Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges county enforcement of site visits and due process after FEMA floodplain mapping
Summary
During public comment at the April 29 meeting, resident John Pettit asked commissioners to hold permitting directors accountable for making site visits required by the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance and raised concerns about FEMA floodplain mapping and permit costs for homeowners.
A Thurston County resident used public comment at the April 29 Board of County Commissioners meeting to urge stricter enforcement of site-visit requirements under the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance and to contest the county’s treatment of FEMA floodplain mapping in permitting decisions.
John Pettit of Rich Road told commissioners he has raised concerns about a specific parcel and about a broader pattern in which county staff do not conduct site visits before applying critical-area requirements. Pettit said the absence of on-site inspections can deny applicants due process by imposing unnecessary conditions or costs.
Pettit said FEMA’s updated maps placed part of a property into a mapped 100-year floodplain and that the difference between building just outside the mapped area versus inside it could be “one inch or less.” He said county staff nevertheless require an applicant who builds inside the mapped area to elevate a house two feet and to pay “about $5,000 to $6,000 for an RUE” (as described by Pettit), and he called that treatment “abusive.” He asked commissioners to hold directors accountable to follow the code and perform site visits so waivers and applicable requirements are applied only when warranted.
Pettit described the lot as one of four bought by a family in 1979 and said there has never been a flood at the location; he said the neighboring house has a slab foundation and has not flooded. Commissioners did not take formal action in response to the public comment during the meeting; the comment was recorded as part of the public-record segment and no staff response or directive was recorded on the transcript.
The remarks were presented during the public-comment portion of the meeting; they represent the views of the speaker and were not accompanied by county staff findings or a formal agenda item.
