Res-2017-048 CUP Denial - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8. A Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law were issued on October 10, 2016 . The decision was publicized and given a 10 working day appeal period (KCC 15A.07.01O(l)). 9. A timely appeal was filed by Ritch Brownlee on October 25, 2016. Under the provisions ofKCC 15.04.210(4)a single simultaneous appeal is mandated. 10. An open record public hearing was held by the Board of County Commissioners on January 17, 2017 and February 7, 2017 to consider the SEPA appeal and the Conditional use permit appeal concurrently as required by KCC 15.04.210(4). 11. A motion was made by the applicant to dismiss the SEP A Appeal on the grounds that Mr. Brownlee failed to demonstrate that his endangered interest fell within the zone of interest protected by SEPA; and that Mr. Brownlee failed to demonstrate that he has standing; that he must allege a specific and perceptible injury or harm. 12. A motion was made by the applicant to dismiss the conditional use pennit appeal on the grounds that Mr. Brownlee, in filing his appeal, failed to comply with section 15A.07.01O(2) of the Kittitas County Code; and that Mr. Brownlee failed to demonstrate that he has standing; that he must allege a specific and perceptible injury or harm. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners hereby deny the motion to dismiss the SEPA appeal (2-1 vote), deny the SEPA appeal (3-0 vote), and grant the motion to dismiss the appeal of the conditional use permit (2-1 vote), and adopt the above Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law below. 1. Noise, transportation, utilities, public safety, storm water, and light and glare, were all included as elements of concern in Mr. Brownlee's SEP A appeal letter and all fall within the zone of interest protected by SEP A. 2. The appellant's potential lack of sleep, the potential diminished quiet enjoyment of his property, the potential negative traffic impacts, the proximity of Mr. Brownlee's home to the proposed use, and past experiences with the activity as proposed represent alleged demonstrable specific and perceptible injury or harm. 3. The appellant did not provide the required material and information in his conditional use appeal documentation. The appellant did not provide a statement identifying why he felt the decision to be wrong, nor did he provide a statement identifying desired outcome or changes to the decision. 4. Determinations made by the responsible SEPA official are accorded substantial weight. 5. The appellant failed to provide substantive information for the Board of County Commissioners on the record which left it with the definite and finn conviction that a mistake had been committed.