Thurston County hears appeal seeking special-use permit for Wendler event farm; decision due April 23

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners on April 16 heard oral argument in an appeal by Paul Wendler challenging a hearing examiner’s Jan. 5, 2025, denial of a special-use permit to authorize temporary events at 112140 Third Avenue Southeast (referred to in the record as the property). Ty Mentzer, chair of the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners, opened the hearing and identified the issues before the board as consistency with the county comprehensive plan; zoning criteria related to parking, landscaping and impervious surface; sanitary-code compliance; and whether conditions of approval could assure compliance.

Appellant counsel Joe Rayburger of Cascadia Law Group told the board that Wendler, who operates the property as Hillside Farms (also described in the record as a Lavender Farm), has owned the site since 2015 and asked the board to reverse the hearing examiner’s denial and approve a special-use permit. Rayburger said county departments including Environmental Health and Public Works had recommended approval subject to conditions and that the county planning department’s staff report and supplemental reconsideration memo addressed the issues raised by the examiner. "We would ask the board to reverse the hearing examiner's decision and approve the special use permit," Rayburger said. He added that the appellant included the county staff conditions in an appendix and proposed several additional conditions for board consideration.

Rayburger told the board the application treats special events as a temporary use allowed under Thurston County Code chapter 20.54 and argued the county comprehensive plan encourages small-scale agritourism in rural areas. He said the applicant would accept a self-imposed limit of 56 event days per year and proposed a 10 p.m. cutoff for amplified sound as well as a permanent fixed decibel reader to monitor noise. He also said the applicant had submitted a landscaping plan in the permitting records, secured an agreement for auxiliary parking with a neighboring business, and received a certificate of occupancy confirming site criteria had been met.

Rayburger asked the board to compare the Wendler matter to other approvals cited in the record, including a Capital City Barn approval that he said allowed up to 60 event days and higher attendance. He argued the hearing examiner’s findings were inconsistent with how similar applications have been treated and that the issues the examiner cited could be addressed by conditions or enforcement under the county’s temporary-use code provisions.

Board Chair Ty Mentzer reminded commissioners that this is a quasi-judicial appeal and recited the record and the appearance-of-fairness doctrine (Chapter 42.36 RCW). Commissioners Caroline McKean, Rachel Grant and Emily Klaus each stated on the record that, since the appeal was filed on Feb. 14, 2025, they had no ex parte communications and could fairly and impartially judge the case. Commissioner Wayne Fournier was absent because he had recused himself.

After oral argument the board went into closed session to review the quasi-judicial matter (the record cites the closed-session authority as "4 RDCW 42 31 42" in the meeting transcript). When the board reconvened, Chair Mentzer said there was no formal action taken that afternoon and that the board had given direction to staff. The prosecuting attorney's office indicated the written decision will be issued by April 23.

There was no formal vote or final action in the open session. The record before the board includes the hearing examiner’s decision dated Jan. 5, 2025; county staff reports and a supplemental reconsideration memo; department recommendations from Environmental Health and Public Works; and the appellant’s briefing and appendix of proposed conditions. The board will issue a written decision in accordance with the applicable timelines described on the record.

The appeal focused on whether the proposed temporary-use/event activity is consistent with the comprehensive plan and whether zoning and sanitary-code criteria are met or can be assured by conditions. Counsel framed the case as an agritourism use encouraged by county policy and presented proposed conditions (including a 56-day annual limit, a 10 p.m. noise cutoff and sound monitoring) that he said would address the examiner’s concerns. The transcript records that county staff had recommended a suite of conditions (identified in the record as 27 conditions in planning’s recommendation) and that Environmental Health and Public Works recommended approval subject to conditions.

The board’s written decision, due April 23, will state whether it reverses or affirms the hearing examiner’s denial and whether it imposes conditions, adopts the staff recommendations, or reaches a different outcome.