General Legislative Session - public_hearing

Good morning. Snohomish County Council is called to order for our closed record appeal. Today is Friday, 05/22/2026 at 10:30AM. We're meeting in the Jackson Boardroom and also remotely. And next is roll call.

Chair Dunn? Here. Vice Chair Lo?

Present.

Councilmember Nearing? Here. Councilmember Mead? Here. Councilmember Peterson?

Here.

Chair, we have five members present.

We have one action item today, and the clerk will read that into the record.

Council considers an appeal of the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner's 03/27/2026 decision in the case of PBSS Investments Incorporated, file number 25Dash105874REZO, twenty five-one hundred and five thousand eight hundred eighty VAR located at 1900125 State Route 9 Southeast, Snohomish, Washington 98290 denying the rezone from R5 Rural Business and variances.

Thank you. Are there any statements or disclosures from council members? This would include the following, existence and substance of any ex parte communications, campaign contributions from any party of record, in excess of 250 from any person and in excess of 500 from an organization, gifts or gratuities received above $200 or $100 from any party of record. So I am not aware of any campaign contributions, gifts, or gratuities, but if I did receive any, it would not affect my ability to be neutral in this matter. I also directed my staff to respond to any emails addressed to me related to this appeal, notifying the sender that council members are prohibited from ex parte communications and receiving information related to the appeal that is not already in the administrative record or arguments presented as part of the appeal hearing.

I have not heard nor considered any such emails, and I have not had any ex parte communication related to this appeal. Do other council members have a similar disclosure?

I've had no ex parte communications, but I may have received campaign donations in the past from a party of record.

I have the same disclosure as council member, though? Same.

Council member Peterson.

Thank you. I have no any I have no ex parte communications, and I may have received contributions, but they would not affect my ability to be neutral in this matter.

Thank you. So are there, any objections to any council members hearing and deciding this closed record appeal? No objection? Okay. Okay. Are there any new procedural items that need to be addressed? No procedural? Okay.

Not not from us.

Seeing seeing and hearing none. We will now ask our council staff to present a summary report on the subject appeal. Good morning. For the

record, Deb Eveson Bell council staff. We're here today in the matter of the PBSS Investment LLC or PBSS closed record appeal on the hearing examiner's 03/27/2026 decision that the appellant did not meet its burden of proof of how it met county code criteria for approval of the requested site specific rezone. The applicant submitted an application for a site specific rezone from r five to rural business with four variances from rural business zone regulations in March 2025. Planning and development services staff determined that the application was complete for review on 04/03/2025. Additional information was submitted on 07/21/2025.

The hearing examiner conducted an open record hearing of the rezone application on 02/24/2026 and concluded on 03/04/2026. Based on comments received, both the applicant and PDS agreed to extend the deadline for issuance of the decision until 03/27/2026. On 04/10/2026, the county council received an appeal of the hearing examiner's decision. The appeal letter requested the county council reverse or remand the hearing examiner for to the hearing examiner for further proceedings. The appeal request is for the rezone only and is not challenging the four variants denials within the closed record appeal.

The grounds for appeal of the hearing examiner's decision and criteria for council review are provided under chapter 30.72 of the Snohomish County code. The council has jurisdiction over this closed record appeal under thirty point seven two point zero seven zero. The final decision issued by the county can be appealed to the superior court under the Land Use Petition Act. Upon conclusion of this hearing, the council is charged with issuing a written decision that must set forth findings and conclusions. Council staff will draft a written motion to be adopted by the council based on direction provided at this hearing.

