests a review and amendment of JCC
18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues
experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones.
• Need:
o Review of these code sections is needed to address community concern over
implementation of marijuana production and processing in rural residential zones.
• Urgency:
o This an urgent suggestion. This topic was identified during the periodic review and
update of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. Further, this topic
has been raised by several community organizations and citizens.
• Appropriateness:
o This suggested amendment provides specific code updates; however, additional options
should be considered and reviewed.
The Jefferson County Planning Commission unanimously recommends that MLA19-00019-- Review
and amendment of JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding
land use issues experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones—is
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) to be included on the 2019 Final Docket, and
that the associated work with this proposal be fully funded.
Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommendations on Final Docket
2019 Comprehensive Plan & Unified Development Code Annual Amendment Cycle
3
3. MLA19-00020. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests development of new regulations using
“Eco-ADU” as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel. The
suggestion would allow the existing square footage of ADUs to be allotted over multiple ADUs per parcel
when certain “eco” performance standards are met.
• Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
• Urgency:
o This an urgent recommendation.
• Appropriateness:
o This proposal touches on existing broad Comprehensive Plan goals.
Through a motion passing with five (5) in favor, two (2) opposed, and one (1) abstention, the Jefferson
County Planning Commission recommends that MLA19-00020—New "Eco-ADU” performance
standards as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel—is
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) to be included on the 2019 Final Docket, and
that the associated work with this proposal be fully funded.
4. MLA19-00023. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan adding a priority work item to the Housing Element’s Action Plan to “convene a panel of citizens
knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS-P-2.3 to research and recommend a set
of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt-in, very-low-impact and/or impact-positive
standards for Jefferson County.”
• Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
• Urgency:
o This suggestion is of high urgency.
• Appropriateness:
o This proposal touches on existing broad Comprehensive Plan goals.
Through a motion passing with five(5) in favor, two (2) opposed, and one (1) abstention, the Jefferson
County Planning Commission recommends that MLA19-00023--Amend the Comprehensive Plan,
adding a priority work item to the Housing Element’s Action Plan to “convene a panel of citizens
knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS-P-2.3 to research and recommend a
set of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt-in, very-low-impact and/or impact-
positive standards for Jefferson County”—is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
to be included on the 2019 Final Docket, and that the associated work with the proposal be fully
funded.
Jefferson County Planning Commission Recommendations on Final Docket
2019 Comprehensive Plan & Unified Development Code Annual Amendment Cycle
4
Thank you for your consideration this important document.
___________________________________ ________________
Michael Nilssen, Chair Date
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360‐379‐4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community‐Development
Page 1 of 8
Department of Community Development’s Review and Recommendation on the
2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary Docket
TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, County Administrator, Planning Commission, and
Interested Parties
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 11, 2020
Under Chapter 18.45 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development (DCD) annually accepts applications for formal site‐specific Comprehensive Plan
amendments (re‐zones) and suggested text amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and
Unified Development Code (UDC) for inclusion in the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment preliminary
docket. DCD accepts applications for each cycle’s docket until March 1st. In addition, DCD submits staff
suggested amendments for potential inclusion on the final docket.
For the 2020 annual amendment cycle, DCD received one complete application for a formal site‐specific
amendment from a property owner. DCD staff suggested five amendments. No suggested amendments from the
Public or parties of interest were submitted by the March 1st deadline. The Planning Commission requested that
three amendments from the 2019 cycle, be “rolled over” and included in the 2020 docket. All proposals were
placed on the annual amendment cycle’s preliminary docket. Formal site‐specific amendments are automatically
included in the final docket.
Chapter 18.45 of the JCC requires that the preliminary docket be reviewed by DCD, the Planning
Commission, and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) prior to adoption of the final
docket. During this process DCD reviews and recommends whether a suggested text amendment should be
included in the final docket. Under JCC 18.45.060, DCD’s review and recommendation includes the following
factors:
a) Need;
b) Urgency;
c) Appropriateness;
d) DCD staff capacity to substantively review and manage the suggested text amendments; and
e) Anticipated DCD cost and budget for processing the suggested amendments.
DCD’s review and recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for their review of the
preliminary docket and recommendation on the final docket, after a public hearing, to the Board of County
Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners decides to adopt a final docket differing from the
Planning Commission’s recommended final docket, the BoCC is required to hold a separate public hearing prior
to the adoption of the final docket. During this process, DCD continually reviews and recommends whether
items should be placed on the final docket using the analysis above under JCC 18.45.060.
Page 2 of 8
Figure 1 ‐ Process and Proposed Timeline for Preliminary Docket to Final Docket
Date Activity
April 27, 2020 BoCC issues Resolution 25‐20 suspending the deadlines in JCC 18.45 for processing and
adoption of Docket items
July 15, 2020 Staff distributes application for site‐specific amendment (MLA20‐00039 Seton), the
“DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2020‐2021 WORK PROGRAM Related to
Long‐range Planning Projects 2020 and 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Preliminary Docket and Other High‐priority Initiatives,” and Resolution 25‐20 to the
Planning Commission for review.
August 5, 2020 Staff reviews DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2020‐2021 WORK
PROGRAM Related to Long‐range Planning Projects 2020 and 2021 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Preliminary Docket and Other High‐priority Initiatives with the Planning
Commission.
August 11, 2020 Staff prepares final Preliminary Docket Report based on PC feedback from August 5th
meeting.
August 19, 2020 Planning Commission holds public hearing on suggested text amendments on the
preliminary docket.
September 2, 2020 Planning Commission prepares a report and recommendation to the BoCC on the
preliminary docket.
September 21,
2020
BoCC considers the preliminary docket, including the Staff’s Report and Planning
Commission’s report and recommendations.
October 5, 2020 Possible BoCC hearing on the preliminary docket if BoCC decides to modify the Planning
Commission’s recommended preliminary docket.
October, 2020 BoCC adopts final docket consisting of suggested text amendments which the BoCC
elects to consider and all formal site‐specific amendments.
February 26, 2021 The BoCC shall take final legislative action on 2020 docket items by February 26, 2021,
unless extended by the BoCC consistent with WAC 365‐ 196‐ 640( 3)( a).
*Scheduled as required by Chapter 18.45 JCC
2020 Formal Site‐Specific Amendment (Automatically Included in the Final Docket)
1. MLA20‐00039. Bruce Seton, Jr. Parcel #001281002. Requests a rezone of 22.15‐acre parcel from Rural
Residential 1 dwelling per 10 acres (RR1:10) to Rural Residential 1 dwelling per 5 acres (RR1:5) to enable
a future 4‐lot subdivision.
2020 Interested Parties Suggested Amendments
As noted above, DCD did not receive any applications from interested parties, by March 1, 2020 for
suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or its implementing development regulations.
2020 Staff Suggested Text Amendments
Below is an overview of the 2020 staff suggested text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or its
implementing development regulations and an analysis of whether these staff suggestions should be placed on
the 2020 final docket.
Page 3 of 8
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reflect Revisions to the Port Hadlock Sewer Plan. The Jefferson
County Department of Public Works is revising the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan to plan a more cost‐
effective sewer development approach within the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area. It is expected that
the revisions to the 2008 Port Hadlock Sewer Plan will be engineering and cost related. The revisions
must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan’s Capital Facilities Element.
Need:
o This is needed. Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan must be updated so that the
sewer redesign and financing plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Capital
Facilities Element.
Urgency:
o This project is urgent. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan’s Capital Facilities
Elements are required to implement the Port Hadlock Sewer Plan.
Appropriateness:
o This project allows the sewer redesign to comply with the Growth Management Act and
the Comprehensive Plan. Once sewer is available to properties within the Port Hadlock
Urban Growth Area they may develop at urban densities.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment. Outside
consultants would be necessary due to existing DCD workload and the on‐going COVID‐
19 crisis.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 25 hours
o Estimated cost: $3,800.00 (25 hours @ $140 per hour consultant
services and $300 in prorated administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
DCD’s Recommendation for Inclusion on the 2020 Final Docket:
o DCD recommends that this item is included in the 2020 final docket. Revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan to allow a more cost‐effective implementation of the Port Hadlock
Sewer is critically important to Jefferson County’s economic development opportunities.
2. Subarea Plan for Port Hadlock Urban Core Revitalization. With the potential for the Port Hadlock Urban
Growth Area to be developed at urban densities because of the proposed future sewer, planning will be
needed to maximize the sewer system investment. This planning effort would focus on the initial service
area for the redesigned sewer system, which includes existing retail businesses and professional
services. This subarea plan would analyze the land use, development regulations, and standards for
areas within the core service area for the first phase of the sewer plan.
Need:
o This is project would be needed if the redesigned sewer system is able to be constructed
and if the area citizens support a subarea plan investment for the core business district.
Page 4 of 8
Urgency:
o This project is not urgent but may provide important motivation to creating and support
for a local improvement district.
Appropriateness:
o The project is appropriate, as it would reevaluate land use, development regulations,
and standards for development within the core sewer area, consistent with sewer
implementation.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested plan. Outside
consultants would be necessary due to existing DCD workload and the on‐going COVID‐
19 crisis.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 200 hours
o Estimated cost: $28,000 (90 hours @ $140 per hour consultant services and
$1,500 in prorated administrative costs, departmental and prosecutor’s involvement).
DCD’s Recommendation for Inclusion on the 2020 Final Docket:
o DCD does not recommend that this item is included in the 2020 final docket. While the
subarea plan is important to ensure efficient development of the core sewer area, the
sewer plan updates will not be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan until at least the
adoption of the 2020 amendments. This project is not urgent. DCD lacks staff capacity
and funding for this project.
3. Subarea Plan for South Discovery Bay. The proposed subarea plan would analyze land use, development
regulations, and infrastructure to enhance existing and create new commercial establishments in this
small existing hamlet that would potentially be created as a highway tourist commuter zone and
consider short term lodging development.
Need:
o This project is needed to study the South Discovery Bay area and develop new land use
policies, development regulations, and infrastructure to enable sustainable, rural
development within the South Discovery Bay area.
Urgency:
o This project is not urgent.
Appropriateness:
o The project is appropriate, as it would reevaluate land use, development regulations,
and standards for development within the South Discovery Bay area.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested plan. Outside
consultants would be necessary due to existing DCD workload and the on‐going COVID‐
19 crisis.
Cost:
o Unknown at this time.
Page 5 of 8
DCD’s Recommendation for Inclusion on the 2020 Final Docket:
o DCD does not recommend that this item is included in the 2020 final docket. This project
is not urgent. DCD lacks staff capacity and funding for this project.
4. Subarea Plan for Quilcene LAMIRD Business and Residential Area. An effort to extend existing or create
new limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMIRD) in the Quilcene area that would
address much needed commercial and residential development.
Need:
o This project is needed to study the Quilcene area and develop new land use policies,
such as new LAMIRDs or development regulations to enable sustainable, rural
development within the Quilcene area.
Urgency:
o This project is not urgent.
Appropriateness:
o The project is appropriate, as it would evaluate land use, development regulations, and
infrastructure, with the potential for new LAMIRD within the Quilcene area.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested plan. Outside
consultants would be necessary due to existing DCD workload and the on‐going COVID‐
19 crisis.
Cost:
o Unknown at this time.
DCD’s Recommendation for Inclusion on the 2020 Final Docket:
o DCD does not recommend that this item is included in the 2020 final docket. This project
is not urgent. DCD lacks staff capacity and funding for this project.
5. Brinnon Subarea‐Wastewater Treatment Development Regulations. The Dosewallips State Park sewer
system has been shown to possess sufficient capacity to connect much needed, high priority locations in
Brinnon to the state park sewer system. Sewer connections will address significant water quality
concerns arising from failing onsite septic systems. While some Washington jurisdictions have been able
to extend limited sewer service from a designated urban area to immediately adjacent rural areas, the
extension of sewer service to selected locations and properties requires specific code development to
address the standards by which these additional connections can be made outside of the state park
service area, while complying with the Growth Management Act.
Need:
o This is needed. Jefferson County continues to deal with substantial degradations in
shoreline water quality and closures of shellfish beds to recreational and commercial
harvest due to contamination of failing septic systems.
Urgency:
o This project is urgent. The state park desires to work cooperatively with the County to
provide for these sewer service extensions. Septic system failures are a chronic problem
along the shorelines of Brinnon.
Page 6 of 8
Appropriateness:
o This project will develop Growth Management Act compliant development regulations
allowing certain properties to hookup to the state park sewer system while limiting the
sewer connections to only the appropriate properties. There will be, however,
substantial pressure to extend connections to private individual residential and
commercial properties which may create compliance issues under the Growth
Management Act. DCD is aware that the State must make certain improvements to the
state park sewer system prior to the availability of new hookups.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD lacks the capacity at present to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
Outside consultants would be necessary due to existing DCD workload and the on‐going
COVID‐19 crisis.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 35 hours
o Estimated cost: $6,700.00 (35 hours @ $140 per hour consultant services
and $1,800 in prorated administrative costs, departmental and prosecutor’s
involvement)
DCD’s Recommendation for Inclusion on the 2020 Final Docket:
o DCD does not recommend that this item is included in the 2020 final docket, as DCD
lacks staff capacity and funding for this project.
2020 Planning Commission Suggested Amendments
The Planning Commission recommended to the BoCC that three (3) suggested amendments be made for
the 2019 final docket. Since they were not selected for inclusion on the final docket in 2019, The Planning
Commission request that they be placed on the preliminary docket for consideration on the final docket for
2020. Those three amendments are listed here.
1. MLA19‐00019. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests a review and amendment of JCC
18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues
experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones.
Need:
o Review of these code sections is needed to address community concern over
implementation of marijuana grow, production, and processing in rural residential
zones.
Urgency:
o This an urgent suggestion. This topic was identified during the periodic review and
update of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. Further, this topic
has been raised by several community organizations and citizens.
Appropriateness:
o This suggested amendment provides specific code updates; however, the proposed code
updates may be limiting in nature. Multiple policy options exist to address community
concerns not suggested by this amendment. The proposal requires substantial DCD staff
time and resources.
Page 7 of 8
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 72 hours
o Estimated cost: $7,168.00 (72 hours @ $96 per hour and $400 in prorated
administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
2. MLA19‐00020. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests development of new regulations using
“Eco‐ADU” as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel. The
suggestion would allow the existing square footage of ADUs to be allotted over multiple ADUs per parcel
when certain “eco” performance standards are met.
Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
Urgency:
o This an urgent suggestion. However, substantial compliance issues are noted.
