HEARING EXAMINER · Pettyjohn SUPT, Project No. 2015100829 page 6 of 25 Exhibit E Letter in opposition from Cameron Wilcox, dated August 23, 2015 u. Comment letter in opposition from

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Cathy Wolfe District One Sandra Romero District Two Bud Blake District Three

HEARING EXAMINERCreating Solutions for Our Future

2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, Washington 98502 (360) 786-5490/FAX (360) 754-2939

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER

FOR THURSTON COUNTY In the Matter of the Application of ) ) ) SUPT NO. 2015100829 ) Ursula Pettyjohn ) ) ) For a Special Use Permit ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND DECISION )

SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of a special use permit to operate a commercial dog kennel and dog training facility with a maximum of forty boarded dogs and classes of not more than six dogs at once within structures existing on the property as of the hearing date, and proposed new outdoor dog runs, together with required infrastructure and site improvements as detailed herein is GRANTED subject to conditions.

SUMMARY OF RECORD Request Ursula Pettyjohn (Applicant) requested approval of a special use permit to operate a commercial dog kennel and dog training facility to board a maximum of 40 dogs and conduct training classes for not more than six dogs at once using structures existing on the property at 7400 Meridian Road SE, Olympia, Washington on the date of hearing. Hearing Date The Thurston County Hearing Examiner conducted an open record public hearing on the request on April 18, 2016. At adjournment, the record was held open for submission of additional information in the form of revised recommended conditions of approval and responses thereto by Planning Staff and the Applicant. Per a post-hearing order, dated April 20, 2016 all items were required to be submitted by May 6th, resulting in a decision due date of May 20, 2016. However, due to considerations unrelated to these proceedings and outside the control of the undersigned, there was a delay in decision issuance.

Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Thurston County Hearing Examiner Pettyjohn SUPT, Project No. 2015100829 page 2 of 25

Testimony At the open record public hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:

Scott McCormick, Associate Planner, Resource Stewardship Department Dawn Peebles, Thurston County Public Health Department Arthur Saint, Thurston County Public Works Ursula Pettyjohn, Applicant Peter Skillings, Skillings Connolly, Applicant Consultant

Edwina Waehling Jeanne Adams Pat Helmick Noel Galyan Linda Drygas Fredrick Dumas Richard DeLapp Zoe Waggoner Kim Johnson Sharon Kophs William Clark Clydia Cuykendall Chris Farwell Susan Giordano Paula Finch Charlene Andrade Wendy Mitkowski Caitlin Anderson Jim Baumgart Pat Pruden Rebecca Hellman Pamela Wimp Paula Sommerville Judy Mason Frank Gorecki Jim Casebolt Linda Cole Mary Rotert Susan Davis Mike Dash Jim Wilcox Linda Friedman

Exhibits At the open record public hearing, the following exhibits were admitted into the record: Exhibit 1 Resource Stewardship Department Staff Report including the following attachments:

Attachment 1 Notice of Public Hearing Attachment 2 Master Application, dated April 8, 2015 Attachment 3 Special Use Permit Application, dated April 8, 2015 Attachment 4 Narrative for Change to Special Use Permit dated March 11, 2016

(revised) Attachment 4-a Narrative for Change to Special Use Permit dated July 14, 2015

(original) Attachment 5 Vicinity and zoning map


Attachment 6 Site Plan, dated April 8, 2015 Attachment 7 2012 TC Geodata Aerial photo Attachment 8 Aerial Photo with Topography Contours Attachment 9 Landscaping Plan for Lead Me On Inc. (undated) Attachment 10 Bark Plan dated March 11, 2016 (revised) Attachment 10-a Bark Plan - undated (original) Attachment 11 Dog Waste Management Plan (undated) Attachment 12 Noise Analysis Report by Skillings Connolly dated June 2, 2015 Attachment 13 Traffic Generation Worksheet dated February 12, 2015 Attachment 14 Engineered Abbreviated Drainage Plan by Skilling Connolly dated

June 2, 2015 Attachment 15 Short Form Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Attachment 16 Residential Subdivision Maintenance Agreement to maintain

stormwater facilities and to implement a pollution source control plan Attachment 17 Lead Me On Kennel STEP Tank – Report by Skillings Connolly dated

June 2, 2015 Attachment 18 Memorandum from Arthur Saint, Thurston County Roads Department,

July 17, 2015 Attachment 19 Memorandum from Dawn Peebles, Thurston County Environmental

Health Department, February 2, 2016 Attachment 20 Notice of Application dated August 18, 2015 with 500-foot radius

adjacent property owner list, dated May 8, 2015 Attachment 21 Soil test results by Twiss Laboratories dated May 2, 2015 Attachment 22 Email from applicant to Thurston County Resource Stewardship

regarding soil testing, dated March 12, 2016 Attachment 23 Notice of Violation to David Imas and Ursula Pettyjohn, dated May

19, 2015


Attachment 24 Appeal of an Administrative Decision (#15-112282 VE) from Cushman Law Offices, P.S., dated June 1, 2015

Attachment 25 Appellant’s Status Report and Motion to Stay Hearing Appeal of

Violation Notice from Cushman Law Offices, dated October 12, 2015, with Exhibits 1 – 3

Attachment 26 Hearing Examiner Decision on appeal #15-112282 VE dated January

8, 2016 Attachment 27 Administrative Special Use Permit 2007101905 for ten dog

commercial kennel, dated January 15, 2008 Attachment 27-a Memorandum from Sara Brallier with Environmental Health, dated

October 22, 2007 Attachment 28 Hearing Examiner Decision regarding Reign Dog Ranch, approval of a

Waste Management Plan for project 2007101905 dated December 17, 2007

Attachment 29 Reign Dog Ranch, Animal Waste Management Implementation Plan

for project 2007101905, signed by applicant on August 22, 2007 Attachment 30 Comment emails and letters from the following:

a. Email from Stephen Hardy in support of the proposed dog kennel expansion, dated March 10, 2016

b. Comment letter in opposition from Brent Dille with Bean, Gentry,

Wheeler, Peternell, dated October 23, 2015 c. Code Violation Investigation Request Form requesting an

investigation of code violations for 7400 Meridian Rd SE (Anonymous – Do not disclose) with attached note (name redacted), dated September 13, 2015

d. Comment letter in opposition from Kay V. Savold, dated

September 2, 2015 e. Comment emails in opposition from Noel Galyan dated August 29,

2015 and February 6, 2015 f. Comment letter in opposition from Jeanne M. Adams and Rick

Kozisek dated August 28, 2015


g. Comment letter in opposition from Arnold A. Reimer, PE, date stamped August 31, 2015

h. Comment letter in opposition from Arnold A. Reimer, PE, date

stamped August 31, 2015 i. Comment letter in opposition from Arnold A. Reimer, PE, date

stamped August 31, 2015 j. Comment letter in opposition from John N. Lawyer, Lawyer

Nursery, Inc. dated August 20, 2015 k. Comment email in opposition from Kay Savold, dated May 26,

2015 l. Code Violation Investigation Request Form requesting an

investigation of code violations for 7400 Meridian Rd SE, dated April 25, 2015

m. Comment email in opposition from Noel Galyan, dated May 12,

2015 n. Comment letter in opposition from Richard Savold, dated May 4,

2015 o. Comment email in opposition from Richard Savold, dated May 5,

2015 p. Comment letter in opposition from Jeanne M. Adams, undated q. Comment letter in opposition from Noel Galyan and DeYonne

