Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County commissioners hear oral argument in appeal over garage-only variance request
Summary
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners heard oral argument Feb. 12 in a closed-record appeal by J and K Investments LLC seeking a variance to build a residential garage on a lot without an existing primary residence. The board moved into closed session and said it will issue a written decision by March 5, 2025.
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners heard oral argument Feb. 12 in a closed-record appeal by J and K Investments LLC of a hearing examiner’s denial of a variance to allow construction of a residential garage on a lot without a primary residence.
Chair Ty Mentzer opened the hearing and read portions of the hearing examiner’s decision, quoting the examiner’s conclusion that “granting the variance application would result in the allowance of a use which is not classified as a permitted or special use in RR 1 To 5 zoning district,” and that granting the variance “would confer a special privilege to the property” and be “materially detrimental to the public welfare.”
The appellant’s attorney, Chris Pierce Wright, argued the hearing examiner misapplied Thurston County Code and case law. Wright said accessory uses are “permitted in any zoning district except as prohibited or limited” and contended the examiner treated a listed limitation as if it were an outright prohibition. Wright told the board the facts were not in dispute and said the property’s constraints — lack of sewer or water connections and soil unsuitable for an on-site septic system — are unique to the lot and not a special privilege of the applicant. Wright also said the applicant would accept conditions prohibiting commercial use and would build a primary residence as soon as legal utility connections became available.
No department representative presented oral argument; county staff indicated they were available to answer board questions. Commissioners made the required appearance-of-fairness declarations on the record. Commissioner Carolina Mejia recused herself because of prior ex parte contact; other commissioners stated they had no ex parte communications since the appeal was filed and affirmed they could judge the case impartially based on the record and applicable law.
After oral argument the board went into a closed session to consider the quasi‑judicial appeal. The board announced it would issue a written decision on or before March 5, 2025.
The appeal concerns application of Thurston County zoning rules governing accessory uses and the county’s variance criteria; the record is closed, so the board’s review is limited to evidence presented to the hearing examiner. No final vote or reversal was announced at the meeting.
