Who Should Decide Thurston County's Most Consequential Land-Use Disputes? Vote Delayed Again
Commissioner Tye Menser is seeking to remove elected commissioners from the appeals process, despite unanimous opposition from the Planning Commission.
By Ronda Larson Kramer
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) recently postponed its vote for a second time on a proposal that would remove the Board from the county’s land-use appeals process. The proposal by Board Chair Tye Menser has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups and the county’s own advisory committee.
In July 2025, the Thurston County Planning Commission — a 10-person advisory committee appointed by the Board — voted 10-0 against the proposal after hearing testimony from conservation groups and members of the public overwhelmingly opposed to it. Opponents argue it would remove residents’ only practical avenue to appeal erroneous land use decisions by the county.
The only person to submit comments in support was Heather Burgess, a land-use attorney whose clients include mine owners and developers of large housing projects.
Commissioner Tye Menser — who said when he first ran for county commissioner that he sought the office to “promote fairness and justice for all our citizens” — remains steadfast in his support for the proposal, defending it in a May 31 candidate interview with Olympia Indivisible.
At issue is whether residents should continue to have access to an elected appeal body when challenging the county’s most consequential land-use decisions.
Under the current system, residents can appeal land-use decisions to the Board — for example, decisions allowing expansion of a gravel mine or conversion of forestland to a subdivision. Under Menser’s proposal, residents would instead have to file their appeals directly in superior court. Opponents say the combination of legal complexity, high costs, and judicial deference in superior court makes successful appeals far less likely.
“In Thurston County, one of the most important differences between an appeal to the Board and an appeal to Superior Court is the standard of review,” said Bryan Telegin, a land use attorney who recently helped residents in an appeal before the Board. “In court, the judge must give substantial deference to the hearing examiner’s decision. By contrast, the Board is not required to give deference to the hearing examiner’s decision. That makes the Board appeal process a much more meaningful opportunity for residents to obtain review of a land-use decision.”
Thurston County resident Lynn Fitz-Hugh, who is currently involved in an appeal to the Board, said, “The practical effect of this proposal is that many citizens will lose access to any meaningful appeal process. An appeal to superior court often requires legal representation and can cost tens of thousands of dollars. An appeal to the Board is far less expensive and can be pursued by residents without hiring an attorney. If appeals go directly to court, many communities facing controversial projects will have no realistic way to challenge a decision, regardless of its merits.”
At a May 19th Board work session, Menser described the current system as one in which hearing examiners apply code, commissioners apply politics, and judges again apply code. He argued that removing the Board from the appeals process would create a fairer system.
“The idea that hearing examiners, staff, and judges simply apply the code while commissioners apply politics is inaccurate,” said Brett Clubbe, a Thurston County resident who tried unsuccessfully to stop a hearing examiner from approving a septic system near his drinking-water well. “Every level of the system involves people making decisions based on their own personal biases. The difference is that county commissioners are directly accountable to the public. When land use decisions shape a community for generations, the people making those decisions should remain accountable to the public.”
The future of Menser’s proposal is uncertain. During the Board’s May 19 work session, Commissioner Emily Clouse spoke at length about her opposition to the proposal. During the Board’s business meeting later that day, Commissioner Carolina Mejia moved to postpone a vote. Commissioner Wayne Fournier supported the delay, stating that it would give the Board’s newest member, Rachel Grant, an opportunity to gain additional experience with the county’s land-use appeals process.
The motion to delay a vote passed 4-0, with Menser abstaining. Menser said he still supports the proposal. But he said he would prefer to move forward only if at least four commissioners vote in favor, because the proposal would be a significant change to the county’s land-use appeals process.
At least one member of the Planning Commission was disappointed the Board did not outright reject the proposal. At the May 20 meeting of the Planning Commission, commissioner Barry Halvorson said, “Why is your Planning Commission here making a recommendation? It’s 10 to zero and you’re not listening to us.”