Swenson, undated r. Comment letter in opposition from Richard and Kay Savold,

undated s. Comment letter in opposition from Richard Savold, undated t. Comment letter in opposition from Jeanne M. Adams, undated,

with Exhibits A – E Exhibit A Letter from Providence Health Services, dated

September 1, 2015 Exhibit B Adverse Health Effects of Noise (undated) Exhibit C Making Sense of the Poster (undated) Exhibit D Letter from MVP Realty Group, dated August 5,

2015


Exhibit E Letter in opposition from Cameron Wilcox, dated August 23, 2015

u. Comment letter in opposition from Arnold and Charmian

Reimer, dated March 29, 2016, with attached and annotated (March 25, 2016) email from Lead Me On Kennel

Attachment 31 Existing Septic Drainfield Conditions letter, prepared by Skillings

Connolly, December 10, 2015 Exhibit 2 Comment Letters Received Prior to Hearing

1. Susan Brennan, April 15, 2016 (in favor) 2. Olympia Veterinary Hospital, April 12, 2016 (in favor)

a. Michael Kiefer, DVM b. Billie Jo Steckler, LVT, CVDT c. Debbie Robertshaw d. Roberta Havens e. Monika Kray

3. Jeanne Adams, April 13, 2016 (opposed) 4. Noel Galyan and DeYonne Swenson, April 13, 2016 (opposed) 5. Richard Savold, April 12, 2016 (opposed) 6. Arnold Reimer, April 12, 2016, April 9, 2016 (opposed) 7. Kay Savold, April 9, 2016 (opposed) 8. Robin Buckingham Natural Resource Technician, Thurston Conservation

Dist., April 7, 2016 (in favor/not opposed prior to full plan update) Exhibits 3 Color Photos of Public Hearing Notice Posting on Site Exhibit 4 Applicant's Brief in Support of Special Use Permit Application and in Response

to Staff Report, including the following attachments: 1. Map Illustrations 2. Statements from Neighbors 3. Briefing from Appellant's Notice of Violation Appeal 4. Excerpts from Conservation Plan, with April 2012 soil testing results 5. Soil Test Report, 4-14-16 6. Assessor/Treasurer Assessed Values and Recent Sales 7. Letters in Support of Lead Me On Kennel Expansion: Part 1, Part 2 8. Letter from Thurston Conservation District, 3-31-16

Exhibit 5 Comment Letters Submitted at Hearing

1. Frank Gorecki, April 18, 2016 (in favor) 2. Caitlin Anderson, April 18, 2016 (in favor) 3. Sharon Kophs, April 18, 2016 (in favor) 4. Linda Drygas, April 18, 2016 (in favor) 5. Jeanne Adams, April 18, 2016 (opposed)


Exhibit 6 Applicant Letter Regarding Revised Conditions, April 25, 2016, with attached Site Map re: Proposed Landscape Plan and Proposed Condition Inspection Checklist

Exhibit 7 Thurston County Proposed Conditions, May 2, 2016, with attached Thurston

County Requirements for Integrated Pest Management Plan Fact Sheet Exhibit 8 Applicant Response to Proposed Conditions, May 6, 2016, with attached Revised

Applicant Integrated Pest Management Plan1 Also included in the record is the Post Hearing Order issued April 20, 2016. Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record public hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS Site and Surroundings 1. The Applicant requested approval of a special use permit (SUP) to authorize the

expansion of an approved, existing home occupation dog kennel for up to ten dogs into a commercial dog kennel for up to 40 dogs and dog training facility doing business as Ursula's Lead Me On Boarding and Training. The subject property is at 7400 Meridian Road SE in unincorporated Olympia, Washington.2 Exhibits 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.28.

2. The 4.76-acre subject property is zoned McAllister Geologically Sensitive Area (MGSA), which is a low density residential zoning district allowing a maximum density of one unit per five acres. The purpose of the MGSA zone is to provide for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses of a type and density which will minimize the potential for contamination or significant loss in recharge capacity of a vulnerable groundwater aquifer and potable water source of great importance to the general public. As stated in the Thurston County Code (TCC), this exercise of the police power (regulatory power) is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. Exhibit 1; TCC 20.23.010.

3. Site topography is flat to gently sloping, with a 16-foot elevation drop towards the east end of the site. Additionally, the site is located in designated Category I and Category II critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) regulated pursuant to the County's critical areas ordinance. It is also within a delineated capture zone for a Group A community water system. Exhibits 1 and 1.19.

4. According to the County Assessor, the subject property contains a 2,076 square foot residence built in 2000, a 120 square foot shed built in 2007, a 2,388 square foot barn,

1 Planning Staff submitted rebuttal comments in reply to the Applicant’s May 6th submittal; however, the record was not held open for rebuttal from Staff and the rebuttal was not admitted. 2 A portion of Section 7, Township 17 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; Quarter NW Donation Land Claim EATON DLC LL-0440 LT 2 Document 003/118; also known as Tax Parcel No. 09350003014. Exhibit 1.


and a 1,566 square foot storage shed, the latter two built in 2013. The barn was authorized as a detached animal barn with a second story for storage only and for Building Code purposes given an occupancy classification of "U", which according to the International Building Code (adopted at Thurston County Code (TCC) 14.17. 010) is intended for accessory structures for utility and/or miscellaneous uses. Exhibits 1, 1.17, and 1.26. Both structures are served by an existing Group A public water system and an existing on-site sewage system. Exhibit 1.19.

5. Surrounding land uses are primarily rural residences on parcels of approximately five acres. The 4.76-acre parcel immediately north of the subject property is vacant, while to the east are generally large parcels containing residence. Properties to the west are a mix of residences on larger parcels and commercial agriculture. There are also large commercial agricultural uses in the vicinity, including Evergreen Valley Farms immediately west of Meridian Road. Two other commercial kennels operate in the vicinity, including Fido’s Farm at 9829 Evergreen Valley Road, and Northwind Kennels at 9902 Yelm Hwy SE. Exhibits 1 and 4.1; Pettyjohn Testimony.

History of Kennel On-site 6. The existing 10-dog home occupation kennel was approved administratively on January

15, 2008 with a maximum capacity of ten dogs, including the owner's personal dogs. The use was restricted by conditions of permit approval to the 864 square foot garage attached to the single-family residence, with outdoor exercise for the dogs limited to a 40 by 100-foot fenced, off-leash area identified on the site plan. No other structures or area on the property were to be used, and no grooming, breeding, or training services were to be provided. The permit prohibited alteration to the exterior of the building resulting in any change to the character and appearance of the structure as a residential use. Because of the site's location within the MSGA, conditions also required annual soil testing for nitrates and testing every three years for nitrate, ammonium nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, pH, and electrical conductivity. Other conditions also applied through the administrative decision and the waste management plan approval, granted by the Hearing Examiner on December 17, 2007. The 10-dog home occupation kennel was approved under the name Reign Dog Ranch. Exhibits 1.27 and 1.28.

7. Beginning in January 2015, Thurston County received several complaints about activities on-site from neighbors and attorneys representing neighbors. The complaints generally related to noise of extensive duration, unattended barking dogs, and kennel activities in the barn far exceeding the scope of the permits granted. The complaints led to an investigation, which resulted in a notice of violation being issued to the operator (the Applicant). The Applicant both applied for the instant permit to authorize a larger kennel on-site and appealed the notice of violation. Evidence provided by the Applicant at hearing in the form of consultant reports admitted kennel activities in a new building on-site, known as the barn, which had been built and approved by the County as a storage building. The appeal was denied, a penalty was assessed, and the Applicant continued to develop the instant application. Exhibits 1.25, 1.26, and 4; Cushman Argument.

