Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forks council affirms Planning Commission decision in Ferguson appeal; two abstentions recorded
Summary
After testimony and two closed deliberations, the Forks City Council affirmed the Planning Commission's July 18, 2025 approval in the Ferguson appeal. The council recorded a 3-0 result with two abstentions and authorized the mayor to execute decision documents.
The Forks City Council on Sept. 22, 2025 voted to affirm the Planning Commission's July 18 decision in an appeal filed by Ferguson, recording the outcome as "carried 3-0 with Soha and Coleman abstaining." The Council subsequently authorized Mayor Tim Fletcher to execute the decision documents.
The hearing began with Special Legal Counsel Charlotte Archer outlining quasi-judicial procedures and conducting Appearance of Fairness Doctrine disclosures; the Council satisfied the appearance-of-fairness elements and no challenges to member participation were raised. The proceeding included two closed-session deliberations where only the Mayor, council members and the deputy clerk remained in chambers.
Sarah Ferguson, who presented the Appellant's case, cited Article I, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution and state statutes including RCW 42.36, RCW 36.70C.130 and RCW 7.48.010 and asked the Council to overturn the Planning Commission's approval, prohibit misuse of a utility easement, require a new and accurate SEPA review that considers less harmful sites, and correct an asserted conflict of interest. "We ask you to overturn the approval, prohibit misuse of the utility easement, require a new SEPA review and correct the conflict of interest," Sarah Ferguson told the Council during her presentation.
Meridee Pabst, representing applicant Vertical Bridge, disputed the appellant's procedural claim and asked the Council to deny the appeal. Pabst argued the short-plat map used in the applicant's materials was already in the record and that the appellant had sufficient notice and time to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. In rebuttal on timeliness, Pabst said the appellant was aware the appeal was denied on July 1 and therefore had time to file to the Council prior to the written decision.
On reconvening from closed session, Councilmember Wood moved to affirm the Planning Commission decision; the motion was seconded and recorded as carried with three affirmative votes and two abstentions (Councilmembers Soha and Coleman). The transcript records that the Council then authorized the Mayor to execute the decision documents on a subsequent motion.
The council's action leaves the Planning Commission approval in place; the mayor was authorized to sign the formal decision documents that close the appeal record.
