Neighbors upset about planned Johnson Point home appeal to Thurston County commission
A proposed home and the process to develop it in the Johnson Point area of Thurston County has caught the attention of neighbors, prompting them to appeal a hearings examiner ruling made earlier this year.
That appeal came before the Board of Thurston County Commissioners Wednesday morning.
At issue is a 3,800-square-foot home that has been proposed by Chad Champagne, who his attorney identified as a small business owner at Wednesday’s meeting. Olympian archives show he operates several marijuana retailers in the area.
To build the home, he sought a reasonable use exception and a shoreline administrative variance to construct a single-family home 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound, county information shows.
“Thurston County property owners may apply for a ‘Reasonable Use Exception’ if they believe the buffers and critical areas defined in the Critical Areas Ordinance leave them with no reasonable use of their properties,” county information reads.
That request came before the county hearings examiner in December, followed by a ruling in January that granted the request, so long as 24 conditions were met.
Among the conditions:
▪ Residential development shall be arranged and designed to protect views, vistas, and aesthetic values to protect the character of the shoreline environment and the views of neighboring property owners.
▪ The residence shall not exceed 35 feet in height without approval of a shoreline substantial development permit and compliance with the Shoreline Master Program Thurston Region’s residential development general regulation No. 5. That regulation requires a variance and demonstration that the structure would not interfere with visual access to the water from landward or adjacent properties.
The neighbors, Scott Gustafson and Burt Miller, disagreed with that ruling, which resulted in attorneys for them and Champagne making arguments before the commission on Wednesday. They attended the meeting remotely while Champagne did not.
“They are seeking reversal of the examiner’s decision and denial of the reasonable use exception, or, in the alternative, a remand back to the hearings examiner for further review,” said Commissioner Tye Menser as he introduced the discussion.
Opening arguments were initiated by J. Richard Aramburu, the attorney for Gustafson and Miller. One area he tackled was the timing of the shoreline substantial development permit.
“This property is in the shoreline zone,” he said. “It’s subject to shoreline rules. Does it require a shoreline substantial development permit? That issue has been put off by the hearings examiner and the staff inappropriately. The decision about whether or not there should be a shoreline substantial development permit for this property is required at the beginning, not at the end. We wouldn’t be in this process if a substantial development permit was required (at the beginning); we would have an entirely different process.”
He continued:
“What’s going on here is that the applicant wants to start the momentum rolling,” Aramburu said. “We’ll do the reasonable use exception, get the momentum rolling for other county agencies, other county permits, and use a decision here as the way to push their way through that. That’s not the way the system is supposed to work.”
Champagne’s attorney Heather Burgess countered with her own arguments.
“We do not dispute that the applicant will require either a shoreline exemption or a shoreline substantial development permit before a building permit can be issued for construction of this home,” she said.
“In my experience, it is not uncommon for applicants whose proposed use requires approval of a reasonable use exception, which is a burdensome and lengthy process, to seek that approval first and then pursue other required permits, which require more detailed plans and specifications, as there would be no point in investing in that step if the proposed use is not, in fact, authorized,” Burgess said.
“Appellant’s arguments would be to graft additional criteria onto what your code specifically requires,” she said. “The decision as issued is fully consistent with the law, and we respectfully request that the board deny the appeal in its entirety and affirm the examiner’s decision.”
Aramburu received time for rebuttal comments.
“In conclusion, the board needs to carefully review the record, carefully review the examiner’s decision, give no deference to the examiner’s decision, and conclude that no reasonable use exception should be issued for this property,” he said.
The county commission is expected to issue their decision on or before April 1, Menser said.
This story was originally published March 21, 2025 at 12:22 PM.