Applicant's Proposal


8. The instant proposal for commercial kennel would operate 24/7 boarding up to 40 dogs, with 10 kenneled in the attached garage and 30 in the first floor of the barn. All facilities proposed to house dogs are set back at least 50 feet from property lines. Dog drop off/pick up hours would be between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. Dog training classes for six dogs maximum at a time would be conducted upstairs in the barn and/or in the parking area between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm. Dogs allowed outside would be kept in five fully fenced dog runs. Each run would be provided with visual screening. Proposed outdoor exercise times would be from between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. The proposal would allow up to four non-resident employees on-site at a time. No outdoor storage is proposed aside from the dog waste container, which would be kept near the barn in a facility with a raised floor and a roof. The Applicant indicates that only those areas indicated on the site plan and application materials would be used in the proposed commercial kennel; no other structures on the property would be used to conduct the business, and there would be no alteration of the existing buildings on-site. No new signage is proposed; the existing sign is less than six square feet and less than 42 inches from the ground to top. Exhibits 1, 1.4, and 1.6.

9. Existing buffers around the site include a seven-foot tall, 100-foot long Arborvitae hedge, with plants space four feet apart, along the existing dog run fence that will remain and a 150-foot long berm on the south and east side of the proposed dog runs. Proposed additional landscaping includes: 36-inch English laurel planted every four feet on top of the berm; 36-inch Leland cypress planted every 7.5 feet along 130 feet of the south side of the new dog run east of the barn; and 36-inch Leland cypress every 7.5 feet along 60 feet of the east side of the same dog run. Exhibit 1.9.

10. The Applicant proposes to manage dog waste with the following measures. Solid dogs wastes from outdoor areas would be collected immediately and bagged daily, to be disposed of in lined, covered containers, to await removal by the solid waste company handling residential garbage pick up. Removal of the waste off-site would be accomplished as often as necessary to manage odor. Residue from solid waste pick up in the outdoor area and liquid waste would be washed into the soil. Kennels would be cleaned out using a wet/dry vacuum, using a bucket rather than a hose. Cleaning products would be stored inside the barn. The barn has no floor drains. No spills of cleaning products are expected to be released onto the ground or into ground or surface waters. Exhibit 1.11; Pettyjohn Testimony.

11. The application included a dog bark plan, addressing management of barking dogs to prevent nuisance noise. The following steps would be implemented: Outdoor dog runs would have visual screening to prevent barking during drop

off/pick up; Dogs would be let out in small groups in separate runs visually screened from

one another; Play groups would be monitored for compatibility to deal with barking; Doors to the building would be shut in the morning when dogs are first let out

of kennels;


No dogs would be outside between 8:00 pm and 7:00 am; Training classes would be held inside with closed windows if the dogs bark; Four employees at a time would be present in addition to site residents to

respond to barking; Dogs would be kenneled in a space tailored towards their social and safety

perception needs; and Music would be played in the boarding areas to help relax the dogs.

The barn was designed to contain and address dog barking. There is an indoor play area for dogs that cannot be prevented from barking. The reception area is separate from the boarding areas, so dogs checking in or out do not set off kenneled dogs. Kennels in the barn are in separate rooms, to allow smaller groups of dogs in the same space. The building was insulated for noise containment. As proposed, dog barking would not be allowed for periods of greater than 20 continuous minutes, for a maximum of one hour per day, if the sound level is loud enough to be annoying off-site. Exhibits 1, 1.4, and 1.9; Pettyjohn Testimony.

12. The Applicant retained the services of a professional consultant to measure the sound levels generated by dogs in the proposed facility as experienced at the site boundaries. The sound consultant attempted to measure sound from a "worst case scenario" by stimulating ten dogs to bark and measuring the sound volumes at appropriate locations. The reasoning for using ten dogs and complete methodology of the study are detailed in the report, in the record at Exhibit 1.12. Addressing sounds from dogs indoors, the study stated that such sounds would not contribute significantly to outdoor sound levels while the doors of the buildings are closed. Noting that a maximum of 20 dogs is proposed to be allowed outside at any one time (a noise control feature not mentioned in the Applicant's bulleted bark management plan), the consultant calculated at sound levels experienced at site boundaries would be below the maximum threshold of 55 decibels during the times that dogs are allowed outdoors and thus, the business would not generate noise at property boundaries in excess of the County's adopted noise standards. The consultant testified that human ears can barely distinguish between 10 barking dogs and 20 barking dogs, so the concern that noise complaints would increase due to expanding permission for up to 40 dogs is misinformed. Exhibit 1.12; Skillings Testimony.

13. Access to the business would be via the existing paved driveway. The existing driveway would be required to be widened in order to provide commercial and emergency access, and a paved parking spot and sidewalk to the building must be provided in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Applicant anticipates approximately 20 customer visits daily. A professional consultant report addressing stormwater management requirements noted that while runoff from the barn's impervious surfaces was addressed through its building permit process, drainage for the graveled parking area outside the barn was not provided and must be included in the instant proposal. Exhibits 1.4 and 1.14.

14. The subject property's septic system was reviewed to ensure it has capacity for the expanded use on-site. A professionally prepared engineer's report noted that the property


had been used as a commercial kennel for up to 40 dogs and for training classes for about 18 months prior to the report date of June 2, 2015. Records for the original septic design show the system was designed to handle 360 gallons per day. Twenty-seven months of water usage information was provided showing an average consumption of 307 gallons per day. The engineer submitted that the existing system was adequate to handle the proposed use. Exhibit 1.17.

15. Regarding use-specific kennel standards, the Applicant offered the following. All of the outdoor areas where dogs would be allowed to be off-leash are fenced. The site plan shows that all buildings and dog runs that could house dogs are set back 50 feet from the north, east, and south lot lines, and well in excess of 50 feet from the west lot line. The proposal includes retention of existing screening and additional screening, in particular along the perimeters of dogs runs as seen from off-site. The proposal also includes solid waste management and bark management plans that were accepted by Environmental Health. Exhibits 1, 1.6, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, and 1.19.

County Staff's Review of the Proposal 16. The County Code requires commercial uses to provide a minimum five-foot landscaped

buffer along all public rights-of-way and adjacent to residential uses. When adjacent to a residential zone or use, the buffer must be densely planted with site-obscuring trees and shrubs. TCC 20.45.040. During a March 24, 2016 site visit, County Staff found that a landscaping buffer had been established along the north side of the previously approved dog run; however that buffer is less than five feet wide. Resource Stewardship Staff indicated that the submitted landscape plan does not buffer the proposed use from other properties consistent with TCC 20.45 nor with conditions of the previous permit, neither in terms of installing required plantings nor obtaining inspection of plantings. Staff recommended conditions of approval requiring a revised landscape plan to be submitted indicating a 20-foot wide site-obscuring buffer around the perimeter of the property sufficient to reduce visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties. Exhibits 1 and 1.27; McCormick Testimony.

17. Additionally, Staff noted that the steepest slopes on site are included in the proposed dog run, such that stormwater runoff, potentially containing animal waste, excess nutrients, and pathogens would be able to travel downhill towards an off-site stream. Staff noted in the present condition there is very little vegetation in this area to slow and treat stormwater runoff and therefore recommended a condition requiring a minimum 20-foot wide buffer of native shrubs and trees along the east property line. Exhibit 1; McCormick Testimony.