The council may affirm the decision, reverse in whole or in part, or may remand the matter to the hearing examiner in accordance with the council's findings and conclusions. The council may also correct any findings or conclusions it finds erroneous. Even if the council upholds the hearing examiner's decision, the council may, if necessary, continue deliberations to another day, and we have a few options available. But per statute, written decision needs to be issued by June 10. And for internal scheduling, that would be June 5 to meet the mailing deadline for our clerks. This concludes my briefing, and I'm available for any questions now or later. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from counsel? Okay. So next, we'll start with oral arguments. In this case, the appellant and the applicant are the same. So only the appellantapplicant and parties of record will be allowed to provide oral argument today. The counsel will hear argue oral arguments first from the appellant slash applicant who will be allowed fifteen minutes, followed by the parties of record. Each will have three minutes. After which, the appellant applicant will have the opportunity for rebuttal and will be allowed five minutes. The council asks that you give fair and concise statements of the facts on appeal, and we discourage you from reading at length from briefs or record.

To provide clarity, you may use exhibits which are part of the record. The council will reserve the right to limit argument when it becomes repetitive. The council reminds parties of record that no new testimony or evidence is allowed or may be argued unless specifically requested by the council and that no new appeal issues may be raised or argued. If you would like to provide argument, please indicate online by digitally raising your hand on the Zoom meeting by clicking the hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or to press star nine if you're calling in by phone. The clerks will verify all parties' record before argument is allowed. So first, we'll start with the appellant applicant, and you have fifteen minutes. And there's a timer on the screen, but I can let you know when there's a a minute left.

Testing. Good morning, counsel. My name is Peter Derland. I am the attorney for the project applicant, PBSS. Just as a point of clarification for you, PBSS assumed ownership of the property from McLaurin Sons.

So for the sake of simplicity here, I'm just gonna be referring to McLaurin Sons. That does not affect the application here in any way. I will begin by providing a brief history of McLaren Sons' family run business. I'll then discuss some of the development history as it pertains to the area in which McLaren Sons operates, including steps that this body took to address preexisting unpermitted uses in the area. Then David Toyer will discuss the procedural and legislative history of the rural business zone in particular.

The purpose behind this body is passage of ordinance nine eight dash one two one, allowing existing businesses to continue operating after the implementation of the Growth Management Act and drastic zoning changes that happened in the early nineties. Feel free to stop me at any time if you have any questions. So this subject property is located on the East Side Of S R 9 just South of Clearview. The property is approximately eight acres in size, about four acres of which have been historically used by McLaren Sons, and the previous owner. McClure and Sons operated a business there since purchasing it from a man named Duncan McAllister all the way back in 1993.

Mister McAllister engaged in various construction work, equipment repair and maintenance, that sort of thing, storage of equipment, and other items on the property. His date use dates his his use dates back to at least 1974, although as you could imagine, records from that time period are difficult to procure. The Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, PDS, approved mister McAlister's permit for a large two story metal building, essentially a workshop, including an overhead crane and workstations back in 1987. McClure and Sons doesn't perform construction work on the property, but otherwise uses the property for similar purposes that mister McAllister did. McClure and Sons was founded as a small family construction firm based out of Mill Creek.

All of the contracting business operations are conducted out of the Mill Creek office as the use of this property issue is limited to the storage and maintenance of vehicles and construction equipment. McLaurin Sons impact is limited as only three to six employees work on-site due to contracting requirements for some of their public works projects. McLaurin Sons has also supported the local communities since its founding as a locally grown family business nearly forty years ago. Some of the projects include much needed public works projects such as water treatment plants, reservoir, pump stations, other needed rural and urban infrastructure projects. Since purchasing the property thirty three years ago, McClure and Sons used the same section of property, that four acre section that I mentioned earlier, that Mr.

McAllister previously used and occupied during his ownership. Unbeknownst to McClure and Sons the time they purchased the property from Mr. McAllister, property was never zoned for the commercial use taking place on the property dating back to 1974. As many of you know, the Growth Management Act was passed a few years later and that forever changed the development landscape and in particular Snohomish Counties. Counties.

