Leudinghaus Road Hearing

Comes now Mark C. Scheibmeir. Lewis County Hearing Examiner, and enters the following Order remanding this application for modification.

A public hearing to review a preliminary plat application submitted by Art Merritt and Dave Walterick was held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at the Lewis County Courthouse Annex. Present at the time of the public hearing were the applicants along with Trent Lougheed, representing the septic system engineer, Jerry Morrisett. Representing the County were Geoff Thomas, Jim Goode. Jim Bridges, Ellen Dodds, Chuck Hampton, and Rodney Lakey. Members of the public filled the room with perhaps forty-five to sixty people in attendance, all opposed to the project.

As currently proposed the development calls for the subdivision of twenty-one acres into twenty-four residential lots. These figures are somewhat misleading as twelve acres are in wetlands, leaving only nine acres for actual development. This means that proposed lots average in size from one-third of an acre down to one-fifth of an acre.

The site is located on the north side of Leudinghaus Road, not far from the Meskill (or Mays) Bridge. The developable portion of the property is flat and currently in agricultural use, The site is extremely close to the Chehalis River and is surrounded by a mix of single family residences located on various sized lots: agricultural uses, including adjoining dairy operations; and large scale forests to the north. To gain access from Highway 6 one must first turn onto River Road and then negotiate a one lane bridge to gain access to Leudinghaus Road. The site is approximately fifteen miles west of Chehalis and ten miles east of Pe Ell.

Prior to the public hearing. County staff had received several letters from the public, all in opposition to the project, as well as a letter from the nearby Fire District expressing opposition.

The public hearing began with an explanation of the project by Geoff Thomas of County staff. Mr. Thomas noted that the staff recommends "disapproval" of the project (as opposed to denial). Mr. Thomas explained how the proposal calls for the use of a converted Class-A water system together with community septic systems. The water rights are a conversion of a former right to withdraw water from the Chehalis River into a right to withdraw an equal amount of water (twelve acre feet per year or fortv-five gallons per minute) from the adjoining groundwater. County staff recommends disapproval for the reason that these water rights have not yet been clearly established and further, that the applicants have failed to identify an intended means of sewage disposal. At one time the applicants had intended to have one community septic system, but a system of that size would handle come either under the control of the Department of Health or Department of Ecology. The applicants have provided new drawings indicating an intent to have three smaller community systems that would be under the control of the County. These proposed systems are merely conceptual drawings, however, as the applicants' new septic engineers have only begun to undertake the necessary testing and engineering.

Following comments from Mr. Thomas, Chuck Hampton of County staff spoke briefly in response to the issue of septic systems. Mr. Hampton explained that the site had earlier been tested to determine whether individual septic systems could be installed. Those earlier tests had revealed that the site suffers from flooding, shallow groundwater, and wetlands and that individual septic systems would therefore be difficult if not impossible. Ellen Dodds of County staff then spoke in reference to the water rights issue. Ms. Dodds explained that there are unresolved issues as to the legality of the transfer of Class-A water rights from the former owner, Max Lyda, to the applicants, and that this issue has been submitted to the Department of Ecology's legal counsel. Ms. Dodds also noted that the applicants had just prior to the hearing submitted a hydro-geological stud-,- but that she had no opportunity to review its contents.

County staff also noted that the development will require a fire suppression system, specifically fire hydrants, as required by statute whenever a Class-A water system is utilized. The site is classified as "Rural-Mixed Use" in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. There are no identified resource lands nearby but there are critical areas located on the site, specifically wetlands. The internal road system is to be privately owned and not dedicated to the County.

Following County staff comments, the applicant, Art Merritt, spoke briefly. Mr. Merritt explained that he would like to create rural home sites that can enjoy all of the amenities of rural life without the need for large land ownership. He acknowledged that there are many shortcomings to his application, particularly the lack of a septic design. He explained that earlier designs had been undertaken by Ken Morris but the project has now been turned over to Jerry Morrisett of Olympia for both water and septic engineering. Mr. Merritt and his partner, Mr. Walterick, explained that the redesign of the septic calls for individual septic tanks which feed into three communal drain fields to be located along Leudinghaus Road. The applicants then turned to Trent Lougheed, representing the septic designer, who explained that his firm had just been retained the previous week and therefore had no firm data upon which to determine what type of septic system might apply. As preliminarily designed each communal drain field would service eight residences, each having their own individual septic tank. Again, the proposals were strictly preliminary as no testing or engineering had yet occurred. During these discussions Mr. Merritt indicated that he intends to destroy the existing residence located on the proposed Lot I and make that area available for the communal drain field. Mr. Lougheed also explained that there has been a preliminary hydro-geological report but that it, too, is merely preliminary and is not to be considered a final report. This preliminary report suggests that the use of a single well to provide water to this project would not have an adverse effect on nearby wells.

The meeting was then opened to the public for comment. A large number of interested parties spoke. The first speaker was Merrily Knutsen representing the Chehalis River Council (CRC comments and concerns) . The Chehalis River Council is opposed to this project as it is a risk to the Chehalis River. is inconsistent with goals of GMA. will create large areas of impermeable surfaces leading to increased runoff to the river, will effect the rural quality of life, will be incompatible with adjoining agricultural activities, has no set plans for proper septic treatment and does not adequately address surface runoff.

Rob Schanz, an engineer who resides nearby, addressed concerns with the proposed water supply and its effect upon nearby wells. He noted that area wells are already suffering from deceasing supplies as well as quality concerns. and noted that there is significant anecdotal evidence that the entire water system for the community is under pressure. He next expressed concern over septic treatment. He noted that the areas soils do not provide good septic treatment and that the effluent from these septic systems will ultimately reach the nearby Chehalis River. Mr. Schanz next noted that there is an apparent violation of the Shorelines Management Act as the current proposals for the project call for drainfields Iying within one hundred feet of the Chehalis River. The Shorelines Management Regulations are triggered whenever there is "substantial development" within two hundred feet of the river. Finally Mr. Schanz made note of the poor road access to the site including the burdens placed upon the nearby one lane bridge should this many additional homes be located along Leudinghaus Road.