18. In response to landscaping conditions in the staff report, the Applicant's sound consultant provided testimony indicating that for noise mitigation purposes, a vegetative buffer located closer to the noise source would be more effective than one at the property boundaries. Skillings Testimony. Based on this testimony, the Applicant requested amended landscaping conditions allowing the buffering landscaping to be planted adjacent to the dogs runs rather than at the perimeter. Cushman Argument. The specific language finally proposed for the landscaping and other conditions of approval was discussed off the record after the hearing and submitted with comments from both parties. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.


19. With regard to dog waste management, Planning Staff indicated that a factor of primary

importance is the subject property's MGSA zoning. In relation to the original kennel permit for 10 dogs, a nutrient management/farm plan prepared by the Thurston Conservation District was approved by the Hearing Examiner. Exhibit 1.29. The Applicant's proposed “Waste Management Plan” (Exhibit 1.11) was not prepared in consultation with the Thurston County Conservation District (TCCD). With the fourfold increase in dogs on-site, the older plan requires an update. On Staff's suggestion, the Applicant began consultation with the TCCD to update the farm plan; however, it was not completed by the time of hearing. Although Thurston County Environmental Health reviewed and conditionally approved the current “Waste Management Plan” and the kennel use-specific requirement for waste management was technically satisfied, Planning Staff submitted that an updated farm plan is required prior to expansion to 40 dogs for the protection of the aquifer. Staff included a recommended condition addressing an updated plan. Exhibit 1; McCormick Testimony.

20. The Applicant also requested modifications to the waste management condition. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.

21. The subject property contains substantial areas of soil types preferred by the Mazama pocket gopher, a federally listed endangered species. There is no record that the site has ever been reviewed for the presence of the Mazama pocket gopher, despite the 2013 construction of the barn and conversion of a large area north of the barn from grass and trees to gravel parking. Development of the parking area was not approved through any County review process. The parking area must be reviewed for the Mazama pocket gopher during the 2016 survey season which begins June 1st. After the hearing, Staff provided a proposed recommended condition addressing the required review. Exhibits 1 and 7; McCormick Testimony.

22. The record includes soil testing data from April 2012, May 2015, and April 2016. All three test results show that site soils are high in phosphorous, but within normal limits on all other tested values. Exhibits 1.21, 4.4, and 4.5. Planning Staff noted that this documentation does not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the previous permit for soil testing, which were imposed for the protection of drinking water and other groundwater resources. Exhibit 1; McCormick Testimony. On this matter, the Applicant testified that the high phosphorous was likely the result of her application of fertilizers in an attempt to provide the landscaping required by the previous permit. Pettyjohn Testimony.

23. The Environmental Health Division (EHD) of the Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department reviewed the project for compliance with health codes and determined that with conditions the proposal could comply with all requirements within EHD's purview. After reviewing the materials, EHD Staff noted that while the on-site septic has a design capacity of 360 gallons, its operating capacity is 270 gallons per day. However, based on the engineer's report (in Finding 14 above) and supporting documentation detailing waste water flows and strength, EHD determined that the OSS could accommodate the proposed levels of activity without exceeding the capacity of the


system or exceeding residential waste strength standards. The EHD conditions were incorporated into the staff report's recommended conditions of approval. The recommended conditions include an annual operational certificate for the on-site sewage system, prohibition against on-site grooming, and compliance with County noise standards including recommendation that the Applicant develop a noise monitoring plan. Exhibit 1.19; Peebles Testimony. Based on a request from the Applicant, EHD Staff agreed that removing solid dog wastes once a week would be acceptable, so long as odor and containment do not become issues. Peebles Testimony.

24. The Thurston County Public Works Department reviewed the project for stormwater, erosion control, traffic, and access requirements and determined that the proposal is capable of complying with all applicable standards under the Department's purview with conditions. The project would be required to widen the on-site right-of-way to 20 feet from the existing road edge into the site and create an emergency vehicle turn around. Public Works Staff did not identify any off-site traffic impacts to County transportation facilities from the proposal. Exhibit 1.18; Saint Testimony. At hearing, Public Works Staff agreed that many of the recommended conditions were "boilerplate" in nature and, in order to facilitate compliance review and enforcement if the permit is approved, selected those that were most appropriate to the proposal and recommended withdrawing all but recommended conditions J16 and J18. Saint Testimony.

25. The proposal involves no new construction and no ground disturbing work sufficient to trigger review for compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); it is categorically exempt from SEPA review pursuant to County Code. TCC 17.09.055; Exhibit 1.

26. Written notice of public hearing was sent to all owners of properties within 500 feet of the site. Notice of hearing was also published in The Olympian and posted on-site on April 8, 2016. Exhibits 1 and 1.1.

Public Comment 27. Written comments received by the County included the following (paraphrased)

concerns:

In favor There is a need in Thurston County for the quality of boarding provided by LMO. Several people commented that it is the only place they will take their dogs. A local veterinarian of 43 years recommends LMO training as effective and endorses the kennels as set up to provide a low stress experience for boarded dogs. Waste management practices on-site, as observed by patrons, are successful and address the County's water quality concerns. The individual kennels and the dog yard are immaculate and odor free. Sound engineering principles were used to predict noise levels that show the use can comply with County limits; this evidence appears to have been ignored in the staff report in favor of subjective conclusions. LMO staff is knowledgeable, friendly, and organized. Customers have no worry about their dog’s safety or wellbeing at LMO. The Applicant’s business practices regarding feces and noise are misrepresented in the public


documents opposing the permit; customers testified that she runs her business with strict rules. Denial of the permit will negatively impact hundreds of patrons and dogs. Thurston County and City of Lacey policies encourage business development and expansion. Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.

Opposed There should be consequences for violating rules and regulations. The Applicant should not be rewarded for disregard of others. Forty dogs barking and traffic in and out would result in reduced property values if this permit is approved. The Applicant's violation of her previous permit should be reason to deny this permit. Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 5.5.

28. At hearing, those who attended provided the following (paraphrased) testimony:

In opposition to the proposal: Quality of life: One opponent said 40-dog kennel next door was impacting quality of life.

Wrongful business: One opponent is not happy with the deception and implementation of a wrongful business plan.

Cleanliness of dog runs: One opponent is concerned about the dogs pooping in the grassy area behind the house because he has never seen anyone pick it up.

Noise, nuisance: Both opponents expressed concern about dogs on the Pettyjohn property fighting at the fence with neighbor’s dogs.

Testimony of Jeanne Adams and Noel Galyan.