As mister Torio will will discuss shortly, Snohomish County enacted several zoning changes including creating the rural business zone to address some of those changes for these existing businesses. Prior to the enforcement action that led us to the superior hearing today, PDS approved of miss McLaren's son's use of the property for decades. PDS reviewed and closed two prior code enforcement actions for use of the property in 2016 and 2018 as the result of two anonymous complaints. PDS dismissed the first in get in investigation noting use of the property as construction staging and storage yard was permitted due to the longevity of use at the property. And in the subsequent proceeding in 2018, PDS again noted that the commercial equipment storage is a nonconforming use.

PDS's PDS's long standing interpretation changed in 2022 when one of McLaren's son's McLaren's son's employees made an unfortunate mistake. The employee cleared a section of property to make room for additional overflow of equipment and material storage property. Unfortunately, this was outside the established four acre footprint that that was set by mister mister McAllister and then continued by McLaren Sons. McLaren Sons immediately took steps to rectify the issue here, installing screens and barriers to reduce and minimize the activity in the disturbed area, screen the neighbor properties from from noise and other impacts from the business operations. PDS rejected several proposals to rectify the situation, including the proposal before you today.

This, in spite of the fact that McLaren's son's proposal would result in a smaller impact and smaller footprint on the property than was previously reviewed and approved on multiple occasions by PDS over thirty years. As mentioned earlier, this appeal doesn't involve the underlying request for the variance that was before the hearing examiner. The only thing that we're focused on here is the rezone application itself. So for rezone applications, they must meet four criteria for approval under SEC 30.42A. 100.

The proposal must be consistent with a comprehensive plan. The proposal must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposal is justified based on a change of circumstances since the site was previously zoned, and where applicable, minimum zoning criteria found in chapters three one a through 30 dot three one f sec are met. So there are a few caveats that David and myself will mention regarding these code provisions, but that's basically the framework with which with which we're working here. Due to time constraints, I can't go into too much detail here, but I've included more information in the brief I've provided to counsel before the hearing.

First, the proposal is consistent with a comprehensive plan. McLaren's son's use of the property meets many comprehensive plan goals such as serving the local rural population and preserving the rural character of the area. Including a rural business designation as an authorized implementing use for the property is evidence that the use is contemplated within the land use policies created by the comprehensive plan. McLaren Sons also has extensive community ties through local infrastructure projects as I previously discussed. Further, McLaren Sons rezone proposal also accounts for the protection of the rural character, another comprehensive plan goal.

While the examiner expressed some concern regarding the noise and activity on the property, You'll note that in his decision, his concerns related to the site activities after the mistaken clearing in 2022 and not before. The record shows that those operations were not noticeable or visible to adjacent property owners prior to this activity. And McLaren's son's proposal would restore the property to its previous condition and, again, even improve it. Similarly, the proposal bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. Sorry.

Safety and welfare, and the property would be restored to its previous condition, as I stated, which protects not only the the neighboring property owners, but also the business and surrounding communities that McLaren Sons serves. Well, McLaren Sons maintains that demonstrating changed circumstances in this instance isn't required as the proposal is consistent with comprehensive plan. As outlined in my brief, there are exceptions to demonstrating, changed circumstances when a rezone is consistent with adopted with adopted comprehensive plans. And, again, I I go into that a little bit more in my brief. Nonetheless, the proposal is based on significant changes to the property, such as PDSS sudden reversal of its long standing use labeling the property, and then significantly the pathway to compliance that was implemented by the by this legislative body in response to significant zoning changes for properties in the area.

Finally, McLaren Sons complies with all applicable zoning criteria in Snohomish County code. Again, it's a limited appeal of only the rezone requirements and the variance requests for the underlying decision before the examiner aren't aren't actually relevant here. McLaren Sons is also exempt from the distancing requirements under code as an established site with nonconforming use rights. So with that, I will turn it over to David to make some more comments about that ordinance.

Good morning. David Toyer. I'm the applicant representative for appellant PBSS Investments. As mister Durland described in his opening, there are several legal legal factors to consider concerning this business' use historic treatment and enforcement history. As complex as this may all seem, we're requesting a simple outcome.