A number of other nearby. neighbors also spoke in opposition to the project. These speakers included Hollis Cox, Cathy Watson, George Palkowski, Jennifer Palkowski, Steve Perrv, Janice Frishette, Donna Blair. Billy Forth, and John LaVarre. These individuals expressed a wide range of concerns including a universal concern about the effect of this development on area water supply, as all indicated a current problem with water availability. They were similarly concerned with poor access to the site due to the one lane bridge, the affect this development would have upon the rural quality of life currently enjoyed by other landowners; the lack of available public services, including frequent loss of power, and general concerns about the proposed septic system, due to poor soils, high groundwater tables, nearby wetlands, the nearby river, and possible contamination of adjoining wells.

In addition, the adjoining neighbors on both sides of the property spoke in opposition. Merri Lee Nelson and her husband own the property just west of the site. Mrs. Nelson expressed a long list of concerns including the lack of well water, the questionable validity of the transfer of Class-A water rights to the applicants. the complete lack of information as to a proposed septic

system, concerns over frequent loss of power in the neighborhood, impacts upon traffic, inconsistent land use, the lack of available public services, including the response time necessary for volunteer fire and ambulance services. The adjoining property owner to the east, Sherry Gilke, expressed very similar concerns. She also noted that area wells not only suffer from stormwater runoff especially as these properties are already burdened by high groundwater tables, particularly in the winter,, when standing water covers much of the proposed site.

At the conclusion of the public testimony the applicants asked that they be allowed an opportunity to modify their project to better comply with County requirements. Neighbors are opposed to the applicants being allowed to modify the project as this gives the applicants a continued right to have their project reviewed under the old (pre-GMA) standards.

I am sympathetic to the opponents' concerns, as the application as presently proposed is ill conceived and poorly planned. Nonetheless. I am also aware of the applicants "vested rights" and am cautious of eliminating those rights without first providing an opportunity to correct the

many deficiencies in this project.

As I explained to the applicants at the conclusion of the hearing, I am willing to allow this project to be remanded for modifications. The project shall therefore not proceed to the County Commissioners at this time for preliminary plat approval. On remand the applicants must address a long list of serious inadequacies to this project. Those include, among other things, the need to determine whether a Shorelines Permit is necessary in light of there being apparent "substantial development" occurring within two hundred feet of the Chehalis River. I have also advised the applicants that I will not recommend for approval any revised project that proposes residential lots of less than one acre in size, exclusive of any wetlands. This area is not prepared for more intense development. The applicants must also resolve all issues relative to their Class-A water rights and must prepare a fire suppression plan, including fire hydrants, as required by ordinance. The applicants must also complete a hydro-geological study to determine the effect of their proposed well on adjoining property owners. Finally, the applicants must prepare the necessary septic designs to the satisfaction of County staff. The applicants have acknowledged that the project cannot be remanded unless they waive all rights to the timely review of their application, and did so waive these rights at the end of the public hearing. The matter will therefore be remanded for modification. It is important to note that there is no assurance of approval of the project following, these modifications.,

DATED this day of July, 1998.

Mark C. Scheibmeir,

Lewis County Hearings Examiner

Order Remanding Application

for Modification - 6

July 14, 1998

To: Lewis County Hearings Examiner:

Dear Sir:

The Chehalis River Council is a nonprofit organization committed to the protection of the environment of the Chehalis River Basin. We wish to make the following comments concerning the residential subdivision (application #LP 97-001) as proposed by Art Merritt on land located north of Leudinghaus Rd., approximately 2 miles east of Rainbow Falls State Park.

We have only recently become aware of this proposal and, therefore, are able to address ourselves only to certain questions and concerns that have arisen in connection with it:

We are dismayed that the county has not completed its planning under the Growth Management Act and that this project will permanently change the character of this area from rural and agricultural to intensive housing. This means that agricultural soils will be permanently lost for food production and that, by being changed from permeable to impermeable surfaces, they will no longer perform their function of groundwater regeneration. The rural quality of life for others in the area will be subject to the impacts of increased population in a small area and thus that quality will be permanently degraded. The new residents will also likely find that farms may be pleasing to the eyes, but that certain farming practices are not compatible with a close residential lifestyle.

Questions in the environmental checklist concerning fill materials were not completely answered. There will be the rock fill involved in the roadbuilding and, as "landscaping" is described as a future condition, that fill also should be calculated and its sources should be addressed. Previous commenters referred to "flooding" in the area. If this area is in the floodplain, that should be so indicated and the effects of fill considered.

The septic and well plans are not available for consideration and comment. This information is most important, particularly since they will be bordering wetlands and are close to the river and have the potential to do damage to both. Plans for the control of surface, ground, and runoff water impacts are not adequately addressed. The effects of greater population along this river frontage on the riparian area of the Chehalis River must be considered among the impacts to be addressed.

We wish to make one correction to the application. In this area, the Chehalis River runs in an easterly direction.

The Chehalis River Council would like to be added to the list of "interested parties" for this development. Please send any further information involving added mitigation measures and permits to our office at: P.O. Box 586, Oakville WA 98568.

Thank you for your consideration,

Merrily Knutsen, Member
Board of Trustees

cc: Geoffrey Thomas, Planner
Planning Section
Lewis Co. Development Dept.
350 N. Market Blvd.
Chehalis WA 98532
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Lewis County Issues Index Page