In support of the proposal: Cleanliness of kennel and dog runs: Nearly all customers in favor of the kennel testified that it and the yard are kept clear of dog waste, and that they are instructed to immediately pick up after their dogs when on the grounds. All were in agreement that dogs are safe here and the facilities are hygienic because staff are vigilant in hygiene policy and practice. All want to continue using this kennel in the future. Some have taken their dogs to other kennels when the Applicant does not have room and several stated that their dogs got sick at other kennels but have never become ill at LMO. Many were referred to LMO by their veterinarian who also testified that she refers to this kennel because of the humane treatment of animals and cleanliness; she asserted that dogs do not get sick at this kennel. A majority stated that they will not board their dogs anywhere else. The consensus is that the Applicant is passionate and educated, creating an environment that is best for the dogs. Noise: Many testified to observing no or minimal barking when on-site, stating they can’t hear any dogs barking in the kennel when they are walking out on the property. A neighbor who lives across the street stated that he hears more barking from other dogs in the community than from the Applicant's property. One customer stated that the Applicant only lets her own dogs out onto the farmland, not the boarded dogs. A long-term property owner in the area who


drives by every day can only see evidence of the business when driving north; he testified that his renter nearby did not know a kennel existed on-site. A dog competitor, trainer, and judge has spent the night at the Applicant's house and slept soundly without dog barking noises. Beneficial, necessary resource: Among those who testified in favor, there was consensus that LMO kennel and training are high quality, necessary services. Many asserted that this kennel is necessary, because the dog owning community is underserved in Thurston County. Losing the kennel's capacity and excellence, and the Applicant's unique training ability, would be a loss. One long-time member of community testified that the Applicant has been a good neighbor and that she has never done anything but beautify the valley; he opined that her successful business increases the value of his property. Dog training: There was testimony of service dog training for a disabled military veteran and others with disabilities, as well as training for disabled dogs. Some expressed the concern that untrained dogs are a public safety problem. Training clients agreed that the positive dog training is valuable and rare to find, and had helped dog owners with difficult behavior issues. Another dog trainer endorsed the Applicant's credentials. Other testified that the Applicant has successfully trained abused and rescue dogs, reducing aggression, and that dogs trained by the Applicant can be used as therapy pets. Staff, jobs: The kennel employs people in the community. A former employee who was laid-off testified that she picked up dog waste in the back pasture regularly. Legal considerations, discrimination: An attorney opined that denying the permit based on already resolved/punished past violations may be double jeopardy, and it may also be discrimination against a woman owned business.

Testimony of Edwina Waehling, Pat Helmick, Linda Drygas, Fredrick Dumas, Richard DeLapp, Zoe Waggoner, Kim Johnson, Sharon Kophs, William Clark, Clydia Cuykendall, Chris Farwell, Susan Giordana, Paula Finch, Charlene Andrade, Wendy Mitkowski, Caitlin Anderson, Jim Ba umgart, Pat Pruden, Rebecca Hellman, Pamela Wimp, Paula Sommerville, Judy Mason, Frank Gorecki, Jim Casebolt, Linda Cole, Mary Rotert, Susan Davis, Mike Dash, Jim Wilcox, Linda Friedman.

29. In response to public comment about noise impacts, the Applicant indicated that much of

the barking experienced in the neighborhood is from other sources. She testified that there are a lot of coyotes in the wetlands and streams in the area, and that someone in the neighborhood breeds wolf hybrids that howl in the mornings. Dogs on her property are not let out until 7:00 am, so any barking before that hour is not from her operation. She also noted that many residents have personal dogs that bark when outdoors. Regarding the impacts of a commercial kennel on the rural residential neighborhood, Fido’s Farm and Northwind Kennels are both less than a mile away and both are substantially larger


than the proposal. There are other commercial enterprises in the area including the lavender farm, a mobile slaughter, a horse boarding facility, lots of livestock, and a small airport all in the immediate surroundings. The Applicant asserted that traffic and noise of her operation would be consistent with these uses in the neighborhood. She also noted that many neighboring landowners support her proposal or at least do not have noise complaints about her operation. She submitted home sale price information for parcels adjacent to the other two larger kennels in the area, asserting that the information showed her project would not negatively impact home values. Exhibits 4.1, 4.2, 4.6, and 4.7; Pettyjohn Testimony.

30. Regarding landscaping requirements, the Applicant noted she does not have an irrigation water right and that all irrigation would occur with her domestic water supply. After receiving the previous permit, she planted arborvitae and installed fabric along the fence line, but the arborvitae did not fill in. She had to plant it twice because first planting completely died. She stated that her soil is sandy and very permeable. She testified that she would not be able to plant the recommended vegetated perimeter buffer without irrigation. She would be happy to coordinate with the Thurston Conservation District. Pettyjohn Testimony. Counsel for the Applicant argued that the sound consultant's undisputed expert testimony supports moving the landscaping buffer closer to the actual source of sound, the dogs runs, which would still accomplish visual screening from neighboring properties and the right-of-way. Cushman Argument.

31. Regarding dog waste management, the Applicant testified that it is more important to a kennel operator than to most people that dog waste be handled properly in order to keep boarded dogs healthy and clean. She testified that employees and customers are trained to pick up feces as soon as a dog leaves it, and to hose down the site to get rid of residue. Bagged dog waste is put in a small container, and waste management takes it weekly from her site. Regarding water use in kennel cleaning, the Applicant testified that her operation cleans kennels out by hand using a bucket. For cleaning products, they rotate between a bleach water mix and Simple Green using rags and gloves. Other commercial kennels clean with a hose, but dogs suffer from being wet. Her facility has no gutter system and the floors are all level; no hose cleaning would be possible. Pettyjohn Testimony.

32. Regarding the number of dogs proposed to be on-site, the Applicant testified that her boarding facilities include 12 enclosures in the attached garage and 19 in the barn, or only 31 kennels. She stated that the training classes sometimes bump up against each other in the schedule, meaning some dogs could arrive for the next class before all dogs from the previous class have left the site. In that case, she estimated a total of 12 dogs could be present for training at once in the worst case scenario. Pettyjohn Testimony.

33. Regarding comments about exceeding her previous permit, the Applicant explained that it happened because she has a close relationship with most of her clients and she found it very difficult not to help clients when they need urgent boarding service. Sometimes she took on more than 10 dogs due to a death in a client's family, or in the case of unexpected hospital stays by dog owners. She found it hard to say no because the barn existed. She


acknowledged that it had been "a bad call" to exceed the 10 dog limit and testified that she will not be adding kennels beyond those in existence on-site. Her primary interest is dog health; cramming dogs in is not her intention. To the extent that Staff's recommendation for denial was based on the objections of her neighbors, the Applicant asked the County to consider all the support she has demonstrated in the record to balance out the complaints of a few neighbors. Pettyjohn Testimony. Counsel for the Applicant argued that commercial kennels are allowed in the MSGA zone so long as they are properly managed. He contended that past noncompliance is not an indicator of future noncompliance because the maximum use desired is now proposed and the Applicant has significant personal, professional, and financial motivation to comply with all restrictions imposed through the instant process. Cushman Argument; Exhibit 4.

34. Planning Staff submitted that, based on the record, the existing permitted kennel has not complied with all required Thurston County laws, plans, and permit conditions and that it would therefore "be challenging to make a finding that intensifying the use by 400% (from 10 to 40 dogs) would result in a better outcome." Exhibit 1. Staff contended that allowing four times the number of dogs to be boarded by an operator who has shown little inclination to follow the regulations and restrictions of her permit could have a foreseeable deleterious effect on surface and ground water quality and quality of life in the MSGA zone. Planning Staff noted,

[I]t is not possible for Thurston County to closely monitor day to day activities on site, including picking up and properly disposing of animal waste and monitoring dog barking. If dog waste is not always picked up and disposed of in a timely and appropriate manner, water quality problems will result. ... Given there is no way to ensure waste will be properly managed or soil tested and reports submitted on a regular basis, it appears that public health, safety and welfare cannot be guaranteed. Given the sensitive nature of the aquifer in this area, limiting the number of dogs permitted is the best way of reducing or mitigating the likely impacts." Exhibit 1.

In addition, based on the many complaints received by the County regarding excessive barking, excessive numbers of dogs, and customers visiting the site, Planning Staff is unable to recommend a finding that the project would “not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property, neighborhood character, natural environment, traffic conditions, parking, public property or facilities or other matters affecting the public health safety and welfare.” At the conclusion of testimony, Resource Stewardship Staff continued to recommend denial of the application; however, Staff acknowledged that they did not have all of the public comment in favor at the time the staff report was drafted. Staff submitted that if the decisionmaker finds the record shows that the application is capable of complying with required criteria for approval, the recommended conditions in the staff report would help to ensure compliance with all applicable County regulations. These recommended conditions incorporated all recommendations made by Public Works and Environmental Health Staff, as modified during the hearing. Exhibit 1; McCormick Testimony.