Appropriateness:
o This proposal touches on existing broad Comprehensive Plan goals. However, substantial
compliance issues with Washington’s Growth Management Act are present. The
suggestion, as drafted, has high implementation and monitoring costs, including a
review board and appeal processes outside of existing code procedures. The suggestion
requires substantial staff time and resources.
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 184 hours
o Estimated cost: $17,696.00 (184 hours @ $96 per hour and $400 in
prorated administrative costs, such as printing and legal
ads)
3. MLA19‐00023. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan adding a priority work item to the Housing Element’s Action Plan to “convene a panel of citizens
knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS‐P‐2.3 to research and recommend a set
of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt‐in, very‐low‐impact and/or impact‐positive
standards for Jefferson County.”
Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
Urgency:
o This suggestion is not of high urgency as it does not substantively address identifiable
policy issues relating to housing.
Appropriateness:
o If docketed and implemented this suggestion likely involves DCD and outside agencies
involvement to ensure compliance with complex laws and regulations, such as
Washington’s Growth Management Act. There are more appropriate methods of
increasing housing within Jefferson County.
Page 8 of 8
DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment and lacks
capacity to convene and manage an additional citizen panel.
Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 22 hours
o Estimated cost: $2,168.00 (22 hours @ $96 per hour and $100 in prorated
administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
Department of Community Development Final Docket Recommendation
DCD recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reflect Revisions to the Port Hadlock
Sewer Plan staff suggested amendment is placed on the 2020 final docket and that all other staff suggested
amendments are not placed on the 2020 final docket.
DCD has extremely limited staff capacity for any additional suggested text amendments beyond the on‐
going and planned 2020 code updates including: Shoreline Master Program, Regulatory Reform updates, and
Code Enforcement. In addition to DCD’s limited capacity, the on‐going COVID‐19 crisis has created further staff
and financial pressure on DCD. Placement of staff suggested amendments, other than the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Reflect Revisions to the Port Hadlock Sewer Plan, on the final docket will likely result in
significant increases in land use and building permitting processing times.
If any suggested text amendments are docketed on the final docket, DCD requests supplemental budget
authority to support the docket work. As DCD recommends that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reflect
Revisions to the Port Hadlock Sewer Plan is placed on the final docket, DCD requests $3,800 in supplemental
budget to accomplish this staff suggested amendment. DCD relies on a combination of on‐going general fund,
project specific general fund, and grant dollars to support all long‐range planning work, DCD’s existing budget
cannot support any suggested text amendments without supplemental budget authority.
08-19-2020 Public Hearing Comments
Please forward to the commission: letter and description
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Chair Nilssen, Planning Commissioners and Staff,
Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the draft Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members and department staff
have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear. Each time we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like everyone to know how much I appreciate your
thoughtfulness, kind words and thoughtful critiques.
Attached is a section-by-section description describing each of the ten sections in the Eco-ADU proposal.
Please keep the following suggestions mind when reading through the proposal description:
• I consider this proposal to be just one of many potential solutions to the affordable housing crisis in our county, solutions which are congruent with our vision and our county’s rural character. All
proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be considered in detail, including those which the department identified as ‘urgent’ last year.
---
• The recently enacted Critical Areas Ordinance contains specific language which should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that elements of the CAO framework can
be usefully applied. Specifically, the administration of independent verification may be adaptable since one primary critique of the Eco-ADU proposal has been that a volunteer citizen oversight board
would be burdensome. If the CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this could be: if
it’s too much work to set up a local version of the National Organic Standards Board to set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer to the CAO approach,
closer to the process of organic certification.
There are specific elements in our new Critical Areas Ordinance Appendix A which appear to be potentially applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the sections with examples of what might
be considered relevant text:
18.22.700 Purpose
18.22.710 Resource Concerns
18.22.730 Protection Standards
“(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a critical areas checklist and supporting documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate the following performance standards are met
due to the nature of the proposal as well as installed or scheduled conservation practices… “
“(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservation district is available to assist with completion of the critical areas checklist and in the development of conservation plans approved through the NRCS.
A producer may also work with other farm assistance agencies.”
18.22.840 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
“Jefferson County shall develop a cooperative monitoring program with producers, conservation district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservation practices and performance standards
of approved…”
18.22.850 Compliance
---
• There exists a Community Housing draft document, a result of internal discussions within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relative to the Eco-ADU proposal. Specifically,
the CH document contains terms, titles, and insightful approaches to density classifications which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU draft. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco-ADU proposal
are the classifications of rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail:
“This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.”
“This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a “Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are multiple bedrooms (either internal or
external satellite, like a tiny home or cabin) to be occupied by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen facilities, living space, and land is shared by all
occupants in common, on a permanent basis.”
The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other existing definitions under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noting how and why a CH structure is not a co-
housing or intentional community, not a single-family residence, nor a multi-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house.
The document continues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share the rest of the facilities in
common with other owners, likely under a cooperative, democratic governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the building and land.”
---
• I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcriptions from the hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submitted on this proposal from everyday leaders in our community.
Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoration to the benefits of rural public transit, the dire need for rental
affordability and the fact that working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of environmental and climate justice issues. One artist’s tearful moment at the hearing
was perhaps the most memorable of all.
---
• Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and concerns, such as rural
housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit Counties and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I believe specifically encourages us to do this work
as a community.
Matt Sircely
8/14/20
Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com>
Fri 8/14/2020 4:38 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>; David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
2 attachments
Eco-ADU proposal section-by-section.pdf; Sircely letter to PC - Aug 2020.pdf;
Eco-ADU Proposal: Description of Contents
1. Conditional Use - This first section grants the
department conditional discretionary authority over
permitting, considered a very high degree of control over
the issuance and revocation of permits. Section 1 outlines
the basic formula for Eco-ADU allocation (unused ADU
allocation + 300 sq ft), which then can be augmented by any
of four incentives listed in Section 10 (15% bonus for each
applied incentive). Parts c) and d) offer landowners within
agricultural and forestry zones the opportunity to create
“Agricultural Eco-ADU” and “Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU”
projects.
2. Number - In addition to a given primary residence and
any existing ADU, the proposal allows for a gradual
increase in the number of detached units according to
parcel size:
- two extra detached units on 5 acres or less
- five Eco-ADUs on parcels 6-10 acres, and
- no more than six Eco-ADUs on larger parcels. For the
largest parcels (40, 80, etc), the total size is
proportionally limited (think small forest dwellings or
agricultural housing on large working parcels).
3. Size of Eco-ADUs - Currently, maximum size is 1k sq ft.
There is no minimum size for an Eco-ADU.
4. Composition and Compliance - Section 4 distinguishes
EcoADUs from ordinary ADUs — not all amenities are required
for each structure (i.e. separate kitchen and bath
facilities are allowed).
5. Citizen Expert Review Panel - Section 5 sets up a body
modeled after the planning commission to develop the
specific criteria needed to govern Eco-ADU projects,
including separate rules for agriculture and forestry
zones. Also inspired by the volunteer National Organic
Standards Board, the Review Panel is instructed to follow
common practices: accepting public input according to
public process, recognizing certain third-party
verifications, and avoiding any potential conflicts of
interest. Panel members are empowered to perform certain
duties onsite, and there are also provisions to allow for
third-party verifications, similar to aspects of the new
CAO. Section 5.e establishes basic guidelines for the
Review Panel’s ongoing adaptation of the organic rules and
other standards, including the ability to allow or disallow
specific materials, products and procedures on a case-by-
case basis. Section 5.h addresses hazardous materials.
Section 5.i addresses rural fire danger with proactive
strategies. The panel is tasked with developing specific
criteria to govern Eco-ADU agriculture and forestry Eco-ADU
projects to achieve specific ecological goals, ensure
public safety, and maintain rural character.
6. Stewardship Credits - This section allows adjacent
landowners and sponsor organizations to enter into mutually
beneficial agreements. Partnerships can facilitate
preservation of greater tracts of land under ecologically
stringent standards in conjunction with the provision of
low-impact housing according to program guidelines.
Neighborhood partnerships can benefit biodiversity,
pollinators, watershed quality, regenerative forestry,
sustainable agriculture and more, all while addressing the
urgent need for dignified, low-impact housing both now and
in the future.
7. Removable - The rules governing removal of toxic and
synthetic materials during an Eco-ADU opt-out are generally
consistent with the organic rules on the post-harvest
removal of plastics and other potentially hazardous
materials. The proposal allows natural foundations and
structural elements to remain in place in the event of an
Eco-ADU opt-out.
8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use
Permit - This section establishes due process procedures to
protect homeowners, including an appeals process for
contesting permit revocation. If and when a department
decision is rejected by a 2/3 vote of the Review Panel,
members of the panel may advocate on behalf of a given
project before a hearing examiner.
9. Eco-ADU Opt-out - Because the standard is designed to be
ever-changing according to the dictates of public process,
it’s critical that homeowners retain the option to opt-out
at any time. This is similar to the organic rules and the
opt-in/opt-out aspects of any voluntary standard.
10. Bonus Allocation - This section outlines four
incentives, each of which boosts the Eco-ADU sq ft
allocation by 15%: 1) elevated structures, 2) alternative
energy, 3) living building components, and 4) a small
primary residence (source of the idea was Seattle’s Living
Building Pilot Program).
Planning Commissioners and Staff,
Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the
dra< Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members
and department staff have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear.
Each Gme we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like
everyone to know how much I appreciate your thoughIulness, kind words and
thoughIul criGques.
AKached is a secGon-by-secGon descripGon describing each of the ten secGons in the
Eco-ADU proposal.
Please keep the following suggesGons mind when reading through the proposal
descripGon:
• I consider this proposal to be just one of many potenGal soluGons to the affordable
housing crisis in our county, soluGons which are congruent with our vision and our
county’s rural character. All proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be
considered in detail, including those which the department idenGfied as ‘urgent’ last
year.
• The recently enacted CriGcal Areas Ordinance contains specific language which
should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that
elements of the CAO framework can be usefully applied. Specifically, the administraGon
of independent verificaGon may be adaptable since one primary criGque of the Eco-ADU
proposal has been that a volunteer ciGzen oversight board would be burdensome. If the
CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar
approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this could be: if
it’s too much work to set up a local version of the NaGonal Organic Standards Board to
set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer
to the CAO approach, closer to the process of organic cerGficaGon.
There are specific elements in our new CriGcal Areas Ordinance Appendix A which
appear to be potenGally applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the
secGons with examples of what might be considered relevant text:
18.22.700 Purpose
18.22.710 Resource Concerns
18.22.730 ProtecGon Standards
“(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a criGcal areas checklist and
supporGng documentaGon to the saGsfacGon of the Director to demonstrate the
following performance standards are met due to the nature of the proposal as well as
installed or scheduled conservaGon pracGces… “
“(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservaGon district is available to assist with
compleGon of the criGcal areas checklist and in the development of conservaGon plans
approved through the NRCS. A producer may also work with other farm assistance
agencies.”
18.22.840 Monitoring and AdapGve Management
“Jefferson County shall develop a cooperaGve monitoring program with producers,
conservaGon district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservaGon
pracGces and performance standards of approved…”
18.22.850 Compliance
• There exists a Community Housing dra< document, a result of internal discussions
within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relaGve to the
Eco-ADU proposal. Specifically, the CH document contains terms, Gtles, and insighIul
approaches to density classificaGons which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU
dra<. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco-ADU proposal are the classificaGons of
rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail:
“This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living
arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.”
“This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a
“Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are mulGple
bedrooms (either internal or external satellite, like a Gny home or cabin) to be occupied
by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen
faciliGes, living space, and land is shared by all occupants in common, on a permanent
basis.”
The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other exisGng
definiGons under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noGng how and why a
CH structure is not a co-housing or intenGonal community, not a single-family residence,
nor a mulG-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house.
The document conGnues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a
condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share
the rest of the faciliGes in common with other owners, likely under a cooperaGve,
democraGc governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the
building and land.”
• I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcripGons from the
hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submiKed on this proposal from everyday
leaders in our community. Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each
commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoraGon to the
benefits of rural public transit, the dire need for rental affordability and the fact that
working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of
environmental and climate jusGce issues. One arGst’s tearful moment at the hearing was
perhaps the most memorable of all.
• Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text
from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and
concerns, such as rural housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit CounGes
and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I
believe specifically encourages us to do this work as a community.
MaK Sircely
8/14/20
Re: Please forward to the commission: letter and description
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Also, it seems appropriate to include a third attachment: the reformatted original text of the proposal.
Thanks again,
Matt
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 4:38 PM Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com> wrote:
Chair Nilssen, Planning Commissioners and Staff,
Thank you to all my fellow planning commissioners for your willingness to reconsider the draft Eco-ADU proposal again this year. I am grateful that planning commission members and department staff
have reviewed my proposal to the extent that its intent is clear. Each time we discuss this proposal, I can sense incremental progress, and I’d like everyone to know how much I appreciate your
thoughtfulness, kind words and thoughtful critiques.
Attached is a section-by-section description describing each of the ten sections in the Eco-ADU proposal.
Please keep the following suggestions mind when reading through the proposal description:
• I consider this proposal to be just one of many potential solutions to the affordable housing crisis in our county, solutions which are congruent with our vision and our county’s rural character. All
proposals which rise to a level of urgency should be considered in detail, including those which the department identified as ‘urgent’ last year.
---
• The recently enacted Critical Areas Ordinance contains specific language which should be considered alongside the Eco-ADU proposal, and it may be possible that elements of the CAO framework
can be usefully applied. Specifically, the administration of independent verification may be adaptable since one primary critique of the Eco-ADU proposal has been that a volunteer citizen oversight
board would be burdensome. If the CAO language is less burdensome, then perhaps we should consider whether a similar approach might work within the Eco-ADU framework. A metaphor for this
could be: if it’s too much work to set up a local version of the National Organic Standards Board to set policy and provide ongoing review, then perhaps we should pursue something closer to the CAO
approach, closer to the process of organic certification.
There are specific elements in our new Critical Areas Ordinance Appendix A which appear to be potentially applicable to the Eco-ADU proposal. Here are a few of the sections with examples of what
might be considered relevant text:
18.22.700 Purpose
18.22.710 Resource Concerns
18.22.730 Protection Standards
“(1) Performance Standards. Producers shall submit a critical areas checklist and supporting documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate the following performance standards are
met due to the nature of the proposal as well as installed or scheduled conservation practices… “
“(3) Structures (b) The Jefferson County conservation district is available to assist with completion of the critical areas checklist and in the development of conservation plans approved through the
NRCS. A producer may also work with other farm assistance agencies.”
