Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges commissioners to enforce site visits and due process after FEMA map changes; cites potential cost and permitting impacts
Summary
A Thurston County resident told commissioners that staff have not consistently performed required site visits under the county's critical areas rules after FEMA updated floodplain maps. The commenter said property owners face extra costs and uncertain permitting decisions and asked commissioners to hold department directors accountable.
At the public-comment period of the April 29 meeting, resident John Pettit raised procedural and due-process concerns about land-use permitting and site inspections tied to new FEMA floodplain maps.
Pettit told commissioners he had sent a letter about "the necessity of following process, due process for the people who make applications for land use" and said the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance requires site visits to determine whether mapped critical areas apply to a specific permit application.
"Lacking having a site visit... you are denying them due process in their permitting," Pettit said, arguing that map errors or mapping changes can impose unnecessary elevation requirements or other mitigation and cost property owners thousands of dollars.
Pettit used an example in his packet that he said shows a proposed home could be sited just outside a mapped floodplain and therefore be built on a slab, while building within the mapped area would trigger an elevated foundation and additional costs. He described paying an estimated $5,000–$6,000 for engineering or remediation as staff treats those mapped differences without site verification; he urged commissioners to hold directors accountable for conducting site visits required by code.
Why it matters: Pettit framed the matter as one of fairness and affordability, saying the financial burden falls on property owners who cannot afford additional mitigation costs. He asked commissioners to ensure county staff follow the code’s site-visit requirement.
Commission response and next steps: The commissioners did not take a formal vote on land-use policy during the meeting. The chair moved on to the county-manager update and staff presentations followed; no additional formal direction or immediate remediation was recorded on the public record during that session.
Ending: Pettit said he was willing to meet with commissioners individually and requested follow-up; the meeting record shows no immediate formal action by the board on his request.