35. The Applicant requested some changes to the recommended conditions and proposed additional conditions intended to assuage concerns over potential noncompliance and any potential noise, groundwater, or other impacts. In post hearing exchange, the Applicant and Planning Staff discussed how best to craft the conditions to address the potential impacts. They did not reach mutual agreement on all details. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.3

CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to decide this special use permit application under Sections 2.06.010 and 20.54.015 of the Thurston County Code, and Section 36.70.970 of the Revised Code of Washington. Special Use Permit Criteria for Review The Hearing Examiner may approve an application for a special use permit only if the following general standards set forth in TCC 20.54.040 are satisfied:

A. Plans, Regulations, Laws. The proposed use at the specified location shall comply with the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan, and all applicable federal, state, regional, and Thurston County laws or plans.

B. Underlying Zoning District. The proposed use shall comply with the general purposes and intent of the applicable zoning district regulations and subarea plans. Open space, lot, setback and bulk requirements shall be no less than that specified for the zoning district in which the proposed use is located unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter.

C. Location. No application for a special use shall be approved unless a specific finding is made that the proposed special use is appropriate in the location for which it is proposed. This finding shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Impact. The proposed use shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects

on adjacent property, neighborhood character, natural environment, traffic conditions, parking, public property or facilities, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare. However, if the proposed use is a public facility or utility deemed to be of overriding public benefit, and if measures are taken and conditions imposed to mitigate adverse effects to the extent reasonably possible, the permit may be granted even though said adverse effects may occur.

3 Changes to recommended conditions are within the authority of this hearing body to ensure the project can achieve compliance with all applicable regulations. Where the parties were in disagreement, the more protective and/or more feasibly implemented language was selected. Where the conditions were unclear, internally inconsistent, or inadequate to address all issues raised in the record, the undersigned exercised this authority and reworded or drafted new conditions to achieve compliance. The conditions have been renumbered for ease of review and enforcement in the future. Any recommended conditions not adopted were found not to be necessary to ensure compliance or not consistent with standard land use permitting processes.


2. Services. The use will be adequately served by and will not impose an undue burden on any of the improvements, facilities, utilities, or services existing or planned to serve the area.

Applicable Use-Specific Standards TCC 20.54.070 (19) - Kennels Housing Eleven or More Dogs

a) If dogs are kept or let outside unleashed, they shall be kept in a fenced enclosure. b) The setback standards in Section 20.07.030 for animals housed inside a structure shall

apply. c) Visual screening, increased setback, increased lot size and other conditions may be

required by the approval authority taking into account safety, noise and odor factors. d) Kennels within the McAllister Geologically Sensitive Area (MSGA) and R 1/10

districts shall be subject to a waste management plan approved by the hearing examiner which minimizes the risk of groundwater contamination.

TCC 20.07.030 - Minimum yards required for building setbacks 1. General Requirements. Except where specifically provided in this title, all structures over

one hundred twenty square feet in floor area shall meet the following minimum yard (setback) requirements:

Building Type Arterial, State Highway,

RR ROW Collector, Local, and

Private Roads Side Yard

Rear Yard

d. Buildings housing animals

50′ 50′ 35′ 35′

Conclusions Based on Findings 1. There was a lot of public involvement in this process, which involvement is to be lauded.

In light of this, and because many are not familiar with land use processes generally, it should be made clear that land use permits are not popularity contests; permits are not awarded by vote. Every land use proposal is reviewed for compliance with applicable criteria for approval. In the case of special use permits, the criteria expressly require consideration of the impacts of the proposed use in the proposed location. While there was a lot of public support for the proposal based on the Applicant's widely appreciated and apparently unique skills and her compassion towards people and animals, the land use decision can only be influenced by evidence that shows that the proposed use satisfies or does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

2. As conditioned, the record submitted shows that the proposed use in the location selected would not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property, neighborhood character, the natural environment, traffic, or other matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare. Commercial kennels for more than 11 dogs are allowed as a special use in the MSGA zone. Proposed improvements comply with setbacks for structures housing animals (which exceed those of the underlying zone). The subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use, as demonstrated by


compliance with setbacks. Regarding impacts to adjacent properties, a condition of approval would require the Applicant to implement the proposed "bark plan", which manages dog exposure to pick up/drop off, outside times, and requires response by an employee to prolonged barking, among other features, to prevent undue noise to surrounding uses. With conditions, the project would supplement existing landscaping with new site-obscuring plantings that would provide visual and sound buffering. All plantings would be subject to minimum survival rates and annual reporting to the County, and conditions would ensure that buffers are maintained in a healthy site-obscuring condition for the life of the kennel use. A condition would require the Applicant to conduct a new sound study after the use is operating at capacity in order to demonstrate compliance with County noise standards and, if the new study shows the proposal fails to comply with residential generator/residential receiver sound limits, to install further noise mitigation and re-measure sound levels at property boundaries, repeating until compliance is achieved. With sound levels at property boundaries in compliance with regulations and views of the site obscured by landscaped buffers, there would be no undue effects to adjacent parcels. Regarding impacts to neighborhood character, there are several commercial operations, including two larger commercial kennels, various agricultural commercial activities, and a small airport intermixed with rural residences in the immediate vicinity. A commercial kennel would be consistent with the neighborhood character. Implementation of an approved dog waste management plan and additional vegetated buffering along the east boundary would ensure stormwater runoff does not carry dog wastes off-site or into groundwater. The proposed dog waste management plan was accepted by Environmental Health; conditions would require further development of the plan in conjunction with Thurston County Conservation District. Further conditions would require soil sampling annually for the life of the use to track whether the use creates elevated levels of contaminants in the soil with the potential to harm the underlying aquifer. The use is not projected to generate significant traffic volumes. Regarding the Applicant's failure to comply with the restrictions of the previous permit, a notice of violation was issued and a penalty was assessed. Past evidence of noncompliance is not "evidence" of future noncompliance. Future compliance with conditions of the instant approval will be monitored closely over a period of time by the County after which the use will remain subject to complaint-driven inspection for compliance with permit conditions and applicable County regulations. Findings 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33.

3. As conditioned, the use would be adequately served by public improvements, facilities, utilities, and services without imposing undue burden on any of the existing or planned services to serve the area. The proposed special use would be served by the Group A water system and the on-site septic system, which was reviewed by a consultant and the Environmental Health Division and found to be adequate to address the proposed expanded use. An annual operational certificate process through the Health Department would ensure that the septic system continues to be used within its design and operating capacities and remains otherwise consistent with sanitary code and other applicable requirements. The kennel's anticipated traffic levels are too low to be of concern to the County Public Works Department for potentially affecting levels of service on public roads in the vicinity. There is parking available on-site for customers. There is no


evidence in the record showing undue demand for public services. Findings 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 23, 24, and 31.

