Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments

Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments
Fort Discovery, WA - On Monday, May 10, Security Services NW (SSNW) and Jefferson County met nose to nose in Kitsap County Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Roof. In what was a once highly publicized case (backed by Commissioner David Sullivan's political mo-jo and Prosecutor Julie Dalzell; combined with political pressure by the now debunked Discovery Bay Alliance (DBA)), is now not even a blip on the radar. The former gangs of the DBA (who complained about noise, even though there's no noise ordinance in Jefferson County) who had previously cheered on their man Mark Johnsen ( Jefferson County's hired gun) are now silent. The only person sitting in the entire courtroom was a single SSNW employee, hopeful that he would remain employed with SSNW.

Much of the arguments surrounded SSNW’s nonconforming use as it existed prior to the adoption of the Jan. 6, 1992 Code. Attorney Johnsen, on behalf of Jefferson County, argued that nonconforming uses in Washington State are disfavored because they don't conform to current land use regulations. Attorney Reynolds argued for SSNW that Jefferson County didn't regulate the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses until as late as 2001 or even 2005. Additionally, the 1992 code was never noticed to the public and expired by rule of law in 1992 after eight months. There was even a second 1992 Ordinance passed Jan 27, 1992 (#2-0127-92), which had a more liberal interruption of nonconforming uses. Did I forget to mention the 1992 ordinance, which expired, was also repealed and replaced by the 1994 ordinance? Nevertheless, Johnsen argued that SSNW should be frozen in time and not allowed to grow its business, nor should the Hearing Examiner who heard the SSNW case be allowed to review any codes after 1992. Johnsen's argument was based on the fact that SSNW had three employees in 1992 and SSNW now has forty (before the lawsuit started, SSNW had 150 employees). Therefore, that's all the employees SSNW should only be allowed today. In a twenty year period, its Jefferson County’s legal position that your employees in nonconforming uses shouldn't be allowed to grow or expand. Does anyone hear the words "Insane". Only in Jefferson County. There is not one reported case in the State of Washington, which limits the number of employees a business is allowed to have unless you apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). SSNW did not have to apply for a conditional use permit because SSNW is a legal nonconforming business. What's even more disturbing is Jefferson County is holding only SSNW to this standard therefore discriminating against our employees, SSNW, and fair trade. Not to mention fair treatment under the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.

Another most interesting fact of the case is that Jefferson County’s position relies on a phantom Administrative Rule, which was never adopted by the BOCC. Here Attorney Johnsen on behalf of Jefferson County misrepresented to the Court of Appeals that it was an Ordinance supposedly adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Johnsen briefed the Court that, “Similar regulations were applicable as far back as 1992. As the Examiner noted, after enactment of the Zoning Code in 1992, a property owner or tenant wishing to expand or alter a nonconforming use was required to submit an application for review by the Hearing Examiner. 1992 Administrative Rule IX, Ordinance 2-0127-92. (CP 36, CP 333- 337).”

Because Jefferson County didn't follow their own codes, regulations, ordinances, moral responsibly, and the law of the land, what was once a simple case of nonconforming use has morphed into a case filled with ex-parte communications, hidden and destroyed records at DCD and the County, and misrepresentations to the courts. One can only hope that the truth will prevail and those responsible for this mess are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that SSNW is compensated for all its damages and lost business.