18.22.840 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
“Jefferson County shall develop a cooperative monitoring program with producers, conservation district and farm assistance agency staff based on the conservation practices and performance standards
of approved…”
18.22.850 Compliance
---
• There exists a Community Housing draft document, a result of internal discussions within the department, which contains several ideas worth considering relative to the Eco-ADU proposal.
Specifically, the CH document contains terms, titles, and insightful approaches to density classifications which closely mirror the intent in the Eco-ADU draft. Perhaps most challenging of all for the Eco-
ADU proposal are the classifications of rural density, which the CH document addresses in detail:
“This type of housing is not defined under the UDC, but is a successful living arrangement/facility in countries like Denmark and/or The Netherlands.”
“This is commonly known as “community housing” and therefore we are calling this is a “Community Housing Unit”, which is one dwelling unit* in which there are multiple bedrooms (either internal or
external satellite, like a tiny home or cabin) to be occupied by individuals, couples or small families, each with its own bathroom, where the kitchen facilities, living space, and land is shared by all
occupants in common, on a permanent basis.”
The discussion document explains how the CH concept is different from other existing definitions under the UDC, going through them all one-by-one, noting how and why a CH structure is not a co-
housing or intentional community, not a single-family residence, nor a multi-family residence, not a duplex, nor a boarding house or a rooming house.
The document continues: “The community housing ownership model can be like a condominium where individuals or families own, rent or lease their own unit, but share the rest of the facilities in
common with other owners, likely under a cooperative, democratic governance model where all owners share equally in the maintenance of the building and land.”
---
• I intend to collate the comments from last year, including any transcriptions from the hearing. Dozens of powerful comments were submitted on this proposal from everyday leaders in our
community. Some offered to volunteer, and it was remarkable how each commenter honed in on a different angle, from the need for ecological restoration to the benefits of rural public transit, the dire
need for rental affordability and the fact that working lands need working hands. Some interpreted the proposal within the context of environmental and climate justice issues. One artist’s tearful
moment at the hearing was perhaps the most memorable of all.
---
• Please let me know whether any of you would like to review any of the relevant text from Growth Management Hearings Board rulings which reference similar issues and concerns, such as rural
housing proposals from Clallam, San Juan, and Skagit Counties and more. If helpful, we can also review text from the Growth Management Act which I believe specifically encourages us to do this work
as a community.
Matt Sircely
8/14/20
Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com>
Fri 8/14/2020 6:21 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>; David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
1 attachment
Eco-ADU draft text 2-27-19.pdf;
Eco-ADU Draft Text
Submitted to the Jeff Co WA Planning Commission
text includes grammatical and formatting corrections
Definitions:
“Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU is an ADU approved for habitation under
this section following the issuance of a Discretionary [“C(d)”]
Use Permit by the Director. Eco-ADUs are limited to residential
parcels of 5 acres or greater. All regulations as defined in
section (cite) apply to Eco-ADUs except for the sixth provision.
Eco-ADUs are not required to contain every amenity that a
standard ADU is expected to contain, with exemptions subject to
review by the Review Panel and the department.
“Agricultural Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU project located in
agricultural zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU,
and Eco-ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the
maintenance of a farm plan.
“Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU” - An Eco-ADU project located in
forest zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco-
ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the
maintenance of a sustainable forestry plan.
“Eco-ADU project” - A project comprised of one of the three
types of Eco-ADUs. In this section, the word ‘project’ refers to
an Eco-ADU project.
“Citizen Expert Review Panel” - In this section, the term
“Review Panel” shall refer to the Citizen Expert Review Panel.
“Living Land Stewardship Standard” - The Living Land Stewardship
Standard is also referenced within this section as “the
standard”, “the guidelines” or the “Eco-ADU standard”. The
voluntary standard intends to ameliorate four primary areas of
concern with regard to allowed conventional construction
techniques and lifestyle choices, and agricultural and forestry
practices. The four primary areas of concern that are addressed
by the standard are:
1) The presence and use of toxics and materials such as
synthetic pest control products or synthetic fertilizers that
are intended for outdoor use and/or storage outdoors.
2) Substantial disturbances of soil due to grading,
roadbuilding, or erosion
3) The standard prohibits the siting of eco-ADUs in areas that
would require the felling of large trees, and/or place
residents in a location with a high probability of imminent
tree fall; and
4) Eco-ADUs shall not be used as short-term rental units.
“Stewardship Credit” - Land set aside in exchange in order to
direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered
site plan (Conservation Village) may include, but are not
required to include critical areas as currently defined by the
Critical Areas Ordinance. Land set aside in exchange in order to
direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi-parcel clustered
site plan (Conservation Village) may include preservation of
other natural and agricultural areas.
“Conservation Village” - a multi-parcel clustered site plan
which is able to achieve approvals from the Review Panel and the
department. A Conservation Village is represented by a singular
Project Lead.
“Eco-ADU Project Lead” - The term “Eco-ADU Project Lead”,
referred to in this section as “Project Lead”, is a designated
sole point of contact and authoritative decision-making on
behalf of a particular project. All Eco-ADU projects must
identify a singular Project Lead. The Project Lead may be the
property owner, and may also be a tenant or a representative of
a sponsor organization, and must be designated as authorized to
act on behalf of the project starting with initial consultations
and continuing through and beyond all permitting procedures. The
Project Lead may designate that a program tenant, representative
of a sponsor organization, or a third party may alternately
serve as Project Lead.
The creation of an Eco-ADU shall be subject to the following
requirements, which shall not be subject to variance.
1. Conditional Use
a) Following initial consultations with the Review Panel and/or
Director, all Eco-ADU applicants must attain a Discretionary
[“C(d)”] Use Permit.
b) Upon the granting of a permit, Eco-ADU project participants
immediately receive an additional 300 square feet of ADU
allocation in addition to the 1,250 sq ft limit established by
the county, which together with any unused ADU allocation, can
be combined and then divided into multiple detached ADUs
appropriate for lot size and zoning criteria as defined in 2.
c) Applicants located in AP-20 - Commercial Agriculture and
AL-20 - Local Agriculture zones may apply for a Discretionary
[“C(d)”] Use Permit to establish a “Agricultural Eco-ADU”
project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this
section, applicants must design, submit and pursue a credible
farm plan to the review committee, which then determines whether
to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the
director as to whether the conditional use permit should be
approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable
Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber
harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from
the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the
Review Panel. Farm plans shall be limited to use of agricultural
products and materials that are allowed for use in organic
production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program
as listed in the federal register in The National List of
Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619).
The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or
materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel
may also may choose to approve additional materials use
permissions on a case-by-case basis.
d) Applicants in RF-40 - Rural Forest, IF-20 - Inholding Forest,
and CF-80 - Commercial Forest zones may apply for a
Discretionary [“C(d)”] Use Permit to establish a “Sustainable
Forest ADU” project. In addition to the other criteria outlined
in this section, applicants must design and submit a credible
Sustainable Forestry Plan under the guidance of the review
committee, which then determines whether to continue
consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to
whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied.
It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include
intent to engage in commercial timber harvest and sales.
Performance evaluations and any variance from the initial plan
shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel.
Sustainable Forestry Plans shall be limited to use of
agricultural and agroforestry products and materials that are
allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA
National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§
205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve
additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU
projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve
additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis.
2. Number
a) No more than 2 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels of 5
acres and less.
b) No more than 5 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between
6 and 10 acres.
c) No more than six Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels
between 10 and 20 acres in size.
d) On parcels 20 acres and above, total Eco-ADU allocation
shall be limited to 0.5% of the total surface area of the
parcel.
e) On parcels 40 acres and above, the total Eco-ADU allocation
is limited to 0.2% of the total surface area of the parcel.
3. Size of Eco-ADUs
An Eco-ADU must not exceed 1000 square feet, including any
garage area.
4. Composition and Compliance
a) The ADU may include facilities for cooking, living,
sanitation, and sleeping, however unlike conventional ADUs, Eco-
ADUs are not required to include every type of amenity,
depending on the project goals, the needs and preferences of
tenants, and the permissions granted by county departments in
compliance with Jefferson County Code.
b) The Review Panel may choose to assist applicants in the
development of new systems and methods to satisfy requirements
as set forth by county departments and the JCC while also
meeting program requirements.
5. Citizen Expert Review Panel
a) Members of a Citizen Expert Review Panel (Review Panel) shall
establish and maintain an updated list of criteria that shall be
defined as the “Living Land Stewardship Standard”. The standard
shall be consistent with all the criteria listed in this section
as well as all other county codes.
b) The Board of County Commissioners shall select nine members
members of the Review Panel for a term of two years, three from
each district, appointed by the commissioner who represents the
district in which the appointee resides.
c) The Review Panel shall establish bylaws which shall be
updated and approved annually by the membership. The goal of the
Review Panel is to provide guidance, consultation and official
recommendations to the department director. The director may
instruct the Review Panel to answer questions or investigate
and/or address concerns.
d) The Review Panel is tasked with occasionally monitoring and
advising opt-in Eco-ADU projects. In cases of potential
conflicts of interest, or if the landowner objects, or if there
are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel
may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the
individual or organization performing the review is also free of
potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both
the Review Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified
and capable of carrying out the necessary tasks.
e) Prohibited under the voluntary standard is the outdoor use of
synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers and
other nutrients of a synthetic nature or containing synthetic
ingredients, unless allowed for use in organic production and
processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the
federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may
approve additional products and/or materials for general use in
Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to
approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case
basis.
f) Eco-ADU projects are subject to inspection by members of the
Review Panel. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if
the the landowner objects, or if there are procedural
considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a
third party to perform review, provided that the individual or
organization performing the review is also free of potential
conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review
Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable
of carrying out the necessary tasks.
g) Program participants and sponsor organizations may choose to
offer appropriate permissions to allow the Review Panel and/or a
third-party review organization to physically sample onsite data
for research and analysis.
h) The Review Panel shall maintain clear guidelines for managing
household hazardous waste and contained management of fluids and
materials required for the operation and maintenance of ordinary
household vehicles, and assess and mitigate the presence and/or
probability of engine oil drips, for example from older vehicles
or machinery. The Review Panel may require the operator and/or
landowner to design, implement, and maintain a containment plan
for any potentially hazardous materials that are allowed on
site.
i) The Review Panel shall consider fire danger as paramount, and
ensure that each program participant receives a training in
fire-preventative techniques and immediate response. The Review
Panel shall encourage every tenant and program participant to
maintain awareness of current local fire dangers and events, as
well as develop a suite of techniques essential to wildfire
prevention. At the Review Panel’s request, either as part of the
initial application or during ongoing review procedures, that
the Eco-ADU applicant must detail pathways of access for first
responders and firefighters to all Eco-ADU dwellings and any
areas considered by the Review Panel to be at high-risk of fire
for any reason.
6. Stewardship Credits.
Stewardship credits allow separate entities which willfully
enter a mutual development agreement to create a single entity,
known as a Conservation Village (CV). The Conservation Village
must design, manage and maintain a site plan. Before any
construction begins on a project involving Stewardship Credits
from two or more adjoining parcels, there must be a binding
legal agreement between the owners of all parcels involved, as
well as any third parties acting as sponsor organizations. The
allocation of Stewardship Credits must be negotiated by the
Project Lead. Stewardship Credits shall not augment an Eco-ADU
allocation by more than 75%.
7. Removable.
All Eco-ADUs must be removable unless constructed from natural
materials such as wood not treated with chemicals, stone,
untreated metals and/or other non-synthetic materials. In the
event of a permit revocation or a Project Lead choosing to opt-
out of the program, all applicable buildings must be removed.
Removal of slabs and footings is not required under such
circumstances unless directed by the Review Panel or Director.
8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use Permit.
The Director retains the authority under the conditional use
permitting procedures to revoke a permit with or without the
recommendation and consent of the Review Panel. Permit
revocations shall be subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
In the event of a dispute between the Review Panel and the
Director where the Director opposes a recommendation from the
Review Panel consisting of a vote of no less than two-thirds of
a quorum, the Review Panel may choose to refer the case to an
automatic appeal at no cost to applicant or project. The Review
Panel may also designate one or more members to advocate for the
applicant or project before the Hearing Examiner, but only with
the consent of the Eco-ADU Project Lead or the Project Lead’s
designee.
9. Eco-ADU Opt-out.
In the event that an existing Eco-ADU Project Lead choses or
decides to Opt-out of the Eco-ADU program, the Project Lead must
coordinate the removal of all Eco-ADUs.
10. Bonus Allocation.
a) Eco-ADU applicants may apply for additions to the Eco-ADU
allocation. Project applicants and participants may calculate
how much of their ADU allocation is unused at the time of
application and add that number to the additional 300 square
feet that are immediately allocated when a participant opts into
the program.
b) With permission from the Review Panel and Director,
applicants and participants can choose to add to their
allocation a bonus of 15% once they have demonstrated an
intention and ability to meet criteria in one or all of four
bonus categories:
• Structure elevation (for example, pier blocks instead of a
concrete slab) to allow the passage of wind, water and wildlife
underneath the building.
• Alternative energy installations excluding biomass energy
generation.
• Incorporating living building design components that aid
biodiversity and ecosystem vitality as determined by the Review
Panel.
• A primary residence with a footprint of less than 1,800 square
feet.
Resubmitting docket items from 2019
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Chair Nilssen;
Here are my resubmittals of docket item applications from last year that I wish to see on the 2020-2021 docket. I believe that despite the constraints and limitations on DCD, these proposals are timely and will cost the county in the
long run if they are not addressed now. I ask that the Planning Commission vote to forward these applications to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration to be included in the docket being considered for 2020-2021.
Please find attached:
Eco Performance Standards - addition of an action item to Comp Plan Housing Element (this is NOT Eco-ADU's)
MLA19-00023 JCPC CP-HOUSING 2-27-19.pdf
Review Cannabis Regulations:
MLA19-00019 JCPC UDC MJ Regs 2-27-19.pdf
Removal of the Forest Transmission Overlay option from Jefferson County Code
MLA19-00018 JCPC Recind FTO
Planning Commissioners - Please find attached all three docket applications from last year with written justifications included. Also please find the Prelim Docket Admin Memo with staff cost estimates and recommendations from last
year.
Sincerely,
Cynthia
Cynthia Koan <cynthia.koan@gmail.com>
Sat 8/15/2020 7:31 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>; Lorna Smith <ecosmithspt@gmail.com>; #Planning Team <#PlanningTeama@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Arlene Alen
<arlene.alen@jeffcountychamber.org>; Chris Llewellyn <info@serendipityfarm.org>; Kevin Coker <cokerdesignworks@msn.com>; Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com>; Richard Hull <richardhull@embarqmail.com>; David W.
Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
4 attachments
MLA19-00023 JCPC CP-HOUSING 2-27-19.pdf; MLA19-00018 JCPC Recind FTO 2-27-19.pdf; MLA19-00019 JCPC UDC MJ Regs 2-27-19.pdf; 02 Prelim Docket Admin Memo AMW comments 003 NA_EB Edits (002).pdf;
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
Page 1 of 4
Department of Community Development’s Review and Recommendation on the
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary Docket
TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, County Administrator, Planning Commission, and
Interested Parties
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: March 27, 2019
Under Chapter 18.45 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC), the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development (DCD) annually accepts applications for formal site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments (re-
zones) and suggested text amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development
Code (UDC) for inclusion in the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment preliminary docket. DCD accepts
applications for each cycle’s docket until March 1st. DCD received one formal site-specific amendment from a
property owner and four suggested text amendments from the Jefferson County Planning Commission. All
proposals were placed on the annual amendment cycle’s preliminary docket. Formal site-specific amendments
are automatically included in the final docket.
Chapter 18.45 of the JCC requires that the preliminary docket be reviewed by DCD, the Planning Commission,
and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) prior to adoption of the final docket. During
this process DCD reviews and recommends whether a suggested text amendment should be included in the final
docket. Under JCC 18.45.060, DCD’s review and recommendation includes the following factors:
a) Need;
b) Urgency;
c) Appropriateness;
d) DCD staff capacity to substantively review and manage the suggested text amendments; and
e) Anticipated DCD cost and budget for processing the suggested amendments.
DCD’s review and recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission for their review of the
preliminary docket and recommendation on the final docket, after a public hearing, to the Board of County
Commissioners. If the Board of County Commissioners decides to adopt a final docket differing from the
Planning Commission’s recommended final docket, the BoCC is required to hold a separate public hearing prior
to the adoption of the final docket. Please see Figure 1 for a timeline of the preliminary to final docket. During
this process, DCD continually reviews and recommends whether items should be placed on the final docket
using the analysis above under JCC 18.45.060.
Page 2 of 4
Figure 1 - Process and Proposed Timeline for Preliminary Docket to Final Docket
Date Activity
March 27, 2019 Staff distributes the Department of Community Development’s review and
recommendation on the 2019 Comprehensive Plan amendment preliminary docket.
April 3, 2019 Staff reviews preliminary docket with the Planning Commission.
April 17, 2019 Planning Commission holds public hearing on suggested text amendments on the
preliminary docket.
May 1, 2019 Planning Commission prepares a report and recommendation to the BoCC on the
preliminary docket.
May 13, 2019* BoCC considers the preliminary docket, including the Staff’s and Planning Commission’s
report and recommendations by the second regular BoCC meeting in May.
July 1, 2019* Possible BoCC hearing on the preliminary docket if BoCC decides to modify the Planning
Commission’s recommended preliminary docket. Hearing to be held no later than the
first BoCC meeting in July.
July 2019 BoCC adopts final docket consisting of suggested text amendments which the BoCC
elects to consider and all formal site-specific amendments.
*Scheduled as required by Chapter 18.45 JCC
2019 Formal Site-Specific Amendment (Automatically Included in the Final Docket)
1. MLA19-00013. Andrew and Sarah Wilke, 240 Sand Road, Parcel #00184004. Requests a rezone of their
approximately 11-acre parcel from Rural Residential 1 dwelling per 10 acres (RR1:10) to Rural
Residential 1 dwelling per 5 acres (RR1:5).
2019 Suggested Text Amendments
1. MLA19-00018. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan and UDC to rescind provisions of the Forest Transition Overlay (FTO).
• Need:
o This suggestion is not needed. Jefferson County must maintain the ability to grow in a
sustainable manner. The existing FTO permits forest land in a highly limited manner to
be converted to rural residential providing needed housing within Jefferson County.
• Urgency:
o The FTO has never been used. This proposal is likely not urgent.
• Appropriateness:
o This suggestion was identified as an action item in the Comprehensive Plan’s Natural
Resource Element Action Plan. However, the FTO may permit additional residential lots
within the county and act as a transition between forest lands and higher intensity uses.
• DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
• Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 20 hours
o Estimated cost: $1,980.00 (20 hours @ $94 per hour and $100 in prorated
administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
Page 3 of 4
2. MLA19-00019. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests a review and amendment of JCC
18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues
experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones.
• Need:
o Review of these code sections is needed to address community concern over
implementation of marijuana grow, production, and processing in rural residential
zones.
• Urgency:
o This an urgent suggestion. This topic was identified during the periodic review and
update of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. Further, this topic
has been raised by several community organizations and citizens.
• Appropriateness:
o This suggested amendment provides specific code updates; however, the proposed code
updates may be limiting in nature. Multiple policy options exist to address community
concerns not suggested by this amendment. The proposal requires substantial DCD staff
time and resources.
• DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
• Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 72 hours
o Estimated cost: $7,168.00 (72 hours @ $94 per hour and $400 in prorated
administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
3. MLA19-00020. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests development of new regulations using
“Eco-ADU” as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel. The
suggestion would allow the existing square footage of ADUs to be allotted over multiple ADUs per parcel
when certain “eco” performance standards are met.
• Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
• Urgency:
o This an urgent suggestion. However, substantial compliance issues are noted.
• Appropriateness:
o This proposal touches on existing broad Comprehensive Plan goals. However, substantial
compliance issues with Washington’s Growth Management Act are present. The
suggestion, as drafted, has high implementation and monitoring costs, including a
review board and appeal processes outside of existing code procedures. The suggestion
requires substantial staff time and resources.
• DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment.
Page 4 of 4
• Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 184 hours
o Estimated cost: $17,696.00 (184 hours @ $94 per hour and $400 in
prorated administrative costs, such as printing and legal
ads)
4. MLA19-00023. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan adding a priority work item to the Housing Element’s Action Plan to “convene a panel of citizens
knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS-P-2.3 to research and recommend a set
of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt-in, very-low-impact and/or impact-positive
standards for Jefferson County.”
• Need:
o Innovative affordable housing options are needed to address housing affordability and
homelessness within Jefferson County.
• Urgency:
o This suggestion is not of high urgency as it does not substantively address identifiable
policy issues relating to housing.
• Appropriateness:
o If docketed and implemented this suggestion likely involves DCD and outside agencies
involvement to ensure compliance with complex laws and regulations, such as
Washington’s Growth Management Act. There are more appropriate methods of
increasing housing within Jefferson County.
• DCD Staff Capacity:
o DCD staff lacks the capacity to efficiently process this suggested amendment and lacks
capacity to convene and manage an additional citizen panel.
• Cost:
o Estimated level of effort: 22 hours
o Estimated cost: $2,168.00 (22 hours @ $94 per hour and $100 in prorated
administrative costs, such as printing and legal ads)
Department of Community Development Final Docket Recommendation
DCD has extremely limited staff capacity for any additional suggested text amendments beyond the on-going
and planned 2018 code updates including: Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Regulatory
Reform updates, and Code Enforcement. Placement of any suggested text amendments on the final docket will
likely result in significant increases in land use and building permitting processing times.
If any suggested text amendments are docketed on the final docket, DCD requests supplemental budget
authority to support the docket work. DCD estimates that the preliminary docket requires 298 staff hours and a
supplemental budget of $29,012. As DCD relies on a combination of on-going general fund, project specific
general fund, and grant dollars to support all long-range planning work, DCD’s existing budget cannot support
any suggested text amendments without supplemental budget authority.
DCD recommends against placing any suggested text amendments on the final docket.
Letter regarding Addition to 2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission Members:
Attached please find a letter from some concerned Jefferson County residents regarding marijuana facilities in Rural Residential zoning areas. This letter is a request for the addition of this issue on the Jefferson
County 2020 Docket.
Warm regards, Carol Gonnella
Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com>
Tue 8/18/2020 1:58 PM
To:Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com>; vigoanderson <vigoanderson@gmail.com>; Patricia Earnest <earnest.pj@gmail.com>; Brenda And Ron <rrempel2@msn.com>; Victoria Galanti <vicgal1804@gmail.com>;
Chris Wilson <cbwilson3@live.com>;
2 attachments
8-2020 Letter to County Officials 8.docx; ATT00001.txt;
1
August 18, 2020
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
The Jefferson County Planning Commission
Dear County Officials:
We will soon be entering our fourth year of asking you, our elected Jefferson County leaders,
for assistance in protecting the homes and quality of life of Jefferson County citizens who reside
in rural residential zoning areas from commercial marijuana grow and/or processing facilities.
Over these years, we have had many individual meetings with most of you, including all County
Commissioners. We have attended and presented at many BOCC and Planning Commission
public hearings to address our concerns. We have had three administrative hearings before the
Hearing Examiner. We have worked with the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office on a new Hearing
Examiner code, rules of procedure, and JCC amendments. To date, we continue to feel: THE
COUNTY HAS DONE NOTHING TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS regarding this issue.
On June 17, 2019, the BOCC considered a review of banning marijuana facilities in rural
residential zoning areas on the 2019 docket by amending the Jefferson County Code (JCC). My
notes reflect the following statements in pertinent part:
PHILLIP MORLEY: In consideration of the staffing shortages and the work program, I
must be realistic about the capacity of the DCD to complete this subject on the 2019
docket……I recommend denying the placement of this issue on the 2019 docket.
PATTY CHARNAS: With our existing commitments, we have both limited finances and
staff. Our staff is unable to take on this matter at this time. In 2020, we want to do the
analysis, we want this on the docket.
GREG BROTHERTON: I have read the written comments…. I take the recommendation
of the DCD. I would put it on the 2020 docket.
KATE DEAN: I understand there is work involved. Presently almost all other counties
prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential. I do not think it would be that much
work. We are asking both the operator and the neighboring properties to take on an
enormous burden. I would like to eliminate that burden. By not putting it on the
docket, it may create more work for the DCD.
At this BOCC public hearing, the Commissioners voted 2-1 in opposition to the placement of the
matter on the 2019 docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted to deny, while
Commissioner Dean voted to place the matter on the docket.
2
We are now asking you to place this matter on the 2020 docket. Let’s review the two reasons
for denial as stated by the County in the above statements, which in essence are lack of money
and staff time.
In the past three years, Jefferson County has had two separate administrative hearings on a
proposed marijuana facility on Marrowstone Island by applicant Austin Smith representing
Olympus Gardens, and one administrative hearing on a proposed facility in Coyle from an
application submitted by the Williamson family. In this latest hearing, the application was
denied, and thus, in all probability, there will be an additional hearing on the Coyle matter
sometime in the near future.
1. STAFF TIME. The review of each application by DCD requires an extensive amount of
time of many County employees. It involves review of the application to analyze that
the application complies with every single requirement of JCC 18.40.530 for conditional
use permits (CUP). County staff must obtain and analyze pertinent technical data, such
as water (availability, quality, stormwater, wastewater, contamination from runoff),
odor pollution, noise pollution, infrastructure services, just to name a few technical
issues. In addition, it must examine more subjective issues such as harmony, design,
character, merit or detrimental effects to the surrounding area. This detailed analysis
must be completed for every single application. It puts a great burden on the staff of
the DCD as well as other County employees. When several residents of Marrowstone
Island met with David Sullivan on January 26, 2019, he lamented the cursory,
inadequate review of the DCD regarding the Austin Smith application. My notes reflect
him telling us: “This type of thing shouldn’t happen. The DCD has let us down and we
are ultimately responsible for that. I apologize for the system not working. Had the DCD
done it right, it should have been a no”. (The DCD had recommended approval of the
Smith application, stating the application had satisfied every requirement of JCC
18.40.530, approval criteria for all conditional uses without supporting data and
information).
We have been told that the DCD is overworked and understaffed, which may be a
reason there may be inadequate review. To give just one example of the DCD’s failings
in determining approval of an application, the first Smith application and the Williamson
application were asking approval for not only a grow operation, which requires a
conditional use permit, but also a processing operation, which additionally requires a
cottage industry permit. The first requirement of a cottage industry permit, as set forth
in JCC 18.20.170(4), is that the cottage industry be operated by at least one full-time
bona-fide resident residing in a single-family residence on the parcel. In the decision of
the first Smith hearing, dated October 31, 2017, Mr. Causseaux, the Hearing Examiner,
found that no one was residing on the parcel and the application failed the bona-fide
resident requirement. It was one of the main reasons for denial. Ironically, the same
basic set of facts were mirrored in the Williamson hearing. Testimony was that no one
was presently residing on the property. Thus, one of the main reasons Mr. Causseaux
denied the Williamson application on April 1, 2020 was that the bona-fide resident
3
requirement was not met. In our humble opinion, the DCD made the same mistake
twice by failing to adequately review and incorrectly recommending approval of both
the Smith and the Williamson’s applications.
2. FUNDING. The argument that the County does not have the money to place this issue
on its 2020 docket is spurious. This money represents our taxpayer dollars and we feel
the County is being penny wise and pound foolish. Patty Charnas indicated that the cost
to the County to put this issue on the 2019 docket would be about $7000, and lamented
that the County did not have those resources. We would guess that the cost of review if
put on the 2020 docket would be just about the same. But how much time and money
does the County expend to review an application under the conditional use process? At
a meeting with Phillip Morley on January 26, 2019, he was asked how much it cost for
each application. He stated he did not know the exact figure but approximated $30,000.
That means for the review and two hearings of the Austin Smith application, it cost the
County about $60,000. Using that approximation to date, the Williamson application
has cost the County about $30,000 and that figure will be doubled if there is another
hearing. For just two applications, the County has spent at least $90,000, and it may be
closer to $120,000. Even if the County is reimbursed in part by a CUP applicant for
County time, the process is a significant work burden on the DCD employees and
prevents them working on more important issues that would improve the quality of life
for the residents of Jefferson County.
Vigo Anderson, a citizen of the County, has made a public records request around the
middle of March, 2020 for the exact cost to the County of each CUP application for a
marijuana facility in a rural residential zoning area. Due to the COVID -19 emergency,
the five-day requirement for delivery of records was suspended by Governor
proclamation. Jefferson County’s website posted this proclamation and added that
“responses to requests for records may be somewhat delayed during the period of the
Covid-19 emergency, but Jefferson County will make every effort to provide a first
response to public record requests within five days and to maintain communication with
records requestors in a timely manner as staffing, availability, and workloads allow”. To
date, Mr. Anderson, the requestor, has heard nothing from the County about his
request made nearly five months ago.