4. With conditions, the proposal would be consistent with use-specific standards applicable to commercial kennels with capacity for eleven or more dogs at TCC 20.54.070(19). As noted above, all structures housing dogs and all outdoor dog use areas would be enclosed by fencing and setback more than 50 feet from property boundaries. As conditioned, existing and planned landscaping would be maintained to provide a site-obscuring buffer to mitigate both visual and noise impacts. The subject property is in the McAllister Geologically Sensitive Area. Conditions would ensure that a dog waste management plan developed in conjunction with the Thurston County Conservation District would be implemented for the life of the use, requiring immediate recovery of solid dog wastes from any outdoor area, safe containment, and disposal off-site at an approved landfill. Findings 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20, 29, 30, and 31.

DECISION

Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the requested special use permit to expand the existing commercial dog kennel to allow boarding for a maximum of 40 dogs and training classes not to exceed six dogs each to be conducted on-site within existing structures and proposed new outdoor dog runs, together with required infrastructure and site improvements as detailed herein, at 7400 Meridian Road SE, Olympia, is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: Resource Stewardship Conditions: A. Prior to operation of the expanded dog kennel the Applicant shall consult with the

Thurston County Conservation District to update the waste management plan for 10 dogs, which was previously approved by the Thurston County Hearing Examiner through project no. 2007101905 (Exhibit 1.29). The updated waste management plan must be reviewed and approved by the Thurston County Environmental Health Department prior to allowing any increase in the number of dogs or commercial activities on-site beyond those approved in the previous permits.

B. In order to buffer the proposed dog kennel expansion, reduce visual impacts, and minimize noise, a revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to Thurston County Resource Stewardship for review and approval prior to any expanded use of the existing dog kennel.

1) The landscaping plan shall include a site-obscuring landscaped buffer located around each area of kennel operation, including outdoor dog runs, any area where dog training classes will occur, the barn, and the parking area, such that the facilities are fully visually screened from ground level at the property lines when the vegetation reaches maturity. The visual buffer plantings shall include a mix of trees and native drought tolerant shrubs that require minimal irrigation. The landscaping plan shall include contingency plans for use in the event that some species do not survive.


2) In addition to the previous buffers, there shall be a 20-foot wide buffer along the east property line to help prevent kennel wastes from leaving the site via stormwater runoff down the eastern slope. This buffer shall include densely planted native drought tolerant shrubs and trees. The revised landscape plan shall include a target number and density of plantings for the east stormwater buffer. The Applicant shall obtain a survival rate of at least 75% of the revised plan's targets within the first three to five years and shall maintain this and all buffers in a living vegetated condition for the life of the proposed use.

3) The Applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in a healthy condition with a survival rate of at least 75% and shall replace any dead or dying vegetation as necessary to maintain the required site-obscuring visual screen. The functional character of the visual screen and the survival of buffer plantings shall be subject to inspection by Resource Stewardship Staff for the life of the use.

4) Planting shall occur in fall or winter to maximize plant survival. Planting shall begin as soon as practicable given seasonal conditions, following approval of the revised landscape plan. Initial planting shall be completed within one year of plan approval. Plantings shall be spaced as appropriate for soil and growing conditions, based on recommendations from the Thurston County Conservation District.

C. Annual landscape buffer status reports shall be submitted for the first five years of permit

operation to determine compliance and recommend any necessary changes to the plan or species type in order to achieve full compliance with conditions. The report shall include dated photos of landscaping areas and a narrative including rates of survival plantings. If full compliance is achieved between years 3 and 5, no additional landscaping reports will be necessary as long as landscaping buffers are maintained alive and growing. The initial landscape report shall be submitted at the time of the initial 18 month project review process (condition E below), to be followed by annual reports (one year from the date of the initial report) at years 2 and 3, and also years 4 and 5 unless full compliance is demonstrated prior to year 5.

D. Prior to expansion of the kennel capacity to the full 40 dogs and prior to on-site training

classes, an integrated pest management plan (IPMP) must be submitted and approved by Thurston County Environmental Health. The goal of the IPMP is to manage landscapes using best management practices that limit the use of pesticides in order to reduce ground and surface water contamination and the risk of human exposure.

E. Within 18 months of final SUP approval (including any appeals), the Applicant shall apply to Thurston County Resource Stewardship for a review of the project in order to determine compliance with permit conditions using the “Other Administrative Action – Minor” process. The application will be reviewed by Thurston County Resource Stewardship and Environmental Health for consistency with project conditions. Based upon the findings of the first review at eighteen months, the Resource Stewardship Department will determine whether a subsequent re-review will be necessary. Based on the 18-month review, Resource Stewardship will determine whether a bond or irrevocable assignment of savings based upon the fair market value of the landscaping is


required to ensure trees and plants achieve 75% survival within three years. Complaints received regarding barking or other dog kennel or training related activities will be considered during the 18-month review. At any time, complaints about site operations may trigger independent investigations apart from the 18-month review, which may result in compliance actions if project conditions are not met.

F. As part of the initial 18-month review, the Applicant shall obtain, at her expense, and submit a sound study to determine the actual noise resulting from kennel operation at capacity (thirty or more dogs and a training class). This noise study shall evaluate sound levels at the Applicant’s property lines for both kennel and class activities (separately or simultaneously). The Applicant’s kennel is not allowed to exceed the sound requirements for residential uses and residential receivers, or a daytime maximum of 55 decibels. If a sound study at the property boundaries determines that the kennel exceeds 55 decibels, the Applicant shall be required to install additional noise buffering fencing or equivalent noise buffering technology behind the vegetative screen around her facility within 90 days of the study. A follow up study shall be conducted within 30 days after the additional noise buffering improvements are installed. If the follow up study does not demonstrate compliance, the Applicant shall be required to repeat the noise management and study process until she obtains a sound study showing compliance with the noise standard herein.

G. The Applicant shall obtain yearly soil tests, which shall include evaluation of the levels of phosphorus and fecal coliform in the soil from within outdoor dog areas in the kennel operation. These tests shall be submitted to the Thurston County Conservation District (TCCD). If the tests reveal a spike in soil phosphorus level or fecal contamination to a level outside the acceptable range of natural content for these soils, the Applicant shall investigate the source of such soil change and implement any mitigations recommend by the TCCD. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to provide all applicable findings and/or recommendations from the TCCD to Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department.

H. Business activities, including dog runs, shall not be allowed within 50-feet of all property

boundaries. I. The Applicant shall implement the bark reduction plan as described in Attachment 10. J. All development on the site shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan

and project narrative, except as modified by these conditions. No new construction is authorized, except for sound and visual buffering fencing or earthwork, each of which may be subject to other County permits. Any expansion or alteration of this use beyond that approved by the Hearing Examiner herein will require approval of a new or amended special use permit. The Resource Stewardship Department will determine if any proposed amendment is substantial enough to require Hearing Examiner approval.

K. Signage shall comply with TCC 20.54.040(5). There shall be no more than one two-

faced sign not to exceed thirty-two square feet per side; or alternatively, two signs


attached to the building below the roofline, or placed close to the building, with a combined square footage not to exceed thirty-two square feet.

L. Lighting shall be designed and shall function in a manner that shields direct light from

adjoining streets and properties.

M. Prior to operation of the expanded dog kennel and dog training and prior to non-exempt ground disturbing activities such as construction, grading or excavation a Mazama pocket gopher survey shall be completed by Thurston County Resource Stewardship and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Approved activities and expanded operations may commence when a federal clearance letter is received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

N. Public Works Conditions: 1. Once the planning department has issued the official approval, a construction permit

application shall be submitted along with a complete set of construction drawings and the final drainage and erosion control report to Thurston County Public Works – Development Review Section for review and acceptance.

