Thurston County hears appeal over Hillside Farms event permit; decision due April 23

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners on April 16 heard oral argument in an appeal by Paul Wendler asking the board to reverse a hearing examiner—s January 5, 2025, denial of a special-use permit that would authorize events at Hillside Farms, a lavender farm at 112140 Third Avenue Southeast in Tenino.

Appellant counsel Joe Rayburger, an attorney with Cascadia Law Group, told the commissioners the property owner—s operation meets county code and the county—s comprehensive plan and that staff from multiple departments recommended approval with conditions. "We would ask the board to reverse the hearing examiner's decision and approve the special use permit," Rayburger said, adding the applicant had proposed additional conditions intended to resolve outstanding concerns.

The appeal focuses on four questions the board identified at the start of the hearing: whether the proposed use is consistent with the county comprehensive plan; whether zoning requirements (parking, landscaping and impervious-surface rules) are met for the number of events proposed; whether sanitary-code requirements are satisfied; and whether conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance.

Rayburger told the board that Hillside Farms has operated as a lavender farm since 2015 and that the proposed events are an agritourism activity the comprehensive plan expressly encourages. He said county departments including Environmental Health and Public Works reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions and that Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) recommended 27 conditions in its staff report and supplemental reconsideration memo. Rayburger said the applicant proposed a self-limiting cap of 56 event days per year and suggested that outstanding items such as a final landscaping plan could be required as conditions of approval.

On operational concerns, Rayburger noted the applicant offered an hours restriction and a proposed 10 p.m. cutoff for events and said the applicant proposed installing a permanent fixed decibel monitor to document noise compliance. He argued that parking and overflow arrangements had been secured with a neighboring business and that staff had determined parking capacity could be met for the proposed scale.

The board opened the record under quasi-judicial procedures and the chair, Ty Mentzer, reminded parties that the board—s review is subject to the appearance-of-fairness doctrine under state law. Each commissioner on the dais — Commissioner Carolina McKeon, Commissioner Rachel Grant and Commissioner Emily Clouse — stated on the record that they had no ex parte communications since the appeal was filed on Feb. 14, 2025 and could fairly and impartially judge the case on the record and applicable law.

No agency presented oral argument; CPED staff were available to answer questions, the chair said. After the appellant—s 15-minute presentation and a short question-and-answer exchange, the board moved into a closed session under state law for quasi-judicial deliberations. During the closed session the commissioners provided direction to staff; the board announced no formal vote or final decision at the meeting.

Chair Mentzer said the board would issue a written decision on or before April 23, 2025. The transcript records the chair asking for the date from the prosecuting attorney's office and then stating the written decision date: "April 23." Rayburger told the board he would be willing to work with county staff on conditions if the board did not accept the applicant—s proposed language, and he said reversal rather than continued litigation was the preference.

The issues the board must resolve on the written record include consistency with the comprehensive plan—s rural-land-use policies, whether the proposed scale of events remains a temporary use under county code, and whether the staff-recommended conditions (including the proposed cap of 56 event days, final landscaping submittals, parking arrangements and noise/hour limits) sufficiently address neighbors' concerns. The record includes the hearing examiner—s decision denying the permit, CPED—s staff report and a supplemental reconsideration memo, departmental concurrence memos from Environmental Health and Public Works, and the appellant—s briefing and appendix of proposed conditions.

The board—s final, written decision will contain the formal findings and any conditions should the commissioners decide to reverse or modify the examiner—s decision. That decision will be the next official action in the appeal; no further open-session votes were taken at the April 16 meeting.