We respectfully request that you place this issue on the 2020 docket. It is time as time
is of the essence to protect your citizens. And it is time that the citizens of Jefferson
County feel that the County is listening to them.
The below residents of Marrowstone Island and Coyle thank you for considering this
request,
Kathleen Waldron Vigo Anderson John Gonnella
Ron Rempel Chris Wilson Carol Gonnella
Patricia Earnest Victoria Galanti Sherryl Wilson
JCC 18.20.295
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello -
As a resident of Blueberry Hill, a rural large lot subdivision on the
Toandos Peninsula, we ask for your immediate attention to a revision of
JCC 18.20.295 to disallow marijuana grow and processing in these areas.
There is currently such a proposal immediately to the west of us, and
the owners of this proposed business have no intention of limiting the
sounds and odors of their grow/processing operation to the extent
necessary. Furthermore, they are calling this a "cottage industry" while
no home currently exists on the property; they are building a tiny
cottage where one family member will allegedly live in order to
circumvent the requirement that a cottage industry is secondary to an
established residence. This is an abuse of the law's intent, and also
will do much to destroy the quiet, wildlife-sustaining nature of our
area. Please take immediate action to prevent this from happening.
Thank you.
Terri Murphy-Naughton, 233 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Terri Murphy-Naughton <azzure@embarqmail.com>
Tue 8/18/2020 2:31 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:vicgal1804@gmail.com <vicgal1804@gmail.com>;
A side thought on need for 2020 Docket items
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To: Jefferson County BoCC, Planning Commission, candidates for BoCC District 2
In addition to the thorough argument for placing 2019 Docket issues from the Planning Commission on to the 2020 Docket, which you have received, there is another consideration I would like to present:
Putting last year’s potential Docket items on the 2020 Docket to get them handled will show the County some of what is needed for the DCD to efficiently function. Enhanced efficiency will be necessary if the
DCD is to handle the impact to County services brought on by the Hadlock sewer system with its projected, permit needing growth. Handling the Docket items now will free up the DCD rather than continue to
hand over it. The items won’t just go away.
With all due respect, if the DCD cannot address the modest number of Docket issues they had to pass on for 2019, how can they be expected to deal with what would likely be a plethora of permitting requests
once the Hadlock sewer system is given a green light and the needed funding. It would seem that then would be too late to start streamlining and smoothly working those systems in place.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Earnest
Nordland citizen
Jefferson County, WA
District 2
Patricia Earnest <pjearnest@earthlink.net>
Tue 8/18/2020 2:50 PM
To:jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:Lorna Smith <lorna4commissioner@gmail.com>; Heidi Eisenhour <heidi4commissioner@gmail.com>;
Please prioritize protecting quality of life in RR5 neighborhoods!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
8-18-20
Re: Board of County Commissioners addressing much needed cannabis zoning in 2021
Letter to:
pcommissiondesk@co.jefferson.wa.us
dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us
Kate Dean: kdean@co.jefferson.wa.us
Greg Brotherton: gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us
pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us
Lorna4Commissioner@gmail.com
heidi4commissioner@gmail.com
news@ptleader.com
news@peninsuladailynews.com
From: Bonnie Story
Gree ngs, I wish to thank all who are reading this message. I write to you urgently from the heart. I am begging sincerely for your considera on and prompt ac on. I appreciate your me and a en on.
Jefferson County residents are currently unprotected from having 10,000 square foot cannabis factories shoehorned right into our neighborhoods. This is terrifying! I may be accused of NIMBYism, but I wish
this protec on IMMEDIATELY for ALL community lands zoned RR5 in my county.
Please expedite this simple issue for handling as soon as possible!
For the record, I am not at all opposed to cannabis produc on, when it is situated correctly (not in neighborhoods).
I care deeply about Jefferson County, and I know that you do too.
Please read on, once again with my most sincere thanks.
~ Bonnie Story
_____________
Take a regional view:
Both Clallam and Kitsap coun es have outlawed cannabis produc on in RR5 neighborhoods. The documenta on and background study on why they did this is easily available. Currently Jefferson County,
having not caught up yet somehow on this issue, has placed its residents in a vulnerable posi on. Jefferson County currently offers "cheap dirt", by omission of governance, to profiteers looking to come in
with no a achment to neighborhoods and no connec on to lives that would be disrupted and damaged by their factories squeezed right into neighborhoods. If you don't believe your own Jefferson County
Planning Commission, please study the work done in Kitsap and Clallam coun es to close the door on damaging their RR5 neighborhoods.
Please, please take a few minutes and make a study of this, all info is easily available and sensible. Our neighboring coun es have made efforts to protect their neighborhoods, why has Jefferson County not
shown the same level of caring? Jefferson County is be er than this!
Honor exis ng land use decisions:
Kicking the door open for dras c land-use changes, such as 10,000 square foot cannabis factories in neighborhoods, would ripple outward as a bell that can never be un-rung. Disrup ve radical land use
changes that would trigger an immediate cascade of lawsuits and e up courts are not appropriate at this (or any) me.
Please consider "Stare decisis" for land use, including honoring original legal CC&R land use agreements. Blowing up CC&R's is just careless and callous. Jefferson County is blessed with abundant land for a
wide variety of uses, when and where appropriate. There is no need to destroy neighborhoods.
Protect property values:
Many ordinary people, like yours truly, have most of their wealth and re rement prospects ed up in their homes. Damaging that should never be taken lightly, even in the best of mes. This is what
shoehorning factories into neighborhoods does. The prospect of having one's principal saved wealth and re rement outlook damaged is terrifying.
"The freedom to extend your fist ends at the p of my nose" should PLEASE be kept in mind when the folly of one person's profiteering "dream" cannabis project threatens an en re neighborhood of full- me
residents, whose dream is to just live safely and quietly. As current financial challenges deepen over years ahead, especially for seniors, priority must be given to protec ng the financial future of ordinary
local people. This issue needs to be taken seriously as a responsibility of good government.
Finish what was started:
Please give the public some confidence that our local government will follow through on public concerns and stay on-point regardless of new distrac ons. Please, I beseech all of those reading this, take up
this ma er promptly and protect our neighborhoods!
"Honor the voices that you asked to hear":
When a hundred hours of impassioned verbal and wri en public tes mony has been given on an issue, please don't throw it away. Please see the a ached comments and review these voices opposing
industrial cannabis in RR5 neighborhoods, and honor them with appropriate ac on. Public input from your cons tuents represents unpaid hours taken off of work, a lot of personal stress, and me away from
family commitments.
Your cons tuents have already spent tens of thousands of dollars on private a orneys to protect their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes against poorly sited cannabis factories. This is all in public record.
PLEASE make sure the public knows that you are listening, and that you care. (Thank you Commissioner Brotherton for this quote.)
Maximize money already spent:
The Jefferson County Planning Commission has put together a perfectly edited version of the zoning change needed to protect RR5 neighborhoods from the threat of cannabis factories forever, just as
neighboring coun es have done already. Barely any more work needs to be done on this issue - what more is needed?
The Planning Commission does not take their me to do this work without good reason. Commissioners, PLEASE harness the work they have already done for you, and leverage their me, energy and money
already invested. No need for reinven ng the wheel, or for costly new studies, or new commissions.
Please finish the job - we are inches from comple on right now.
This pressing issue of cannabis factories that damage quality of life in RR5 neighborhoods is not going away.
We s ll care about our RR5 homes despite the severe distrac ons of COVID-19. A er COVID is resolved, future genera ons will appreciate the work you can do NOW to protect our rural quality of life here in
Jefferson County! Let's get this loophole closed - YOU HAVE THE POWER.
Thank you once again very sincerely, Bonnie Story
Bonnie Story <bonnie@storyboardproductions.com>
Tue 8/18/2020 3:40 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Philip Morley <pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Lorna4Commissioner@gmail.com
<Lorna4Commissioner@gmail.com>; heidi4commissioner@gmail.com <heidi4commissioner@gmail.com>; Leader newsroom <news@ptleader.com>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us
<gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us>; news@peninsuladailynews.com <news@peninsuladailynews.com>;
293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene, WA 98376
360-302-0379 bonnie@storyboardproduc ons.com
PS: Don't forget to review the a achments - voices that you need to hear, if you have not already!
***********************************
Comment Summary 4-17-19 PC Hearing.pdf
MLA19-00019 JCPC UDC MJ Regs 2-27-19.pdf
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Marijuana grow/processing facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To: County Officers:
As a concerned resident of a rural residential area of Jefferson County, I am requesting that banning of marijuana grow/processing businesses be placed on the docket of 2020 for review by the Jefferson County Planning Commision
and that same be reviewed in 2021 by the Board of Commissioners.
I appreciate your efforts to protect the citizens of Jefferson County from tmarijuana grow/processing businesses invading and destroying our rural residential communities.
Thank you,
Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn
265 Blueberry Hill Drive
Quilcene, WA
Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn <vhniederkorn@gmail.com>
Tue 8/18/2020 6:25 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Placing an important issue on the Jefferson County 2020 Planning Commission Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Date: August 18, 2020
Regarding: Placing the issue of banning marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas on the Jefferson County 2020 Planning Commission Docket.
Statement in favor from:
James L. Olson, M.D., dabob2016@outlook.com
Heather Carmichael Olson, Ph.D., quaintlyquirky@gmail.com
We are writing as property owners and taxpayers in Jefferson County for over 30 years. We care very much about environmental conservation, andvolunteer for the Jefferson Land Trust.
We feel strongly that the issue of banning marijuana facilities in rural residential areas should be placed on the 2020 docket.
Currently, staff time is being wasted by applications that are considered and, ultimately (after much time and effort), appropriately denied. Fundingis being wasted by reviewing applications under the conditional use process. Many other counties have decided that rural residential zoning areasshould not be used for what amounts to an industrial process, which leads to environmental degradation, of marijuana growing (and, frequently,processing) operations.
Jefferson County has so much beauty to protect. This issue is a priority. Staying true to the decision of the Board of County Commissioners last year,this should be placed on the docket for consideration in 2020.
Feel free to contact either of us with questions. We care.
Heather and Luke Olson
Heather Olson <quaintlyquirky@gmail.com>
Tue 8/18/2020 7:51 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:Heather Olson <quaintlyquirky@gmail.com>; James Olson <dabob2016@outlook.com>;
2019 Marijuana Code Revisions proposed for 2019 Docket and deferred
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I plan to move that these code revisions proposed originally for the 2019 docket move forward for inclusion in the 2020-2021 docket. I believe that there are extenuating circumstances as to why the March Docket proposal deadline
was not met. I understand that the Hearing Notice did not include this proposal, and may need to be published again, with the hearing record kept open.
Thank You,
Lorna Smith
Planning Commission Member District 2
http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/edoc/2072592/MLA19-00019 JCPC UDC MJ Regs 2-27-19.pdf
Darrell and Lorna Smith <ecosmithspt@gmail.com>
Wed 8/19/2020 5:23 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Mike Nilssen <nilssen51@gmail.com>;
Cc:Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com>; cynthia koan <cynthia.koan@gmail.com>; Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com>;
2 attachments
WebPage.pdf; ATT00001.htm;
Letter to County Officials Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
>>
>> Dear County Officials:
>>
>> Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County
Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to
place this issue on the 2020 docket.
>> I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
>> Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas.
Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural
residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it
is too late.
>> Warm regards,
>> Carol Gonnella
>> 120 Beach Drive
>> Nordland, WA 98358
>>
Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com>
Thu 8/20/2020 5:23 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Attached .pdf Letter re. "Block Marijuana Facilities in RR zoning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Please see the attached file "8-2020_no marijuana in rr zone.pdf". I ask that my comments be included with any records generated by the process involved.
(Thank You)
Lee & Amy Does <ldoes@frontier.com>
Thu 8/20/2020 7:58 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
1 attachment
8-2020_no marijuana in rr zone.pdf;
Lee
M.
Does
8802
Flagler
Road
Nordland,
WA
98358
20
August
2020
TO:
Jefferson
County
Board
of
County
Commissioners
Jefferson
County
Planning
Department
RE:
Amendment
to
Jefferson
County
Code
Dear
County
Officials:
Some
four
years
ago,
a
concerned
group
of
Marrowstone
Island
residents
invested
considerable
time
-‐as
well
as
over
fifty-‐thousand
dollars-‐
to
argue
against
a
commercial
marijuana
grower
seeking
to
place
a
10,000
square
foot
grow-‐and-‐
process
facility
on
rural
residential
land
here
on
the
island.
While
our
group
did
eventually
prevail,
we
were
continually
astounded
that
our
county
failed
in
providing
protections
against
something
that
would
result
in
industrializing
a
unique
and
close-‐knit
neighborhood.
Four
years
later,
our
county
has
apparently
done
nothing
to
restrict
such
development
to
being
located
within
the
industrial
zoning
it
requires.
I
am
asking
that
you
place
the
issue
of
prohibiting
commercial
marijuana
facilities
within
rural
residential
onto
the
2020
docket.
Doing
so
would
put
our
county
in
line
with
the
majority
of
Washington
counties.
Had
such
a
prohibition
been
in
place
four
years
ago,
our
county
could
have
saved
itself
from
two
overflow-‐crowd
public
hearings
with
untold
wasted
hours
and
related
expense
of
both
county
and
resident
time.
Please
get
this
amendment
underway
and
into
the
county
code.
Doing
so
now
will
help
maintain
and
protect
the
beauty
and
future
livability
of
our
county.
Sincerely,
Lee
M.
Does
2020 docket: prohibit marijuana facilities in RR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged you, our County Commissioners, to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana
facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket.
Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a
desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket. I am asking you, as my representatives, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority of counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in areas zoned rural residential. They have made this
prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the
process of getting a conditional use permit. Surrounding neighbors who may be opposed to such facilities are given the burden of presenting
their opposition to the county and/or a hearing commissioner. The process is time-consuming and expensive for the County, the applicant,
and the opposing homeowners. You, our elected County officials, can take away these burdens by prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural
residential zones. If such a prohibition is in place, applicants can locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go
through an onerous process. We ask you to protect our rural residential lands before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Does, Ph.D.
8802 Flagler Rd.
Nordland, WA 98358
adoes2@frontier.com
Thu 8/20/2020 8:01 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana Facilities in RR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana
facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket.
Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a
desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this
prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through
the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be
taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could
locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. PLEASE, we ask you to protect
us before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Bob and Debbie Williams
696 East Marrowstone Road / PO Box 97
Nordland, WA 98358
Debbie Williams <rainshadow98358@gmail.com>
Thu 8/20/2020 9:05 PM
To:jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; magbrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us <magbrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana facilities in RR zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on
the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean
voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in
these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a
hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected
County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their
facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late.