2. Prior to receiving final approval from this department, the following items shall be required:

a. Completion of all roads and drainage facilities.

b. Final inspection and completion of all punch list items.

c. Record drawings submitted for review and acceptance. The record drawings shall include street names and block numbers approved by Addressing Official.

d. Receive and accept Engineer’s Construction Inspection Report Form (Appendix I-C, Volume I of the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual).

e. Receive and accept Maintenance Agreement Form (Appendix I-E, Volume I of the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual).

f. Completion of required signing and striping.

g. Payment of any required permitting fees.

O. Environmental Health: The following Thurston County Environmental Health conditions shall apply if the permit is approved:

1. This review and approval recommendation is for a dog boarding and training facility

only. No additional services, such as grooming, shall be offered at the facility.

2. All solid dog wastes shall be collected and bagged on a regular basis and taken to the Thurston County Waste and Recovery Center for disposal once a week or more often if needed.

3. The facility must comply with the noise standards of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-60. It is also recommended the facility establish a noise monitoring plan.


4. An annual Operational Certificate is required for the on-site sewage system. Annual effluent sampling taken by a Certified Monitoring Specialist demonstrating residential waste strength and monthly flow readings taken by the homeowner are required as a condition of the current Operational Certificate. Wastewater flow monitoring results must be reported annually demonstrating flows are within the system's permitted operating capacity.

DECIDED May 27, 2016.

____________________________________ Sharon A. Rice Thurston County Hearing Examiner

THURSTON COUNTY

PROCEDURE FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO THE BOARD

NOTE: THERE MAY BE NO EX PARTE (ONE-SIDED) CONTACT OUTSIDE A PUBLIC HEARING WITH EITHER THE HEARING EXAMINER OR WITH THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APPEALS (Thurston County Code, Section 2.06.030).

If you do not agree with the decision of the Hearing Examiner, there are two (2) ways to seek review of the decision. They are described in A and B below. Unless reconsidered or appealed, decisions of the Hearing Examiner become final on the 15th day after the date of the decision.* The Hearing Examiner renders decisions within five (5) working days following a Request for Reconsideration unless a longer period is mutually agreed to by the Hearing Examiner, applicant, and requester. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on an appeal of a SEPA threshold determination for a project action is final. The Hearing Examiner shall not entertain motions for reconsideration for such decisions. The decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding a SEPA threshold determination may only be appealed to Superior Court in conjunction with an appeal of the underlying action in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075 and TCC 17.09.160. TCC 17.09.160(K). A. RECONSIDERATION BY THE HEARING EXAMINER (Not permitted for a decision on a SEPA threshold determination)

1. Any aggrieved person or agency that disagrees with the decision of the Examiner may request Reconsideration. All Reconsideration requests must include a legal citation and reason for the request. The Examiner shall have the discretion to either deny the motion without comment or to provide additional Findings and Conclusions based on the record.

2. Written Request for Reconsideration and the appropriate fee must be filed with the Resource Stewardship Department within ten (10) days of

the written decision. The form is provided for this purpose on the opposite side of this notification. B. APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Not permitted for a decision on a SEPA threshold

determination for a project action) 1. Appeals may be filed by any aggrieved person or agency directly affected by the Examiner's decision. The form is provided for this purpose on

the opposite side of this notification. 2. Written notice of Appeal and the appropriate fee must be filed with the Resource Stewardship Department within fourteen (14) days of the

date of the Examiner's written decision. The form is provided for this purpose on the opposite side of this notification. 3. An Appeal filed within the specified time period will stay the effective date of the Examiner's decision until it is adjudicated by the Board of

Thurston County Commissioners or is withdrawn. 4. The notice of Appeal shall concisely specify the error or issue which the Board is asked to consider on Appeal, and shall cite by reference to

section, paragraph and page, the provisions of law which are alleged to have been violated. The Board need not consider issues, which are not so identified. A written memorandum that the appellant may wish considered by the Board may accompany the notice. The memorandum shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be based only upon facts presented to the Examiner.

5. Notices of the Appeal hearing will be mailed to all parties of record who legibly provided a mailing address. This would include all persons who

(a) gave oral or written comments to the Examiner or (b) listed their name as a person wishing to receive a copy of the decision on a sign-up sheet made available during the Examiner's hearing.

6. Unless all parties of record are given notice of a trip by the Board of Thurston County Commissioners to view the subject site, no one other than

County staff may accompany the Board members during the site visit.

C. STANDING All Reconsideration and Appeal requests must clearly state why the appellant is an "aggrieved" party and demonstrate that standing in the Reconsideration or Appeal should be granted.

D. FILING FEES AND DEADLINE If you wish to file a Request for Reconsideration or Appeal of this determination, please do so in writing on the

back of this form, accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of $651.00 for a Request for Reconsideration or $866.00 an Appeal. Any Request for Reconsideration or Appeal must be received in the Permit Assistance Center on the second floor of Building #1 in the Thurston County Courthouse complex no later than 4:00 p.m. per the requirements specified in A2 and B2 above. Postmarks are not acceptable. If your application fee and completed application form is not timely filed, you will be unable to request Reconsideration or Appeal this determination. The deadline will not be extended.

* Shoreline Permit decisions are not final until a 21-day appeal period to the state has elapsed following the date the County decision

becomes final.

Check here for: RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION

THE APPELLANT, after review of the terms and conditions of the Hearing Examiner's decision hereby requests that the Hearing Examiner take the following information into consideration and further review under the provisions of Chapter 2.06.060 of the Thurston County Code:

(If more space is required, please attach additional sheet.)

Check here for: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION

TO THE BOARD OF THURSTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMES NOW ___________________________________

on this ________ day of ____________________ 20 , as an APPELLANT in the matter of a Hearing Examiner's decision

rendered on __________________________________, 20 , by ________________________________ relating to_________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE APPELLANT, after review and consideration of the reasons given by the Hearing Examiner for his decision, does now, under the provisions of Chapter 2.06.070 of the Thurston County Code, give written notice of APPEAL to the Board of Thurston County Commissioners of said decision and alleges the following errors in said Hearing Examiner decision: Specific section, paragraph and page of regulation allegedly interpreted erroneously by Hearing Examiner: 1. Zoning Ordinance ________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Platting and Subdivision Ordinance __________________________________________________________________ 3. Comprehensive Plan ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Critical Areas Ordinance __________________________________________________________________________ 5. Shoreline Master Program _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________

(If more space is required, please attach additional sheet.)

AND FURTHERMORE, requests that the Board of Thurston County Commissioners, having responsibility for final review of such decisions will upon review of the record of the matters and the allegations contained in this appeal, find in favor of the appellant and reverse the Hearing Examiner decision.

STANDING On a separate sheet, explain why the appellant should be considered an aggrieved party and why standing should be granted to the appellant. This is required for both Reconsiderations and Appeals.

Signature required for both Reconsideration and Appeal Requests

______________________________________________________ APPELLANT NAME PRINTED ______________________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT

Address _______________________________________________

_____________________________Phone____________________

Please do not write below - for Staff Use Only: Fee of $651.00 for Reconsideration or $866.00 for Appeal. Received (check box): Initial __________ Receipt No. ____________ Filed with the Resource Stewardship Department this _______ day of _____________________________ 20 . Q:\Planning\Forms\Current Appeal Forms\2016.Appeal-Recon-form.he.doc

Project No. Appeal Sequence No.:

Documents

HEARING EXAMINER · Pettyjohn SUPT, Project No. 2015100829 page 6 of 25 Exhibit E Letter in opposition from Cameron Wilcox, dated August 23, 2015 u. Comment letter in opposition from