Snohomish County Council directs staff to prepare motion to affirm denial of PBSS rezone request

Snohomish County Council members on May 22, 2026 directed staff to prepare a written motion to affirm the hearing examiner’s March 27 decision denying a site-specific rezone sought by PBSS Investments, which the record ties to a long‑running contractor operation identified in hearing materials as McClure and Sons. The council gave the instruction after oral arguments, public comment and an executive session, and the motion was set for 9 a.m. May 27; the council approved directing staff by voice vote, 5‑0.

The appeal concerns an approximately 8‑acre parcel at 19125 State Route 9 SE near Clearview. Council staff told members the closed‑record appeal challenges only the rezone decision (file numbers 25-105874 REZO and 25-105880 VAR) and that the record shows the applicant did not meet the burden for the rezone under the county code. Staff summarized the procedural timeline: application submitted March 2025, deemed complete April 3, 2025, additional materials filed July 21, 2025, and an open‑record hearing held Feb. 24–March 4, 2026; the hearing examiner issued a decision March 27, 2026. By statute the council must issue a written decision by June 10 (internal clerks’ deadline June 5).

Attorneys for the applicant argued the property has a decades‑long history of contractor‑use activity and urged the council to apply the legislative intent behind ordinance 98‑121, which they said created a pathway for existing rural businesses to obtain rural‑business rezones. Peter Derland, counsel for the applicant, said the operation had historically used about four acres of the site and that the current proposal would restore or reduce the footprint and permit screening and remediation. “We’re just seeking to rectify that mistake here,” Derland said in rebuttal, acknowledging that some clearing occurred in 2022 and that further mitigation would require permitting after a favorable outcome.

Opponents — several neighbors who are parties of record — told the council the clearing exceeded the historic footprint, removed trees that provided privacy and noise buffering, and was undertaken without required permits. Veronica Whitney Robinson, a neighbor who lives at 18915 State Route 9 SE, said the loss of trees and ongoing machinery activity has reduced the enjoyment of long‑held homes and asked the council to follow the hearing examiner’s recommendation and deny the rezone. “They can’t return the trees,” Robinson said. Gary Davis, an adjacent property owner, said the removal opened sightlines to Highway 9 and eliminated space once used for horses.

Applicant counsel and the council’s briefing materials also discussed prior code‑enforcement interactions and a prior council remand in a different case that influenced how ordinance 98‑121 was applied historically. Counsel for the applicant argued that county practice had, for years, treated the use as an established nonconforming commercial activity and that a narrow rezone would allow remediation and enforce setbacks and landscaping the neighbors seek.

After closing arguments the council recessed to executive session under RCW 42.30.110 to consider the quasi‑judicial appeal. On return, a council member moved to direct staff to prepare a written motion affirming the examiner’s decision and adopting additional findings that the rezone is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and does not bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety and welfare; staff was instructed to have the motion ready for the May 27 council session. The motion passed by voice vote, 5‑0. The council chair announced the meeting was adjourned.

Next steps: staff will draft the council motion for consideration at the May 27 meeting; the council must issue a written decision on the closed‑record appeal by June 10. The appeal record and the hearing examiner’s findings remain the basis for the council’s written decision.