Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Underwood Planned Unit Development with inadvertent‑discovery mitigation
Summary
After a closed‑record hearing, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Underwood Planned Unit Development, adopting four findings of fact and ten conditions of approval and requiring an inadvertent‑discovery protocol during construction for archaeological/cultural resources.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Franklin County Board of County Commissioners concluded a continued closed‑record hearing on May 21 and approved the Underwood Planned Unit Development (PUD) in accordance with Franklin County Development Regulations and the Planning Commission recommendation. The board adopted four findings of fact and ten conditions of approval and instructed staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the decision.
During deliberations the county’s counsel reviewed the legal options available under the Local Project Review Act and confirmed the board could approve, deny, remand to the planning commission (with the applicant’s consent) or modify the project. The applicant’s representative asked the board to approve the project subject to an inadvertent‑discovery protocol to protect cultural resources where ground disturbance occurs. County staff reported the applicant would not disturb several undisturbed areas and that where the private road crosses a steep gully the work would be fill over existing ground rather than excavation.
A motion that the mitigation measure be an inadvertent‑discovery protocol enforced during construction carried and was included as a condition. Following that motion the board moved to adopt the Underwood PUD “in accordance with the provisions of Franklin County Development Regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission with 4 findings of fact and 10 conditions of approval,” and to instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to implement the action. Commissioners voted “aye” and closed the record.
The official action adopted the PUD with the SEPA condition approved during deliberations and directed staff to prepare the implementing ordinance for signature. The board discussed the possibility that an approval could be challenged in court and heard counsel’s advice that a challenge was possible but that the factual record provided a defensible basis for the board’s decision.

