Laserfiche WebLink
AD i n <br />2. The BOCC finds these building permits for a fence requested information as to if the <br />intended use was for an I-502 enterprise, and that the applicant disclosed affirmatively to <br />each. <br />3. The BOCC finds that these building permits and the associated disclosure of intended use <br />vests the applicant to the regulations regarding that use at the time of the complete <br />building application. <br />4. The BOCC finds that the issue of the presence or absence of a school was adequately <br />dealt with in the MDNS mitigation conditions. <br />5. The BOCC finds the first seven of the appellants' challenges to the MDNS are not new <br />information, are not specific to McDonald's operation, and were adequately considered <br />and dealt with when the county made the legislative zoning decision that McDonald is <br />vested to. <br />6. The BOCC finds the typo in the notice of SEPA decision of no legal import, especially <br />since the appellants were able to make a proper and timely appeal. <br />7. The BOCC finds the process for SEPA was correctly administered — there was no need <br />for a second comment period because plenty of comment was received, none of that <br />comment was new information, none of that comment was specific to McDonald's <br />proposed operation, and no second comment period is statutorily required. <br />8. There also was no statutory requirement for the county to list proposed conditions <br />because it was initially considering issuing a DNS instead on an MDNS. <br />9. The BOCC finds the checklist was adequately filled out. <br />10. The BOCC finds the SEPA mitigations adequate. <br />11. The BOCC unanimously denied the SEPA appeal. <br />12. The BOCC finds that the building permits vested McDonald to disclosed uses. <br />13. The BOCC finds that any irregularity as to the issuance of the building permits is now <br />irrelevant because they were never appealed and are now unchallengeable and legally <br />valid. <br />14. The BOCC finds that the vast majority of the arguments presented by appellants <br />McDowell, and the material they admitted, is not specific to McDonald's operation, is <br />instead material relating to marijuana in general that the BOCC had already considered <br />when it made its initial zoning decisions, and so is not new information. <br />61 <br />