For you to honor the legislative intent established by your predecessors when they adopted amended ordinance 98 dash one two one, creating a pathway for existing commercial uses in rural areas to obtain a rural business rezone. This requires a little history. After adopting the first comprehensive plan in 1995, the first docking cycle, requesting new land use designation, zoning, and and other, code changes came up in 1996. The council then received over 75 proposals, and as it stated in motion 96 dash three eight nine at the time, setting the final docket, many proposals sought allowances for existing commercial uses in rural areas. The county hired consultants to recommend amendments for rural, industrial, and commercial uses.

They grappled with a number of individual docket requests, and they deliberated on code amendments from contractors seeking to continue their existing rural uses. Two years later, the council adopted ordinance 98 dash one two one, creating the rural business zone, allowing building contractor as a permitted use, and establishing a pathway for existing commercial uses to be rezoned rural business. Information on that is in exhibit d one. Three b's construction then sought a rezone from r five to rural business for their contractor use. The central question in that rezone was whether their existing but illegal use could be granted a rezone.

His denial, the hearing examiner determined that an illegal commercial use could not qualify for the existing business exception from the zone's locational criteria nor alternatively meet the location requirements for new or expanded rural business zoning. Three b's appealed that decision to your predecessors, submitting transcripts from council's deliberations on ordinance 98 dash one two one to prove the intent to allow existing businesses, legal or not, a path to a rezone. That's demonstrated by all the materials in exhibit d two. In granting the appeal, the council remanded the matter back to the hearing examiner with instructions to approve the rezone. The council also adopted new findings and conclusions, including conclusions one, three, and four containing statements like, council intent in adopting amendments to ordinance 98 dash one two one was to apply the exception language to all existing uses whether or not they were legally nonconforming uses, establishing that the rezone bared a substantial relationship to the public welfare based on compliance and conformance with applicable county plans and regulations and making clear that the examiner's decision aired in misinterpreting the application of the code when holding that the special exception to the location criteria did not apply.

As shown in exhibit a seven, the rezone language from the former SEC 18.65 is the exact same language that appears now in SEC thirty thirty one f zero two zero four, and the present rezone mirrors the three b's rezone. This limited appeal does not seek variances to reduce any standards. It doesn't open up the floodgates to proliferate new rural development. It does not create any new precedent or change how code would be enforced. It does not cause further impact to the adjacent residences.

But by granting this appeal, you'll contain the business to its prior historic footprint, ensure applicable setbacks, buffers, and landscaping, restore visual screening and separation, resolve the disputed use status, and allow the applicant to pursue permits to restore its site disturbances. The legislative history and council intent in creating this rezone type for rural business is clear, convincing, and controlling. And this rezone must be approved whether the use was legal or not because it was established before the rural business zone was adopted, which qualifies it for the special exception from the locational criteria. We respectfully request counsel grant this appeal and remand the matter back to the examiner with clear instructions to approve the rezone along with any additional findings and conclusions you may enter and make a determination on the boundary for the rezone area based on the historic footprint of the business. Thank you.

Thank you. You guys still had another minute. Any other comments?

No more comments at this time, unless any of you had any questions for us.

Questions?

Okay.

Okay. Next, we'll hear from parties of record. You'll each have three minutes to speak. We had a sign up sheet.

We have Gary Davis and Veronica Whitney Robinson, and both are parties of record.

Hi. I'm Veronica Whitney Robinson. Thank you for giving us this time to speak to you. I live at 18915 State Route 9 Southeast and am directly impacted by the actions that McClure and Sons have taken over the last few years. Within the appeal, McLaur and Sons claimed that the county changed their mind because of, as they said, a few complaints from a few neighbors.

We are not some powerful consortium currying favor with political figures. We're the people that live in that neighborhood. We are the people that make up that community. We are nine homes with at least 11 family members that are directly impacted by an expansion that did not exist five years ago. In the fall of twenty twenty two, as you've gone through our our the information that we've submitted and the photos that we've submitted, a lot of clear cutting took place over the course of months, and then, machinery was brought in to create berms and roadwork that did not exist.

