Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goldendale council affirms denial of Captain Jack Commons RV park permit after closed‑record review
Summary
After a closed‑record review of the administrative record, the Goldendale City Council voted 5–2 to affirm the Board of Adjustment’s denial of a conditional‑use permit for the proposed Captain Jack Commons RV Park at 216 Central Drive, citing incompatibility findings in the board’s written decision.
The Goldendale City Council on Aug. 19 affirmed the Board of Adjustment’s decision to deny a conditional‑use permit for a proposed RV park at 216 Central Drive, known in the record as Captain Jack Commons. The vote to confirm the board’s denial carried 5–2 after a closed‑record review of the administrative file.
City Attorney Clayton Flan opened the hearing by explaining council’s role: this was a closed‑record proceeding in which the council could only consider evidence already in the administrative record and determine whether the Board of Adjustment’s findings were supported by that record and whether the board correctly applied city ordinances. “The purpose of this hearing is for the council to review the record and consider the facts,” Flan said.
Staff told the council the administrative record included the CUP application and site plan filed in February, a SEPA threshold determination of non‑significance issued April 23, 2024 (not appealed), minutes from the Board of Adjustment’s open hearing on May 9, and the board’s written decision issued June 24. The Board of Adjustment had found the proposal did not meet several required conditional‑use findings, including compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
At issue in council discussion was an equestrian component described in the applicant’s materials. Council members asked whether the record contained the SEPA checklist and how the proposal treated ‘equine living quarters vehicles’ versus stalls. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Callahan, said the equestrian feature was meant to serve travelers who arrive in living‑quarters trailers with a small number of horses and described the plan as short‑term pins rather than long‑term stabling. “This is not a long term equestrian holding area. It’s not a veterinarian clinic,” Callahan said, and offered to provide an animal management plan to address cleanup, feeding and other operational details.
After council deliberation and review of the Board of Adjustment’s findings (contained in the meeting packet), a councilmember moved to confirm the board’s denial; a second was recorded. The mayor called the question and the motion passed with five ayes and two nays (Councilmember Dionne Wheeler recorded a nay). The council’s action affirms that, in its view, the Board of Adjustment’s findings were supported by the administrative record and that the board correctly applied local ordinances.
Next steps: the council moved on to other agenda items immediately after the vote. The denial stands unless the applicant pursues further appeal rights available under local procedure or state law.