Regards,
Tom And Linda Weiner
123 Beach Dr.
Nordland, WA 98358
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.
·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Tom Weiner <tweiner66@gmail.com>
Thu 8/20/2020 10:09 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the
2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted
yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in
these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship
and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County
officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in
over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late.
Regards,
Timothy Tibbals
200 Beach Drive
Nordland, WA 98358
Tim Tibbals <slabbit.mit@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 6:51 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the
2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted
yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in
these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship
and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County
officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in
over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late.
Regards,
Alice Tibbals
200 Beach Drive
Nordland, WA 98358
Alice Tibbals <tibbals.alice@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 6:58 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
PLEASE put, on the 2020 docket, the issue of banning marijuana facilities in rural residential zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I believe it imperative to put the issue of banning marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas on the 2020
docket by amending the Jefferson County. Code (JCC).
I live just 4 properties south of the then proposed Austin Smith facility on Marrowstone Island, and attended and
spoke at your meetings, and the 3 hearings. Thankfully that permit was denied, at considerable cost to the islanders
AND the DCD---your (OUR county) money could have been spent on other benefits to the community.
I agree with the information in the above letter from fellow islanders .....
In 2019, Kate Dean wanted it on the 2019 docket. That did not happen. However, both Patty Charmas and Greg
Brotherton recommended putting it on the 2020 docket. Well, it IS 2020 now. Please keep your word. Protect the
citizens of Rural Jefferson County before it is too late.
ADelia Yvonne Otterness
360-385-3276
9064 Flagler Rd.
(P.O. Box 232)
Nordland
Yvonne Ot <evadneo@hotmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 8:55 AM
To:Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
1 attachment
8-2020 Letter to County Officials 8.docx;
1
August 18, 2020
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
The Jefferson County Planning Commission
Dear County Officials:
We will soon be entering our fourth year of asking you, our elected Jefferson County leaders,
for assistance in protecting the homes and quality of life of Jefferson County citizens who reside
in rural residential zoning areas from commercial marijuana grow and/or processing facilities.
Over these years, we have had many individual meetings with most of you, including all County
Commissioners. We have attended and presented at many BOCC and Planning Commission
public hearings to address our concerns. We have had three administrative hearings before the
Hearing Examiner. We have worked with the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office on a new Hearing
Examiner code, rules of procedure, and JCC amendments. To date, we continue to feel: THE
COUNTY HAS DONE NOTHING TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS regarding this issue.
On June 17, 2019, the BOCC considered a review of banning marijuana facilities in rural
residential zoning areas on the 2019 docket by amending the Jefferson County Code (JCC). My
notes reflect the following statements in pertinent part:
PHILLIP MORLEY: In consideration of the staffing shortages and the work program, I
must be realistic about the capacity of the DCD to complete this subject on the 2019
docket……I recommend denying the placement of this issue on the 2019 docket.
PATTY CHARNAS: With our existing commitments, we have both limited finances and
staff. Our staff is unable to take on this matter at this time. In 2020, we want to do the
analysis, we want this on the docket.
GREG BROTHERTON: I have read the written comments…. I take the recommendation
of the DCD. I would put it on the 2020 docket.
KATE DEAN: I understand there is work involved. Presently almost all other counties
prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential. I do not think it would be that much
work. We are asking both the operator and the neighboring properties to take on an
enormous burden. I would like to eliminate that burden. By not putting it on the
docket, it may create more work for the DCD.
At this BOCC public hearing, the Commissioners voted 2-1 in opposition to the placement of the
matter on the 2019 docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted to deny, while
Commissioner Dean voted to place the matter on the docket.
2
We are now asking you to place this matter on the 2020 docket. Let’s review the two reasons
for denial as stated by the County in the above statements, which in essence are lack of money
and staff time.
In the past three years, Jefferson County has had two separate administrative hearings on a
proposed marijuana facility on Marrowstone Island by applicant Austin Smith representing
Olympus Gardens, and one administrative hearing on a proposed facility in Coyle from an
application submitted by the Williamson family. In this latest hearing, the application was
denied, and thus, in all probability, there will be an additional hearing on the Coyle matter
sometime in the near future.
1. STAFF TIME. The review of each application by DCD requires an extensive amount of
time of many County employees. It involves review of the application to analyze that
the application complies with every single requirement of JCC 18.40.530 for conditional
use permits (CUP). County staff must obtain and analyze pertinent technical data, such
as water (availability, quality, stormwater, wastewater, contamination from runoff),
odor pollution, noise pollution, infrastructure services, just to name a few technical
issues. In addition, it must examine more subjective issues such as harmony, design,
character, merit or detrimental effects to the surrounding area. This detailed analysis
must be completed for every single application. It puts a great burden on the staff of
the DCD as well as other County employees. When several residents of Marrowstone
Island met with David Sullivan on January 26, 2019, he lamented the cursory,
inadequate review of the DCD regarding the Austin Smith application. My notes reflect
him telling us: “This type of thing shouldn’t happen. The DCD has let us down and we
are ultimately responsible for that. I apologize for the system not working. Had the DCD
done it right, it should have been a no”. (The DCD had recommended approval of the
Smith application, stating the application had satisfied every requirement of JCC
18.40.530, approval criteria for all conditional uses without supporting data and
information).
We have been told that the DCD is overworked and understaffed, which may be a
reason there may be inadequate review. To give just one example of the DCD’s failings
in determining approval of an application, the first Smith application and the Williamson
application were asking approval for not only a grow operation, which requires a
conditional use permit, but also a processing operation, which additionally requires a
cottage industry permit. The first requirement of a cottage industry permit, as set forth
in JCC 18.20.170(4), is that the cottage industry be operated by at least one full-time
bona-fide resident residing in a single-family residence on the parcel. In the decision of
the first Smith hearing, dated October 31, 2017, Mr. Causseaux, the Hearing Examiner,
found that no one was residing on the parcel and the application failed the bona-fide
resident requirement. It was one of the main reasons for denial. Ironically, the same
basic set of facts were mirrored in the Williamson hearing. Testimony was that no one
was presently residing on the property. Thus, one of the main reasons Mr. Causseaux
denied the Williamson application on April 1, 2020 was that the bona-fide resident
3
requirement was not met. In our humble opinion, the DCD made the same mistake
twice by failing to adequately review and incorrectly recommending approval of both
the Smith and the Williamson’s applications.
2. FUNDING. The argument that the County does not have the money to place this issue
on its 2020 docket is spurious. This money represents our taxpayer dollars and we feel
the County is being penny wise and pound foolish. Patty Charnas indicated that the cost
to the County to put this issue on the 2019 docket would be about $7000, and lamented
that the County did not have those resources. We would guess that the cost of review if
put on the 2020 docket would be just about the same. But how much time and money
does the County expend to review an application under the conditional use process? At
a meeting with Phillip Morley on January 26, 2019, he was asked how much it cost for
each application. He stated he did not know the exact figure but approximated $30,000.
That means for the review and two hearings of the Austin Smith application, it cost the
County about $60,000. Using that approximation to date, the Williamson application
has cost the County about $30,000 and that figure will be doubled if there is another
hearing. For just two applications, the County has spent at least $90,000, and it may be
closer to $120,000. Even if the County is reimbursed in part by a CUP applicant for
County time, the process is a significant work burden on the DCD employees and
prevents them working on more important issues that would improve the quality of life
for the residents of Jefferson County.
Vigo Anderson, a citizen of the County, has made a public records request around the
middle of March, 2020 for the exact cost to the County of each CUP application for a
marijuana facility in a rural residential zoning area. Due to the COVID -19 emergency,
the five-day requirement for delivery of records was suspended by Governor
proclamation. Jefferson County’s website posted this proclamation and added that
“responses to requests for records may be somewhat delayed during the period of the
Covid-19 emergency, but Jefferson County will make every effort to provide a first
response to public record requests within five days and to maintain communication with
records requestors in a timely manner as staffing, availability, and workloads allow”. To
date, Mr. Anderson, the requestor, has heard nothing from the County about his
request made nearly five months ago.
We respectfully request that you place this issue on the 2020 docket. It is time as time
is of the essence to protect your citizens. And it is time that the citizens of Jefferson
County feel that the County is listening to them.
The below residents of Marrowstone Island and Coyle thank you for considering this
request,
Kathleen Waldron Vigo Anderson John Gonnella
Ron Rempel Chris Wilson Carol Gonnella
Patricia Earnest Victoria Galanti Sherryl Wilson
Marijuana grow operations in rural residential areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Commissioners, please act decisively to move the review of zoning changes relative to this subject into this year. Thanks very much.
Jackie Gardner
136 Gereaux Lane
Quilcene (Coyle)
Jacqueline Gardner <jacquelinegardner50@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 9:24 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Leonard V. Mermod
395 Fort Gate Road
Nordland, WA 98358
20 August 2020
To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Planning Department
RE: Amendment to Jefferson County Code
Dear County Officials:
Some four years ago, I along with a concerned group of Marrowstone Island residents invested considerable me –as well as over fi y-thousand dollars- to argue against a commercial marijuana grower
seeking to place a 10,000 square foot grow-and-process facility on rural residen al land here on the island.
While our group did eventually prevail, we were con nually astounded that our county failed in providing protec ons against something that would result in industrializing a unique and close-knit
neighborhood. Four years later, our county has apparently done nothing to restrict such development to being located within the industrial zoning it requires.
I am asking that you place the issue of prohibi ng commercial marijuana facili es within rural residen al onto the 2020 docket. Doing so would put our county in line with the majority of Washington
coun es. Had such a prohibi on been in place four years ago, our county could have saved itself from two overflow-crowd public hearings with untold wasted hours and related expense of both county and
resident me. I for one would prefer not to go through that process again.
Please get this amendment underway and into the county code. Doing so now will help maintain and protect the beauty and future livability of, not only Marrowstone island, but all of Jefferson county.
Sincerely,
Leonard V. Mermod
Len and Beckie Mermod <lvrjm@olympus.net>
Fri 8/21/2020 9:54 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Rebecca j. Mermod
395 Fort Gate Road
Nordland, WA 98358
20 August 2020
To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Planning Department
RE: Amendment to Jefferson County Code
Dear County Officials:
Some four years ago, I along with a concerned group of Marrowstone Island residents invested considerable me –as well as over fi y-thousand dollars- to argue against a commercial marijuana grower
seeking to place a 10,000 square foot grow-and-process facility on rural residen al land here on the island.
While our group did eventually prevail, we were con nually astounded that our county failed in providing protec ons against something that would result in industrializing a unique and close-knit
neighborhood. Four years later, our county has apparently done nothing to restrict such development to being located within the industrial zoning it requires.
I am asking that you place the issue of prohibi ng commercial marijuana facili es within rural residen al onto the 2020 docket. Doing so would put our county in line with the majority of Washington
coun es. Had such a prohibi on been in place four years ago, our county could have saved itself from two overflow-crowd public hearings with untold wasted hours and related expense of both county and
resident me. I for one would prefer not to go through that process again.
Please get this amendment underway and into the county code. Doing so now will help maintain and protect the beauty and future livability of, not only Marrowstone island, but all of Jefferson county.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J.. Mermod
Len and Beckie Mermod <lvrjm@olympus.net>
Fri 8/21/2020 10:00 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Commercial marijuana grows and processing in rural residential areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners,
Following up from a very long string of efforts, hearings, studies, and public meetings, I’m writing to add my voice to the broad based citizen request that you add formal consideration of the prohibition of
commercial marijuana operations in rural residential areas to the 2020 docket.
The majority of counties in Washington prohibit commercial marijuana facilities in rural residential areas. These prohibitions protect citizen in these areas from the many harms that flow from such facilities
(odor, noise, lights, traffic, and so on, as we know you are aware). Jefferson County’s continues to allow such facilities under conditional use permits but only does so in the face massive and persistent public
opposition. Further, even under the current county rules, past decisions allowing such facilities in rural residential areas have relied on dubious interpretations of those rules that have been repeatedly overruled
by Hearing Examiners. It seems obvious that public reaction and legal precedent run against the current stance of the county on this issue.
Last year the Planning Commission, after much public input, requested the issue be added to the 2019 docket but the Commissioners voted to defer. So we ask again: Please add this issue to the 2020 docket
for further public consideration and action.
Thank you, Dave Fitzpatrick, Nordland, WA
david fitzpatrick <d.a.fitzpatrick@comcast.net>
Fri 8/21/2020 10:57 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Letter to County Officials Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT
place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County allows such
facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a
marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in
over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late.
Please keep marijuana production in industrial zoned areas where its risks to the environment can be mitigated and we have more readily available emergency and police services.
Sincerely,
Katherine Cody
260 Beach Drive
Nordland, WA 98358
Katherine Cody <codykatherine@hotmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 11:35 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Letter to County Officials Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
>>>>
>>>> Dear County Officials:
>>>>
>>>> Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County
Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to
place this issue on the 2020 docket.
>>>> I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
>>
>>>> Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas.
Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural
residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it
is too late.
>>
>>>> Warm regards,
Lori Johnson
Lori Johnson <lori.j.77@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 11:59 AM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Please Review marijuana grow operations in Rural Areas This Year
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the Jefferson County Planning Commission,
This letter is to respectfully request that you review the appropriateness and legality of marijuana grow operations in our rural areas as part of your work this year.
This has become an urgent issue in our community, and one that needs to be resolved as soon as possible in order to address the attempted inroads currently being made into our rural communities. This is of concern for many
reasons, including:
* sufficient water for residents
* water quality
* noise pollution / quality of life
* crime concerns
* traffic
* integrity of the rural environment
Marijuana grow operations are not appropriate for Jefferson County rural areas and threaten the communities, safety, and wellbeing within them. Please do review this issue this year.
Thank you,
Sheila Husting
1294 Lemonds Drive
Quilcene WA
Sheila Husting <sheilahusting@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 12:20 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us <gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us>;
Re marijuana grow operations.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern
I am writing to request oversight on possible marijuana grow operations in our pristine part of Jefferson county.
1. Most people move to small (10 acre) parcel plots of land in beautiful Jefferson county to enjoy the peace and quiet, not to mention fresh air. Marijuana grow and processing plants are not compatible with
that goal. Several owners on the Coyle road have already put their properties up for sale.
2. The cost of reviewing the regulations was estimated at less than $8,000. And yet so far the county has paid considerably more in staff time and hearing officer costs ( $30,00?) to deal with objections to
proposed plants. Is that good use of county taxes?
3. The groups arguing against allowing these plants in rural residential zones are growing. We are not going away. You will be dealing with us for years if you don’t just get it on the docket for a formal review
this year.