The historic footprint did not expand back as far as our property line, which it does now. And this took months. So the fact that McClure and Sons are claiming that this was a mistake somebody did, well, this mistake went on for months and months. And by March 2023, we had filed complaints with county code enforcement. This is a commercial construction company, as we found out in the hearing, that is worth $40,000,000 They understand permitting. Did they get a permit to clear the trees? No. Did they survey the property before they started the expansion? No. In fact, they discovered the property line as I stood there watching bulldozers push what was left of the trees that they did not deem harvestable across our property line.

The person on one of the machines shouted to me, hey. Do you know where the property line is? I said, yeah. You've just buried it. Just looked at me and drove away. Didn't make any attempts to rectify anything. They claimed the rectification they've done is what they put up is three green banners, you can see in some of the pictures that I submitted during the hearing, which do nothing to mitigate the sound, the vibration, the stench of the machinery. You might as well put up a Kleenex in front of a semi and say, come on through. It does nothing. They talk about being, on paper, sympathetic to us.

Where was the sympathy when they found out that some of us have lost pets because of this action? It's been nowhere. McClure speaks to how the community benefits from this company. Unless I am sorely mistaken, and I could very well be, I don't think they do anything pro bono. This is a business, and that's what they wanna continue to be is a business. We're not asking for the business to go away. They want to leave this business to their sons as they claim in the appeal. That's fine. We just ask that you take the stuff that wasn't there before away. They can't return the trees.

They can't fix any of the things that have been really damaged other than to do the right thing and store their equipment, machinery, on property that is zoned for a business and leave the neighborhood by neighborhood. For us, there's no enjoyment in the home that we've owned for thirty years. This is a daily thing that we deal with, and it's very sad. So I hope that you will take the recommendation of the county and the public examiner for what it's worth and not grant the appeal. Thank you for your time. For your comment.

Good morning. My name is Gary Davis. I own the five acre parcel directly east of the McClure property. Their entire property line is on my property line. We butt up to each other. One of the issues here is that McLaurin Sons feels that they have been grandfathered the entire property. That's not the case. We've lived there for thirty nine years. It's horse property. Up until five years, four years ago, we had horses on the property.

We can't have them there now due to the safety for the animal. What was grandfathered is the area butting up to Highway 9. It's not four acres. It's less than that. For 35 years, we could stand on our property, look onto theirs, and see nothing but woods and brush, couldn't see any of their material up on Highway 9 until they came in, started clearing their property. And that was after they offered to buy my property, which we said we're not gonna sell. We like where we're at. It's private. It's wooded. It's peaceful.

Great environment. Good for the horses. They came in, started clearing, like Veronica said, the remainder of the property and they didn't just clear a portion of it. They took it all out, all the way up to our property line, not the area they're asking for the rezone, all the way, the entire usable property. No permits.

They brought in a logging truck, took out two logging trucks full of harvestable timber, cleared all the brush, and we can now stand on our property line and look all the way through theirs and see Highway 9, which we were never able to do before. They got no permits for this. They're a business. They know they're supposed to get permits. The way they've got it phrased now is that they want current use of that property.

Well, the current use is everything. They can't replace those trees. They can't put it back to its original condition. Anyway, the hearing examiner made his findings based on the testimony that both parties gave. Nobody's trying to put these people out of business. That's not our motive. We'd like to have the peace and quiet that we had for thirty nine years. It's gone. Thanks to them. They did all this with no permits, no consideration for the people who live there.

Not much else I can say. Thank you.

Thank you. Were there other speakers, parties of record?

We have a hand online, Rod Robinson, and he is a party of

record. Anyone else in person? Okay. We'll turn to online then. Rob, you should be able to or Rod, you should be able to unmute.

I believe I am unmuted right now.

