Islanders object to pot plan: Commissioners told: Poor fit with community, lack of time for public comment

Posted

Residents of Marrowstone Island voiced their displeasure to the Jefferson County commissioners May 1 about the prospect of a marijuana-processing business setting up shop in their neighborhood.

Olympus Gardens owner Austin Smith is seeking a permit for the production of, and a cottage industry permit for the processing of, recreational marijuana. The production and processing would be inside a 10,080-square-foot, 23-foot-tall building at 9272 Flagler Road, about a mile from Fort Flagler State Park. The land is zoned rural residential.

A decision on whether to bump up the permit to a Type 3 permit and require a public hearing is to be made after the public comment period ends today, May 3.

Assistant planner Patrick Hopper said Smith’s permit currently is a conditional-use discretionary permit, a Type 2 permit, but that if there is enough opposition or reason to bump it to a Type 3 permit, then that would require a public hearing.

Of the roughly 50 comments he’d received as of May 1, Hopper estimated that most have been opposed to the marijuana processor, with many saying the business would be too large for the island. Another frequent comment he’s received is a complaint of a lack of time for public comment.

Hopper said he would take the comments he’s received to planning manager David Greetham, who expects to make a decision within a week.

The Leader has been unable to reach Smith and has left messages at the phone number listed on the county land-use application. Kevin Coker is listed as Smith’s representative. Coker is currently on the planning commission.

‘NOT MOM-AND-POP’

Catherine Furnia-McConnachie was the first of a dozen island residents to address county commissioners, citing page 18 of the Marrowstone Island Community Development Plan, passed in 1978, as allowing “home of cottage businesses,” defined as employing no more than two people outside the immediate family and existing within “primary residential structures, or common outbuildings such as garages or barns.” A cottage business also should not be affecting “the use, value or enjoyment of adjacent areas or properties,” she said.

“Ten thousand square feet is not a mom-and-pop operation,” said Furnia-McConnachie, whose concerns about potential environmental pollution were echoed by fellow islander Cheryl Brunette.

“It would seem that the planning department never consulted our plan, or else this never would have gotten this far,” agreed Glenn Gately, who has lived on the island since 1977. “This literally goes against every one of our policies.”

Furnia-McConnachie went on to cite Revised Code of Washington 82.04.213, which states that “‘agricultural product’ does not include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products.”

“How can this be sited on ag land when it’s not an agricultural product?” Furnia-McConnachie asked.

Brunette deemed the proposed 23-foot-tall building as “unsightly,” and argued that a marijuana processor would not be exempt from a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review.

Brunette went on to recount the history of the proposed business, with Austin Smith of Seattle asking the county on Sept. 7, 2016 what requirements he would need to meet for a 7,200-square-foot greenhouse.

Although nothing came of that request, on Dec. 7, 2016, Smith went on to ask the county what he needed to do to establish a marijuana production and processing facility.

Smith then filed a proposed conditional discretionary use permit for the marijuana operation March 7.

“It wasn’t until April 18 that a critical review was filed, and public notice went into The Leader,” Brunette said. “It was six and a half months before we knew about any of this.”

Joann Comstock, another islander, noted the discrepancy between plans for the proposed business to have full-time residents, versus state licensing board restrictions against marijuana processing in spaces that afford limited access to law enforcement, such as residences.

Comstock added that he thought a canopy of more than 10,000 square feet would run afoul of county code limiting such a canopy to 5,000 square feet for a “cottage industry.”

“It’s not in keeping with the character of the other properties on our island,” Comstock said. “And with four fines and two written warnings on Olympus Gardens’ record, its track record doesn’t bode well.”

“It’s the worst possible place in Jefferson County to site such an enterprise,” agreed 18-year resident Dave Fitzpatrick. “There are a lot of other places they could go and not have these impacts.”

Lee Does voiced concerns about the proposed marijuana processor’s roughly 500-foot proximity to the Smitty’s Island Retreat RV Park, which, he pointed out, includes a number of small children as either frequent visitors or permanent residents.

MORE TIME TO COMMENT

Does also worried about the additional burdens that could be placed on fire and emergency medical services (EMS) by a manufacturer being located on a “cherry stem island” where the average response time for fire and EMS is 20 minutes.

Steve Burns and Patricia Earnest, president and vice president of the Marrowstone Island Community Association Board, respectively, made it clear that their official position was one of neither support for or opposition to the proposed business.

“We just think there should be more time to comment and consider,” Burns said.

Earnest followed up by asking the county commissioners if they’d looked at Thurston County’s decision to deny marijuana processors in rural areas.

Ruth Roddick, who lives two properties away from the prospective site, lamented that its smell would compound the bad odors she’s already getting from the neighboring hog farm, while Yvonne Otterness, who lives four properties away, worried that chemical runoffs from marijuana processing could feed into the Salish Sea and Mystery Bay.

“There are ponds and swamps behind that property, and you almost used to be able to pick up salmon there,” Otterness said. “My concern is the damage that fertilizer and pesticides could do to the oyster beds and other sea life.”

Tom Thiersch expressed his approval for the morning’s public comment, but shared Brunette’s disapproval of how long it took for Marrowstone Island residents to receive notice of Smith’s application. He suggested that the Department of Community Development (DCD) provide incremental updates on the process.

“This would also result in far fewer public records requests, which are an issue for the county,” said Thiersch, who nonetheless asserted that marijuana qualifies as an agricultural commodity.

County Administrator Philip Morley countered that the county needs to wait until a completed application is submitted. At the same time, he encouraged all those with opinions on the potential siting of a marijuana processor on Marrowstone Island to submit their comments to the DCD by the deadline of May 3, even as he pledged that he and the county commissioners would forward all the letters, emails and other comments they’d received on the issue to the DCD .

County Commissioner David Sullivan assured the islanders that their input, along with considerations of state and federal laws, would be used to determine whether a public hearing is conducted on this subject.

“Just because it was approved by the licensing board, that doesn’t mean it gives them the building permit,” Sullivan said.

NOT THE ONLY ONE

Hopper also said he has been involved in several pre-applications for marijuana projects.

“I’ve done three of these within three weeks, two months ago, and Austin’s [Smith’s] project is the first to come in,” Hopper said.

Hopper said marijuana does qualify as an agricultural product, and the proposed marijuana processor meets the categorical exemption for SEPA.