Please protect this part of the peninsula from these operations.
Celia Evans
Sent from my iPhone
Celia Evans <evans.5@me.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 12:35 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana grow operations in rural residential areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
It is important to do the review of marijuana grow operations in rural residential areas this year. Please don’t delay it any longer.
I live in Coyle and do not want industrial facilities like this to be allowed here. The traffic, the noise, the demand on our aquifer, and the god-awful smell do not belong in residential zones. I am sure none of you would want to live
next to a facility like this.
This issue is urgent as there is a proposal to move a marijuana grow facility from Port Townsend to Old Coyle Road merely to take advantage of lower real estate and operating costs.
Please address the issue this year and help preserve the pristine beauty of our forests.
Respectfully,
Colleen and Roland Faragher-Horwell
471 Dietz Drive
Quilcene, WA. 98376
Colleen Faragher-Horwell <colleen.faragher@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 12:43 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Time for Action- Prioritize Revision of the CUP process in regards to Marijuana facilities in Rural Residential Zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Commissioners and Planning Commission
At various BOCC meetings and with each of you individually last year, I explained the rationale and need to amend the County Code regarding marijuana facilities being named as a condition use in Rural Residential Zones in Jefferson
County. During those conversations each of you acknowledged that we raised legitimate issues regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process as currently administered by DCD in regards to marijuana grow and processing
facilities. It’s now time to take action to fix the problem and save the County time and money.
To appropriately serve and protect the quality of life for the citizens of Jefferson County, the BOCC needs to make the revision of the CUP process as it relates to marijuana facilities a priority and place it on this years docket for
revision. Anything less will continue to result in costs (both monetary and personnel time) to the county, wasted energy and funds by potential applicants, utilization of community/citizen resources (which could be better spent
improving community amenities, and creating anti-business publicity/anti-business perception of Jefferson County. Having a process that works is better for business and better for the community. It’s time to fix the “rules”
Sincerely
Ron Rempel
Sent from my iPad
RON <rrempel2@msn.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 12:49 PM
To:Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Request your consideration re MJ facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibi ng marijuana facili es in rural residen al
zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and
Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that me, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this ma er on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority coun es in Washington prohibit marijuana facili es in rural residen al zoning areas. They have made this prohibi on to protect the ci zens
who live in these residen al areas. Jefferson County allows such facili es if the applicant goes through the process of ge ng a condi onal use permit. The
process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a
neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibi ng these facili es in rural residen al zones. If this prohibi on were
in place, applicants could locate their facili es in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before
it is too late.
Warm regards,
Jo Jackson
140 Beach Drive
Nordland, Wa
98358
JO JACKSON <JOJACKSONJ@msn.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 1:17 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
MARIJUANA ISSUE
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thank you.
Kris ne
Kris ne Burns
7013 Flagler Road,
Nordland, WA 98358
(360) 385-1516 kkb@utab.us
Kristine Burns <kkb@utab.us>
Fri 8/21/2020 1:36 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
1 attachment
BURNS Letter to County Commissioners MARIJUANA ISSUE.PDF;
Please Support Marijuana Review Docket!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials-
I want to thank the Planning Commission for unanimously supporting the Marijuana Review Docket ( MCA19-00019 ) in 2019! I also want to thank County Commissioner Kate Dean for
her support. I am asking the Planning Commission to continue your support for 2020, and for Kate Dean, and at least 1 other County Commissioner, for their support!
In a recent August 18, 2020 letter written to you by Carol Gonnella, co-signed by 9 Marrowstone & Coyle residents, Carol quoted Kate Dean during a June 17, 2019 BoCC review:
Kate Dean : “.... Presently almost all other counties prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential. I do not think it would be that much work. We are asking both the operator & the
neighboring properties to take on an enormous burden. I would like to eliminate that burden. By not putting it on the docket, it may create more work for the DCD”
Thank you, Kate Dean, for hearing our concerns !!! I agree with Kate that it would be better for the operator, the neighboring properties, the DCD Planners & the Hearing Examiner to
have a simple “NO” for any marijuana facilities in rural residential zones. There are plenty of other approved sites in our county. Why build Industrial facilities in our neighborhoods?!
And the cost of processing this docket item is around $7000, which is so much less than than the amount of time & money spent on each application! That same letter said that each of
the 3 applications cost the county around $30,000, for a total of $90,000, as well as an immense amount of staff time! Let’s cut costs during this Covid 19 era & remove this option from
the DCD workload!
I am also tired of County citizens paying private attorneys to fight our own tax supported DCD Planner & County attorney, who are both supporting an applicant who may not even live in
our County, let alone on their property. I want our County officials working for the hundreds of citizens that do live here, pay taxes, & do not want their quality of life or their health
damaged!
Both David Sullivan & Greg Brotherton wanted this docket reviewed in 2020. So, if the Planning Commission supports this Docket item for 2020, & at least 2 County Commissioners vote
for it, than many citizens in Jefferson County will finally feel heard & supported!! And the DCD can then spend their time supporting our County zoning laws, rather than working on a CUP
to circumvent them...
Thank you for all of your hard work for our County!
Sincerely
Kathleen Waldron <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 1:56 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@icloud.com>; Patricia Earnest <earnest.pj@gmail.com>; Vigo E Anderson <vigoanderson@gmail.com>; Ron Rempel <rrempel2@msn.com>; Kathleen <kathleen.waldron@icloud.com>; Victoria
Galanti <vicgal1804@gmail.com>;
Letter to County Officials Re: Rural Residential Marijuana Facilities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners
voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the
2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Having been through this issue in recent years, and having heard expert testimony citing high levels of noise and smell emanating from Marijuana grow and/or processing facilities, and having incurred significant cost
and time commitment to challenge such a facility on Marrowstone Island, I strongly request you to place the issue of prohibition of marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2020 docket.
Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas. Jefferson County
allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the surrounding homeowners who may
be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural residential zones. If this prohibition were in place,
applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us before it is too late.
Regards,
Bruce Carlson
2522 E Marrowstone Rd
Nordland, WA 98358
Bruce Carlson <bruce.carlson61@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 2:45 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Letter regarding Addition to 2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission Members
Folks,
As others have pointed out "we are entering our fourth year of asking you, our elected Jefferson County leaders, for assistance in protecting the homes and quality of life of Jefferson County citizens who reside in rural residential zoning areas from commercial marijuana grow and
I have owned property on Kens Way (off the Coyle) for seven years and Rosalyn has lived here for over thirty years. We believe it is unconscionable that the county continues to allow marijuana grow and processing plants in rural residential areas. We have both attended many meeti
Before any more homes in rural areas are affected by this policy, it is critical to have the Department of Community Development review these regulations.
I strongly urge you to put this review on THIS YEAR’S DOCKET.
Thank you.
Steve Date
702 Kens Way
Quilcene WA 98376
Rosalyn Roberts
1201 Kens Way
Quilcene WA 98376
steve date <aaadate@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 2:48 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana facilities in RR zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission Members:
A ached please find a le er regarding marijuana facili es in Rural Residen al zoning areas. This le er is a request for the addi on of this issue on the Jefferson County 2020 Docket.
Gary Williams
Williams Law Office
360.765.0729
Areyoucovered.com
Gary Williams <gw@areyoucovered.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 3:46 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Cc:David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us <gbrotherton@co.jeferson.wa.us>;
1 attachment
gw 8-21-20.pdf;
GARY WILLIAMS
MARILYN MITCHELL
252 Blueberry Hill Drive
Quilcene,WA 98376
August 21,2020
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
The Jefferson County Planning Commission
re: Amending the JCC to ban marijuana facilities in Rural Residential zones
Dear County Officials:
Please add our names to the list of Marrowstone and Coyle residents who oppose
marijuana facilities in Rural Residential zones in Jefferson County. To date, we have been
told that you lack fimds to consider the issue.
As you know, it is far more expensive to continue on the present path than it would be to
ban marijuana in RR zones. You can docket this issue and decide it once and for all, at a cost
of about $7,000. Why spend much more money processing individual applications? The
Williamson and Smith cases have cost far more, and accomplished far less.
Please docket an amendment to the code so we can resolve this once and for all.
Sincerely,
Marilyn S. Mitchell
ryWilnams
Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County
Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a
desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority of counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas.
Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural
residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us
before it is too late.
Respectfully,
Debra Ayres
780 Schwartz Rd.
Nordland, WA 98358
Debra Ayres <raskyl.da@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 4:04 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana Facilities in Rural Residential Zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear County Officials:
Last year the Planning Commission of Jefferson County urged the County Commissioners to place the issue of prohibiting marijuana facilities in rural residential zones on the 2019 docket. The County
Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket. Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a
desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
Presently, the majority of counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas.
Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural
residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. We ask you to protect us
before it is too late.
Respectfully,
Bud Ayres
780 Schwartz Rd.
Nordland, WA 98358
Alva Ayres <aeayres10@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 4:11 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Greg Brotherton <GBrotherton@co.jefferson.wa.us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Rehashing same request, 2020 version.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Jefferson County Planning Commissioners ~
A quick note on the inclusion of the elimination of Cannabis Facilities in Rural Residential Jefferson County in the 2020 Docket.
Why?
Why must we state, over and over again, our request?
You did your due diligence and approved this last year. It was kicked down the road by the JeffCo Board of Commissioners.
So this isn't about your commission.
It's about us. The rural residents and taxpayers!!
Please listen again, and approve.
Thank you very kindly,
Karen Grooms
301 Eaton Road
Quilcene/Coyle, WA 98376
karen@eutoposfarm.com
Fri 8/21/2020 4:30 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
08-19-2020 Public Hearing Comments
Rec'd After Comment Period Closed
To County Officials Re: Marijuana Facilities in RR on 2020 Docket
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To Our Jefferson County Officials:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many citizens of Jefferson County have been asking you, our County Leaders, to review the change in the Jefferson County Code regarding the placement of marijuana facilities in rural residential (RR)
areas for several years. Last year the Planning Commission urged the County Commissioners to place this issue on the 2019 docket. The County Commissioners voted 2-1 to NOT place the issue on the docket.
Commissioners Sullivan and Brotherton voted no, and Commissioner Dean voted yes. At that time, many County officials expressed a desire to place this issue on the 2020 docket.
>>>>>> I am asking you, our County Officials, to place this matter on the docket for 2020.
>>>>
>>>>>> Presently, the majority counties in Washington prohibit marijuana facilities in rural residential zoning areas. They have made this prohibition to protect the citizens who live in these residential areas.
Jefferson County allows such facilities if the applicant goes through the process of getting a conditional use permit. The process creates a hardship and burden on the County, the applicant, and the
surrounding homeowners who may be opposed to having a marijuana facility as a neighbor. You, our elected County officials, would be taking away those burdens by prohibiting these facilities in rural
residential zones. If this prohibition were in place, applicants could locate their facilities in over 60 percent of the county without having to go through this onerous process. The costs, both financial and time, is
an expense to all that can be alleviated by making the rules clear and concise. We ask you to hear us and to protect us.
>
>
>>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> John Gonnella
>>>>
>>>>>> 120 Beach Drive
>>>>
>>>>>> Nordland, WA 98358
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
John Gonnella <jgonnella1@gmail.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 5:26 PM
To:jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Marijuana in Rural Areas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am James L. Olson MD and I am a property owner at 907 Kens Way.
I would strongly recommend pu ng this on the docket to discuss 2021. I feel that marijuana plants are not the same as stands to sell vegetables. They don’t belong in a rural area. Once they are there
they slip into the school system and talking to a teacher from Port Townsend I have found that kids in third grade are using it. I would check with the school system to find out more informa on. Sincerely,
James L. Olson MD
James Olson <dabob2016@outlook.com>
Fri 8/21/2020 6:12 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Proposed By-Laws
DRAFT
Page 1
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
BY-LAWS
Of the Jefferson County Planning Commission
SECTION 1 - AUTHORITY:
These by-laws are promulgated in compliance with the Washington Planning Enabling
Act, Chapter 36.70 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the Washington
Planning Enabling Act, 18.05.050 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC) and Jefferson
County Resolution No. 54-97, which resolution recognized the Jefferson County Planning
Department and reconstituted a new Planning Commission.
SECTION 2 - MEMBERSHIP:
The Planning Commission shall be comprised of nine members from Jefferson County, .
and Members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) for a term of four years, which shall commence on March 18th.,
and eEach commissioner district shall be equally represented on the Planning
Commission.
The chair of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall appoint members to
the Planning cCommission with approval of a majority of the Board’s members. An
appointment of a member to the Planning Commission shall be made from a list of
applicants who shall submit a “Letter of Intent” to the Board of County Commissioners
stating their qualifications for serving on the Planning Commission.
Vacancy(ies) on the Planning Commission shall be advertised at least twice in a legal
newspaper of record having county-wide circulation. The advertisement shall
encourage individuals residing in the specific commissioner district in which the vacancy
occurs to apply.
Vacancies resulting from the expiration of terms of office shall be filled by appointments
for a term of four (4) years. Vacancies occurring for any reason other than the
expiration of a term of office shall be by appointment for the unexpired term of the office
being filled.
In the eventIf a Planning Commission member changes residence during their a term
which that results in the member moves moving them into a different commissioner
district, that member shall serve the remainder of their term. If through redistricting , a
Planning Commissionermember is moved into a different commissioner district, they
shall remain in office until their term expires. The vacant position in the appropriate
district shall then be filled after the term expires.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Hyperlink, Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt, Not
Bold
Formatted: Superscript
Page 2
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
The chair of the Board of County Commissioners may remove a member of the
Planning Commission after a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. All
Board members must approve the removal. A member of the Planning Commission
may be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
The chair of the Planning Commission may grant an excused absence or a leave of
absence.
“Excused absence” is defined as an absence from one regular meeting.
“Leave of absence” is defined as an absence from two or more regular meetings.
Two unexcused absences in a row from regularly scheduled meetings shall be grounds
for the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that
the individual member be removed from the Planning Commission.
Furthermore, aA member granted a leave of absence by the chair of the Planning
Commission is not an active member.
Only active members shall constitute the current membership of the Planning
Commission.
SECTION 3 - MEMBER’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES:
The duties and responsibilities of the planning Planning commission Commission shall
be as follows:
1. The Planning Commission shall not make recommendations to the Board that
are inconsistent with state or local law as reflected in the Washington
Constitution, the RCWs, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the JCC or
any other Jefferson County ordinances or resolutions.