Yep. We can hear you.

Outstanding. Thanks again for having us here, and really sorry to put out the group from McClure for the holiday pre weekend. But, guys, you gotta realize, we've been dealing with this stuff for four years, if not more. You you talk about this expansion, and and, you know, we were the squeaky wheel. Well, you've been you've had complaints since 2013, and you've danced around anything getting pushed through by those guys because they own the property but don't live there.

It's renters. The guy that owns the one in front who had the initial violation, which was space abutment or buffer zone or whatever, he doesn't speak English. I mean, I hear things like maintaining rural character. And and, again, as was said, we do not want to put you guys out of business. It's just the bit there's businesses up and down 9.

There's a crystal lady and some dog kennels and and dozens of them. What they don't do is they don't shake the earth. They don't basically, I hear that reverse beeping in my in my ear every morning at 07:00 whether it's going or not because it's been going on for too damn long. Pardon my language. I want to, if possible, share my screen.

I think it's gonna work. Anyway, part of the exhibits that were put in initially were were the sounds. That's not just the visibilities and the tragic nature of losing all of that and having it be replaced by tons of heavy machinery and what's the equivalent of industrial waste. Huge chunks of pipe and steel. And, oh, yeah, they do get to drop those from height, and they make a little bit of a noise as you could probably imagine.

There's a lot of talk about trying to restore stuff. You're not gonna restore it. This fence thing that you put up for the sound. I mean, come on, guys. Again, we don't wanna put you out of business, but you did mention that you were looking for some property. Well, hey. About less than a mile north of me, like, it show show my screen, I would. There's a property right there ready to go. It's about three acres. It says it's all you need. Yeah. It's it's zoned in business. But I guess I would even question whether the type of business that you guys do would even be potentially viable in a in that business zoned area. You guys are just it's too loud. It's too violent.

It has nothing to do with neighborhood relations. You're talking out of the side of your ear, and it it's getting really annoying. All I can say is there's a comes to a point when an agency who's taking advantage of people, the people tend to revolt. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for your time.

Rod, you can, so you should address your comments to counsel. And, we can't consider new evidence, but you can refer to one of the exhibits in the record.

Okay. I I don't have the ability do that as we speak. So Okay.

Okay. Okay. Any other parties of record wanting to provide comment? So if you're online, you can raise your hand or press 9 by phone. So we don't see any others.

Okay. If there's no other parties of record, we will move to rebuttal from the applicant, and you have five minutes.

Thank you. I think we'll we'll just stay seated because I think we might do this in a a tag team approach. So I guess, first, I just wanna address some of the mitigation efforts that, right now, we agree have been lacking. Unfortunately, we can't do anything in the area until the outcome of this proceeding. So a lot of that requires permitting to be able to rectify a lot of the clearing that happened.

So in terms of we acknowledge that the screening right now, in terms of the the kind of banners that were placed up, they are insufficient to address some of the issues that happened during this, but we just we simply can't can't rectify that right now. In terms of the makeup of the property, we're not asking for the full property. Again, part of that will become clear once once we're able to actually set the parameters, which, again, we think is the four acres. But we won't be able to reduce any of the noise or anything else like that until we have a chance to rectify the areas that were cleared. But, again, we can't do that until until the outcome of this proceeding.

And so, again, we're we're just asking for some of the for the same kind of past use that had been there for decades prior to this prior to the to what happened in 2022. And so this is the best way that we can protect Mclair And Sons Mclair and Sons business interests on the property as well as protect some of the surrounding property owners. I I I'd also just just wanna note a couple of things. Again, this is just a limited appeal of the rezone requirements only. It doesn't have any bearing on the variance requests.

That would have been a a larger footprint. So, essentially, we're shrinking that here. And so, really, the only issue is whether or not we, comply with the requirements for that rezone request. Again, I I to be frank, I there is no question that we made a mistake in operating outside of what the historic use of the property was. We're just seeking to rectify that mistake here.

