Hearing examiner considers 29‑site RV park proposal near Port Angeles; county staff recommends approval with conditions

Clallam County hearing examiner Stephanie Marshall presided over a May 7, 2026 public hearing on application PLDV2020, a proposal to convert a roughly 4‑acre parcel at 184 Granite Road into a 29‑site RV park with six sites (sites 11–16) reserved for park models. Department of Community Development staff recommended approval of the binding site plan (PLBB20026‑00001) subject to 33 conditions of approval.

The staff presentation, delivered by Mr. Hoffman of the Department of Community Development, described the site as historically used as a log yard with extensive disturbance and little remaining vegetation. Staff said the plan calls for a park office building, restrooms, paved internal circulation meeting county road‑width standards, underground utilities to each lot, on‑site septic connections to each space, and water service from a local water association. Staff noted that a SEPA determination of nonsignificance was issued on April 1, 2026, and that agency comments were received from ORCA (Olympic Region Clean Air Agency) regarding construction dust control and from the Washington Department of Ecology concerning fill, grading and water‑quality protections. Final engineered stormwater plans and construction‑period erosion and dust‑control measures are required before final approval.

"The shop is not related to this project," said Zachary Slota, the applicant's agent with United Engineering, clarifying that the proposed shop on the site plan is tied to the existing residence, not the RV park. Slota told the examiner that primary access would be from Granite Road and that a secondary access off Power Plant Road would remain gated and used only for emergencies. He said the applicant expects to employ permeable pavement for internal roads to reduce impervious area and that, aside from questions about how the county calculated existing impervious surface, the 33 proposed conditions were largely anticipated and acceptable.

Slota also raised a question about a fire‑hydrant requirement, noting that a neighboring RV park does not have a hydrant. "The neighboring RV park does not have a fire hydrant," he said, and asked why the requirement applied here. Mr. Hoffman responded that the fire marshal had commented on the plan and indicated standards requiring a hydrant; he also noted that the county's land‑division code requires fire hydrants where land divisions create lots under one acre. Hoffman explained that the 35% impervious‑surface threshold cited in the staff report reflects the site's historical, intensive commercial use and disturbance, and that the project as proposed would increase vegetation and improve drainage.

Staff also summarized dimensional and siting requirements: sites 17–24 must meet a 25‑foot setback from the park boundary along Granite Road and other public roads; park models are limited to sites 11–16 and must meet minimum placement setbacks and obtain placement permits; the plan must show required landscaping, recreation space equal to 8% of gross site area, and screening for garbage and recycling facilities. Building permits and final inspections will be required before park models may be occupied, and an updated inspection of the existing septic system serving the residence must show no deficiencies.

County staff confirmed there were two agency comments on the SEPA review (ORCA and Department of Ecology) and that other county departments (building, public works, environmental health) provided input that staff incorporated into the recommended conditions. No members of the public in the room or online requested to speak during the public‑comment period; the examiner closed public comment.

Marshall closed the hearing and the record and said she would issue a written decision within 10 calendar days of the hearing's close. The hearing record will reflect the staff recommendation to approve the binding site plan subject to the 33 conditions and the outstanding clarifications about the final stormwater design, impervious surface calculations and the fire‑safety measures to be confirmed with the fire marshal and environmental health prior to final approval.

Next steps: the hearing examiner will issue a written decision on the application within 10 calendar days; any appeals would follow the county's applicable appeal procedures.