2. The Planning Commission shall not make recommendations that are inconsistent
with WAC 365-196-725, which states that comprehensive plans and
development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) are subject to the supremacy principle of Article VI, United States
Constitution and of Article XI, Section 11, Washington state Constitution.
1.3. Because Jefferson County has created both a planning commission and
planning department (Department of Community Development – “DCD”), the
Planning Commission will, in accordance with RCW 36.70.040, assist the DCD in
carrying out its duties, as outlined below.
2.4. The planning Planning commission Commission shall review the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents to determine if the
Page 3
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
county’s plans, goals, policies, land use ordinances and regulations are
promoting orderly and coordinated development within the Jefferson
countyCounty. The Planning commission Commission shall make
recommendations in cooperation with DCD concerning this to the board Boardof
commissioners.
3.5. The planning Planning commission Commission shall review land use
ordinances anddevelopment regulations of the Jefferson county County and
make recommendations in cooperation with DCD regarding them to the board
Boardof commissioners.
4.6. The planning Planning commission Commission shall recommend
priorities for and review studies of geographic subareas in the Jefferson county
County in cooperation with DCD.
5.7. All other county boards, committees, and commissions shall coordinate
with the Planning Commission their planning activities, as they relate to land use
or the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
6.8. The planning Planning commission Commission may hold public hearings
in the exercise of its duties and responsibilities as it deems necessary.
7.9. The planning Planning commission Commission shall have such other
duties and powers as heretofore have been or hereafter may be conferred upon
the commission by Jefferson county County ordinances or as directed by
resolution of the board Boardof commissioners, the performance of such duties
and exercise of such authority to be subject to the limitations expressed in such
enactments.
8.10. The Planning Commission shall report in all matters findings referred to it
within the time line given in County Resolution #54-97, which is forty (40) days,
or within such additional time as may be specified by the Board of County
Commissioners. The report of the Planning Commission shall be advisory only.
SECTION 4 - OFFICERS:
SECTION 4 ‐ OFFICERS: Officers of the Planning Commission shall be chair and vice‐
chair.
Candidates for chair and vice chair shall be nominated from the floor annually at the first
regular meeting in September from among its members.
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Cambria Math, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Cambria Math, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Page 4
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
The election shall take place at the next scheduled meeting unless 2/3 of currently
seated (and active) members of the Planning Commission vote at the nominating
meeting to hold the election at the same meeting.
Nominations from the floor can also take place at the second/election meeting (if held).
In the absence of both the chair and vice chair at a meeting or workshop, members
present shall elect a temporary chair to perform those duties described by Section 5 of
these by‐laws.
The member elected temporary chair shall only serve as temporary chair for that
meeting or workshop.
Officers of the Planning Commission shall be chair and vice-chair. The chair and vice-
chair shall be elected annually at the first May October regular meeting from among its
members. In the absence of both the chair and vice-chair at a meeting or workshop,
members present shall elect a temporary chair to perform those duties described by
Section 5 of these by-laws. The member elected shall only serve as temporary chair for
that meeting or workshop.
SECTION 5 - OFFICERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES:
The chair of the Planning Commission shall: (: (1) preside at all meetings and execute
the agenda of such meetings in an orderly manner; and, (2) officially represent the
Planning commission Commission before organizations or groups.
The vice chair shall officiate as chair in the chair’s absence.
SECTION 6 – COMMITTEES OF LESS THAN A QUORUM OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
When appropriate and necessary, the chair shall establish committees and appoint
members theretoto them. If made up of less than a quorum of the Planning
Commission, Committees are not governed by the Open Public Meetings Act (Section 8
paragraph 2Chapter 42.30 RCW) and therefore do not require public notice of
committee meetings and or an audio record of such Committee meeting.
SECTION 6 7 - SECRETARY:
The secretary shall be provided by the Planning Department. The secretary’s duties
shall be to record and document the proceedings of all Planning Commission meetings.
No member of the Planning Commission shall be appointed secretary.
SECTION 7 8 – STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Cambria Math, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian
text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline
Page 5
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
The Jefferson County Planning Department shall provide staff to the Planning
Commission. The designated county planning staff shall: (1) prepare for future
meetings with the chair of the Planning Commission, (2) distribute agendas for meetings
and workshops, (3) prepare the Planning Commission budget, (4) account for and
process expenditures, (5) notify members by e-mail of workshops, and, (6) where
sufficient staff resources exist, act in any other manner deemed necessary by the
Planning Commission, such as providing technical advice or developing plans, studies,
or reports.
SECTION 8 9 - MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS:
Since the Board is required to consider its recommendations, the Open Public Meetings
Act (Chapter 42.30 RCW) applies to any scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission shall follow the requirements of the Open Public Meetings
Act. Any action taken in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act subjects all persons
who participate in the meeting to liability under the Open Public Meetings Act. Under
the Open Public Meetings Act, “action” is defined broadly to include “the transaction of
the official business … including but not limited to receipt of public testimony,
deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final act ions.”
RCW 42.30.020(3).
Notification to the public of all Planning Commission meetings shall be made through
advertising in a legal newspaper of record with county-wide circulation. Planning
Commission Meetings meetings requiring public notification include, butinclude but are
not limited to: (1) regular meetings, (2) special meetings, (3) public hearings, (4)
workshops, and (5) committee meetings. Notification will appear at least ten (10) days
prior to a public hearing. Workshops can be held on matters of discussion by approval
of the Planning Commission with notice to the public. No official action shall be taken at
any meetings or workshops that involve a quorum of the Planning Commission. If a
meeting needs to be canceled due to a lack of a quorum, a notice shall be posted on
the door of the meeting place.
The Planning Commission is subject to the The Open Public Meetings Act, which
generally requires that meetings of the governing bodyan agency be open to the public
and that no conditions precedent to attendance by the public, except for orderly
conduct, may be imposed. Therefore, the Planning Commission shall not ban the use
of recording devices or video cameras from the open portion of a meeting held pursuant
to the Open Public Meetings Act. The county legislative bodyPlanning Commission
may impose restrictions on the use of recording devices, but only to the extent
necessary to preserve the orderly conduct of the meeting.
E-mails between the members addressing matters before the Planning Commission
could be construed to be a virtual public meeting, particularly if there was any response
to such communication. Therefore, all e-mails related to matters before the Planning
Page 6
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
Commission should must be forwarded to the planning desk at
pcommissiondesk@co.jefferson.wa.us staff for appropriate distribution.
SECTION 9 10 - CONDUCT:
Except where in conflict with these By-laws, Robert’s Rules for Small Boards, Robert’s
Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, pp. 487-488 (Robert’s Rules for Small
Boards) Roberts Rules of Order for small businesses or commissions shall guide the
conduct of all public meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 10 11 -– QUORUM:
Under the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW the Planning Commission
can take no action by secret ballot. RCW 41.30.060.
A majority of the Planning Commission membership, being not fewer than (5) five, shall
constitute a quorum for the consideration of most items of businessaction, with a
majority vote of those present being sufficient to take action.
Comprehensive Plan Changes, Zoning Changes, By-Law Changes, Unified
Development Code (UDC) changes and other site-specific approvals shall be by the
affirmative vote of notno fewer than (5) five members - a majority of the total
membership.
In the event of a challenge to a member or members of a decision-making body which
would cause a lack of a quorum or would result in a failure to obtain a majority vote as
required by law, any such challenged member(s) shall be permitted to fully participate in
the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred, if the member or
members publicly disclose the basis for disqualification prior to rendering a decision.
Such participation shall not subject the decision to a challenge by reason of violation of
the appearance of fairness doctrine (RCW 42.36.090, Participation of challenged
member of decision-making body).
SECTION 11 12 - VOTING:
All members are entitled to one vote. A vote shall be either (1) yeah, (2) nay, or (3)
abstain. An abstention per Robert’s Rules for Small BoardsRoberts Rules of Order is
not counted as a nay vote. If a member recuses themselves, they shall leave the room
and not take part in any of the discussion pertaining to the matter before the Planning
Commission. All matters acted on shall be recorded as written motions.
The chair is a Planning Commission member and is therefore allowed one vote on all
issues.
Formatted: Strikethrough
Field Code Changed
Formatted: Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font color: Blue
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Blue
Formatted: Strikethrough
Commented [PH1]: See: https://jurassicparliament.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/05/Small-board-rules-different.pdf
Commented [PH2]: I can find no document with this name. See
https://robertsrules.com/books/ . Best to get the name correct.
Formatted: Keep with next
Commented [PH3]: Appearance of fairness doctrine does not
apply. It only applies to members of a decision-making body. RCW
42.36.090. The Planning Commission is not a decision-making
body.
Page 7
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
Some matters before the Planning Commission (e.g., election of officers, approval of
the Planning Commission’s minutes, setting dates and times for special meetings, etc.)
are administrative and not quasi-judicial in nature. Such administrative matters shall be
decided by a majority vote of the active members present.
SECTION 12 13 - BUDGET:
A preliminary budget for the Planning Commission shall be prepared by the Jefferson
County Planning DepartmentDCD. An itemized estimate of expenditures for the
ensuing calendar year shall be included in the preliminary budget. The preliminary
budget shall be reviewed by members of the Planning Commission at the earliest
possible time so the members may express any shortcomings in the budget and make a
recommendation direct to the Board of County Commissioners to address the Planning
Commission’s needs.
The budget shall become final in December without further review by the Planning
Commission, unless there is a substantial change. The budget and any amendments
thereof shall be prepared in accordance with requirements established by the Jefferson
County Auditor.
SECTION 13 14 - CLAIMS FOR EXPENDITURES:
All claims for expenditures for operating the Planning Commission shall be made by the
Jefferson County Planning DepartmentDCD in accordance with requirements
established by the Jefferson County Auditor. All claims shall be reviewed by the
Director of the Department of Community DevelopmentDCD and approved by the Board
of County Commissioners. Any requests to claim mileage, expenses for attending a
conference, seminar, or similar session shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
SECTION 14 – APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Application of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine to local land use decisions shall be
limited to the quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies as defined in this
section. Quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies are those actions of the
legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of
adjustment, or boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific
parties in a hearing or another contested case processing. Quasi-judicial actions do not
include the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive,
community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the
adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amend that is of
area-wide significance (RCW 42.36.010, Local land use decisions).In quasi-judicial
actions, Members shall disclose any and all personal benefits, gains, advantages to
themselves, friends or immediate family; “Immediate family” means spouses,
Commented [PH4]: Appearance of fairness doctrine does not
apply. It only applies to members of a decision-making body. RCW
42.36.090. The Planning Commission is not a decision-making
body.
Page 8
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
dependents, anyone residing in the person’s household, and anyone within three
degrees of relationship by blood, marriage or domestic partner.
Even though Legislative decisions do not require disclosure as detailed in paragraphs 1
and 2 of this section, Planning Commissioners may recuse themselves in Legislative
matters if the commissioner feels that, due to public perception or other consideration,
the Planning Commission's business would be negatively impacted.
No former Planning Ccommissioner Member shall, within two years after his or her term
on the Planning Commission has ended, knowingly act as agent, consultant or attorney
for anyone other than Jefferson County in connection with any particular matter in which
the county is a party, if the Planning Commissioner participated personally and
substantially in that particular matter while on the Planning Commission.
A planning commissioner who is a candidate for public office and who complies with all
provisions of applicable public disclosure and ethics laws shall not be limited from
accepting campaign contributions to finance the campaign, including outstanding debts;
nor shall it be a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine to accept such
campaign contributions (RCW 42.36.050, Campaign Contributions).
SECTION 15 - REPORTS:
Reports of official Planning Commission reviews or official recommendations shall
include only that which has been approved by a majority vote of the members present
as expressed in Section 1011.
Drafts of reports of official Planning Commission reviews or official recommendations
shall be reviewed, corrected as necessary, and adopted by a majority vote of the
Planning Commission active members present.
Under exceptional circumstances, where time is of the essence, this rule may be
suspended by a two-thirds majority of the Planning Commissioners members in
attendance. Should this rule be suspended, the drafters of the subject report shall
make a gooda good faith effort to have the subject draft report reviewed by as many
Planning Commissioners Members as feasible. Under such circumstances, such
reports will be sent to the Planning Commissioners Commissioner members
immediately upon completion. Further, this means of adoption shall be noted on the
facing page of such document.
A Planning Commission minority report may be submitted with a majority report. A
minority report shall: (1) contain the concurrent opinion of two or more Planning
Commission members who participated in the discussion and voted in the negative, ; (2)
be signed by such members, ; (3) not contain diverging opinions, ; and, (4) contain an
issue relating directly to the majority report with which it is submitted.
Page 9
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
One or more business days before any minority report is submitted to the Board of
County Commissioners, a copy of such minority report shall be: (1) submitted to the
Planning Commission secretary, and, (2) made reasonably available to all Planning
Commission members.
The timing of minority reports shall follow the same time linetimeline as the Planning
Commission majority report and be submitted in the same Board of County
Commissioners packet. Such minority report shall be disseminated to the entire
Planning Commission on the day the minority and majority reports are submitted to the
Board packets.
SECTION 16 - AMENDMENTS:
Amendment to these By-Laws may be made at any regular meeting of the Planning
Commission, provided the following conditions have been met:
a. The proposed change has been an item of business at the previous meeting;
b. The proposed change has been e-mailed to the membership ten (10) days prior
to the meeting considering the proposed change;
c. The proposed change is not in conflict with the statutes which authorize the
Planning Commission; and,
d. The proposed change receives an affirmative vote of no fewer than (5) five
members - a majority of the total membership.
SECTION 17 - REPEALER: All previous by-laws of the Jefferson County Planning
Commission are hereby repealed and replaced.
SECTION 18 - ADOPTION: These by-laws, as amended, are hereby adopted this 6th
day of February, 2013.
Jefferson County Planning Commission
________________________________
Bill MillerMichael Nilssen, Chair
________________________________
Michelle McConnellNichole Allen,
Interim Secretary
Commented [PH5]: Date should be changed to date of adoption
of amendments. Date in the footer should be made consistent after
that.
Formatted: Strikethrough
Page 10
Amended 02-06-2013
Formatted: Highlight
Original adoption date 7/23/97; Amended Section 17 on 11/17/99 and 12/1/99; Amended Section 4 on
6/21/00; Amended Section 13 on 7/19/00; Amended Sections 12 & 13 on 5/16/01; Entire revision on
8/6/03; Amended Section 4 on 4/18/07; Amended Section 14 on 1/16/08; Amended Sections 3, 9, 10, 11,
14 & 16 on 9/3/08; Amended Sections 4 and 8 on 6/1/11; Amended Section 8 on 2/6/13.