And if we're approved, then we can be able to start, creating some of that that screening that will be able to protect the local property owners, which we acknowledge the obviously, it's been an increased volume and impact for them because of that clearing because the trees are no longer there, but we can't replace any of that until the outcome of this. I'd just also like to say, as mister Tore was discussing earlier, this is kind of the exact scenario that this hearing body created the ordinance in the first place. So that ordinance and the three p's b's decision is is pretty clear. Existing uses at the time of this ordinance, whether legal nonconforming uses or not, are eligible for this rezone to a rural business designation. We're not so right now, PDS is kind of attempting to narrow the applicability of the ordinance to this business, but it's not this isn't a slippery slope.

There's not gonna be a lot of businesses. They're gonna start popping up all over the place. There are few businesses, if any, that predate the ordinance from nearly three decades ago. And, again, it doesn't really provide a precedent that's going to create a whole bunch of other businesses in the area just like this. Essentially, what it was for is it's just allowing businesses that were impacted by zoning changes outside their control to come into compliance with county code rather than be forced to move based on legislative changes that frankly were out of their control.

If we had been aware of this issue earlier, back when everything was was first implemented, we would have applied for the designated nation sooner. But, again, over the the previous several decades, PDSS or PDS let let let us to believe that we did have an established nonconforming use and said that on multiple occasions over those decades. So, again, it it it it's not it wouldn't be fair to now be punished based on what is essentially a reversal a for PDS's sudden and kind of unexpected reversal of their their policy regarding the property. So unless you have any further questions for me, which I'd be happy to answer.

Any questions?

Okay. Well, in that case, we would respectfully request the council directly hearing examiner to approve the rezone and then remand the matter to the examiner so we can determine the proper boundaries for the rezone. Again, we think it's the four acres, but since he has all the facts before him, it would be it would be best for him to actually review. Thank you.

Thank you. So we will now close oral arguments and turn to counsel for a discussion or decision or esession. So is there a need for an esession in this matter or

any question?

Yeah. I recommend an esession.

Okay. Do you have an idea of time? Are there like, five, ten minutes?

Maybe ten minutes to start.

Okay. So pursuant to RCW 42 dot dot 30 dot one four zero subsection two, we will now recess the council into executive session to discuss a quasi judicial matter for approximately ten minutes with extensions if necessary and, potential action to follow. So now we'll be moving into an esession and in this room. So we'll ask people to leave the room. Yeah. We're gonna do it in this room because online.

Can we leave our things in here?

Yeah.

Or I guess should I?

Yeah. That's fine.

Chair has extended the executive session ten minutes to 11:28. Chair has extended the executive session ten minutes to 11:38. Council chair has extended the executive session ten minutes to 11:48.

Counsel has returned from executive session. Council heard arguments in this closed record appeal of PBSS Investments related to its requested rezone to rural business. As a closed record appeal, the hearing is is limited to the record from the hearing examiner and all written arguments timely filed with counsel. The appeal issues are limited to those expressly raised in the written appeal. Counsel did not consider evidence not in the record and did not consider any new appeal issues. Is there a motion?

I move to direct staff to prepare a written motion affirming the hearing examiner's 03/27/2026 decision, adopting the examiner's findings and conclusions, and adopting additional findings. One, to address appellant's issues, number one and number two, finding that substantial evidence supports the examiner's conclusions that the rezone application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and does not bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety, and welfare of the public based on changes to the subject property and ongoing impacts to neighboring properties. Number two, to address appellant's issue number three, finding that the county's adoption of s c c 30 dot thirty one f dot zero two zero four or its application to PBS's rezone application is not a change of circumstances supporting PBS's rezone. Staff shall prepare that written motion to be heard at 9AM on May 27 at GLS. Second.

Motion has been properly made and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say

aye. Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the passes five to zero. That concludes our agenda. And counsel has no other business for the day, so counsel is now adjourned. Thank you.