Council overturns hearing examiner, waives fence requirement for Riverbend RV-park appeal

Mount Vernon City Council members reversed a hearing examiner ruling on Feb. 26, 2025, and granted a waiver of a fencing/screening requirement for the MV28 Riverbend RV park project, which is located near Riverbend Boulevard and adjacent to Wells Nursery.

The council heard staff, city counsel and the applicant in a closed-record, quasi-judicial hearing. Stacy Pratner, the city's development services director, introduced the item and described the appeal of the hearing examiner's denial of a requested waiver. Arnd Denny, city legal counsel, told the council the code distinguishes reductions of buffer width from waivers and that waivers may be granted only when "the actual development on abutting properties is similar in nature." Denny said the hearing examiner had concluded nursery operations and an RV park were incompatibile and therefore a solid barrier was required.

Applicant representatives argued the properties are compatible in practice and that the large existing trees and the nursery operations make additional screening unnecessary. Architect David Christensen told the council the project is designed as a high-end RV resort and said "This will probably be one of the nicest RV coach resorts in The United States." Attorney Tim Germetzler (representing the applicant) noted that adjacent property owners, including Wells Nursery management, submitted letters supporting reducing or eliminating the screen requirement.

Council discussion referenced the written record and two competing legal interpretations of the municipal code (Mount Vernon Municipal Code 17.93.040). Several council members said they found the hearing examiner's application of the term "incompatible" to be subjective and believed the council could reverse under its appellate role. After debate, Council member Andrew moved to reverse the hearing examiner's decision; a second was recorded and the motion passed. The council also directed the city attorney to draft a resolution containing findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the council's decision.

Council members who spoke in favor said there was no record evidence of neighborhood opposition and stressed the project's potential economic benefits; one member noted the development would add 160 RV stalls and called it a source of housing (temporary) during a housing shortage. Other council members raised concerns about worker safety at the adjacent nursery and noted existing security measures on the nursery property.

The council did not accept any additional evidence beyond the closed record and explicitly noted the matter had been heard as a quasi-judicial appeal; the council's reversal was made after council members reviewed the record and heard oral argument from staff and the applicant's representatives.

The motion passed by voice vote; the council directed staff to have the city attorney prepare written findings and a resolution that memorialize the decision and legal rationale. The council also noted that the absent council member who had technical difficulties was unable to participate in the hearing and that counsel advised that absent member would likely be disqualified from participating if the matter had been continued.

No specific changes to the project design were ordered at the meeting beyond granting the waiver of the screening requirement; the council's written resolution will specify the conditions and rationale.