Meeting

Hearing Examiner: Mitchell P. Delabarre
Planning Staff: Scott Clark, Director, Ed Harrell and Kent Zeimer, Project Planner’s
Secretary: RoseMary Dart

COMMISSIONERS’ HEARING ROOM - GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE
EPHRATA, WASHINGTON

MAY 14, 2003
12:00 NOON

Mitch calls the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.

Mitch reads a disclosure statement into the record.
My name is Mitch Delabarre and I will be conducting the hearing today as Hearing Examiner. I am an Attorney with Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward. An Attorney from my firm is representing Grant County in a pending litigation matter. I am not involved in that matter nor am I familiar with any of the facts. The representation in that case is unrelated to any issues I will address as Grant County Hearing Examiner and will have no impact on my decision-making.
Would anyone wish to comment on that statement? The audience has no comments.

Mitch states general order of items.

Mitch reads the oath to everyone.
Do you hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the testimony you give is truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief? Audience answers in the affirmative.

1. PUBLIC HEARING – Phillip Hintz-Conditional Use Permit for an agriculturally related industrial use in the agriculture zone. The applicant proposes to establish a bottled water facility.

File No. 03-6576
S. 03, T. 20 N, R. 28 E.
Ed Harrell – Project Planner

Ed presents the staff report along with Agencies/Department and public comments that have been received. Ed asks Mr. Delabarre if he has any questions regarding the staff report. Mitch states that he has no questions.

Mr. Delabarre asks if there is anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Delabarre calls the proponent to the stand.

Tape 1, side 1 #185
Brian Vance, 9414 Rd 11.5 NE, Moses Lake, WA. Previously sworn. States that he is representing Shannon and Phil Hintz who are purposing a bottled water facility. As far as the Unified Code there is nothing that covers this area since this is a unique type of business. The permits have been secured from the State approximately thirteen (13) years ago for the well. All the necessary permits have been secured with the exception of the Conditional Use Permit. Being in the agriculture area falls under the premise as the wine growers who bottle their wine on site or the potato growers who package their product on site. They would greatly appreciate an approval on this Conditional Use Permit on those premises.

Counter #200
Mitch asks if anyone else would like to comment. No comments given.

Mr. Delabarre closes public hearing.

Mitch asks if there is any further comment from the staff.
Scott Clark from Grant County Planning suggests conditional approval should be in compliance with Unified Development Code with regard to chapter 23.08, Performance and Use Standard or Industrial Uses as well the development standards of Chapter 23.12.

Mitch asked if it is the performance standards.

Scott states that the later is the development standards specifically regarding parking signage. Chapter 23.08 is the Performance Standards for specific Industrial Uses.
Mitch asks if those conditions 23.08 and 23.12 would apply regardless but is he suggesting that it be made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
Scott states that it should be on the record so the conditions would be complied with.

Mitch asks if there are any other comments on the Hintz Conditional Use Permit.

No comments given.

Hearing is concluded on this request. Mr. Delabarre states that he will have a written decision to Planning within a few days and it will be distributed to the Proponent and made available to the public.

Counter #222
2. PUBLIC HEARING – Janet King – A request from the permit holder to “Withdraw”
Conditional Use Permit issued September 8, 1999 allowing an extended family living arrangement located in the agricultural zone.

File No. 99—2742
S. 01, T. 18 N, R. 20 E
Kent Ziemer – Project Planner

Kent presents the staff report along with Agencies/Department and public comments that have been received

Counter #238
Kent presents photos of site:
The first is the residence, 853 Adams Road. This is the primary residence.
The second photo is of the residence at 737 Adams Road S. It is approximately 250 to 300 feet north of the primary residence.
Counter #254
Kent has a letter from Janet King that he asked if it should be read into the record.
Mitch states no he will read it from the staff report.
Kent asks Mr. Delabarre if he has any questions regarding the staff report.

Counter #271
Mitch-asks if there was any analysis on the process of withdrawing the Conditional Use Permit and whether that can be done administratively or did it require a hearing.
Kent states there is no prescribed method in the current code for this hearing.
Counter #275
Scott Clark, Grant County Planning Director states that there aren’t any that he is aware of and based on the set of unique circumstances in this case it seemed most appropriate and beneficial to have the hearing. The staff had a concern that the proponent understood that if the permit was withdrawn and it is the landowners’ responsibility for the removal of the second home. The landowner may not own the home and there may be issues that will come up as a result of it. The County cannot take action against the property owner of the unit but would be required to take action against the landowner who is the permit holder Mrs. King.
Counter #285
Kent adds the according to the assessors records that Janet King is owner of the parcel of land that the two homes are located on and Mr. Falkenhagen appeared to be in title of the Manufactured Home.

Mr. Delabarre asks it there is someone who would like to speak.
Counter #293
Mrs. Janet King, 853 Adams Road S, Quincy, WA. Previously sworn.

Mrs. King states that she consulted a lawyer who told her she would be responsible for the home left on the place. What she is asking for was an official letter requesting them to move the home off her property.

Mitch encourages her to work with her Attorney to see what remedies she has available and to see how she might be able to solve that particular problem. Mitch states that the only thing he has the authority to do is to act upon the Conditional Use Permit and if it were her request to withdraw that Conditional Use Permit, we would be inclined to grant it because we are not in a position to force her to keep the permit if she didn’t want it. The concern is if she no longer has that Conditional Use Permit she could then be considered in violation of the County Ordinance because that home is on her property. Then the burden would fall upon Mrs. King to solve that problem and move that home at the same time she would have to deal with the County on whatever consequences there are for violating that ordinance.
Mitch asks Mrs. King if the letter from her Attorney is telling her daughter not to proceed with the hearing.
Mrs. Kings states that the Attorney advised her not to proceed with the hearing. She asked again if we could write a letter stating that they should move the home within ninety days.
Mitch explains that we do not have the authority to move the home that all we can do is address the permit that allows the trailer to be there. If she wanted the permit to be withdrawn we can do that for her. Mr. Delebarre states that he does not know if that would motivate her and it would be something that Mrs. King would have to deal with.

Mitch asks Mrs. King if she would prefer to withdraw this request so there is no change in the status of the Conditional Use Permit as per the advise of her Lawyer.
Mrs. Kings answers with a yes.

Mitch asks if there are any other comments from the staff.
The staff has no comments.
Hearing is concluded on this request. Mr. Delabarre states that he will have a written decision to Planning within a few days and it will be distributed to the Proponent and made available to the public.

Hearing closed.

Meeting closed at 12:30 p.m.