Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1975 w SMAC re Hermitage Camper ClubSHORELINE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION and• JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1975 PUBLIC HEARING "HERMITAGE CAMPER CLUB" OPENING BUSINESS Shoreline Management Advisory Commission Chairman, Edward Richey, brought the hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. Shoreline Management Advisory Commission Members present were Chairman Edward Richey, Roger French, Karp Randolph, Marian Meacham, and Chuck Smith. Jefferson County Planning Commission Members present were Chairman Norris Short, Eva Taylor, Karl Randolph, Chet Dalgleish, Ed Wainwright, Harry.Pollard, and Fred Lester. Director David Cunningham, Assistant Planner Tom Aumock, and Secretary Laura Southmayd of the Jefferson County Planning Department were present. Jefferson County Commissioners A.M. O'Meara and Carroll M. Mercer were present. Korte Brueckmann,_Reporter.from the Port Townsend Leader, was present. Representatives for Evergreen Environmental Development Corporation were Presi- dent Robert Ngwgard, Vice -President Bill Brandt, and Secretary Jean Haakinson.. Assistants to the proposed project were Consultant Regnar Kearton, Ph.D.. from Jones Associates, Inc; Consultant Daniel Morgan from Tracey & Brunstrom Company; Chief Geologist Tom Bekey from Rittenhouse, Zeman & Associates, Inc; Marine, Biologist Hap Leon from Northwest Environmental Consultants; Attorney Charles Mertel and his secretary Barbara Nordeen from Guttormsen, Scholfield & Stafford; and Profess4bna1..Fh0•ineer Robert G. Turpin. Guests who did not give testimony but wished notation as being -present were, from Quilcene'Mr. &,Mrs. L.V-.-Eaton, Wilma Lambert, Darithe M. Harrington, John and Frances Lyon, Alice Montgomery, John D. Smith, Virginia L. Mills., Donald-J. Wishaar and Ronald 0. and Beverly J. Jones; from Bellevue J.A. Palmquist and Family and Chas R. Varner; from Seattle Myrtle Johnson; from Tacoma Gene and Betty Crachett. Director of Planning David Cunningham began the proceedings by announcing the names of the Planning Commission members and the Shoreline Commission members and where they now -reside. He noted Fred Houghton, member of the Planning Commission, excluded himself from any discussions or recommendations on the basis of being a property owner in the proposed projects vicinity. Mr. Cunningham then noted how the process of administering the proposal will be made. He also explained how the hearing was to be held. � 4 r � •N PART I (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) Chairman Edward Richey began the testimony proceedings. Testimony: Herbert Covert: He stated that all his questions were answered in the E.I.S. He also stated, as Chairman of Water District #3 he would confer with the Developers at a later date. Michael Shupe: He believed more clarification was needed on sale and convey-: ances and dredging techniques in the E.I.S. ` Tom Date: Mr. -Date found several inadequacies in the E.I.S. as was stateid in his July 11, 1975 correspondence which he read. Highlighting his findings were tideland ownership, solid waste and trash collection, roads, law enforce-. { ment, economics, recreation, and public expenditures. He!concl'uded-with'a', request for addition and study of alternative -proposal; the subdivision of the 331 acres into 5 acre lots. (This letter is on file with the Planning Depart- ment for inspection.) Pauline O'Neil: She believed there is a lack of tidelands for expected number - of people. Her calculations estimated only one foot per family. Donald Ward: Mr. Ward stated the E.I.S. was inadequate in estimating the impact on the people. Ernest Kochevar: He statedthe E.I.S. made an inadequate evaluation of the water supply and sewage -system, noting there was no mention -of bacteria in regard to protection against contamination of supply. -..,He also questioned the quantity' from ground water depletion. Jerome Hellmuth: He stated hearing original proposal which was to subdivide' into larger tracts but was discounted for economic reasons. He believesmore background should be put in the E.I.S. on how proposal came about. His comments on the alternatives were reforestation was better than devastation and recrea- tiaonal assets could not be adequately utilized by so many people. Robert Newgard: Mr-. Newgard stated the E.I.S. fairly states the entire proposal. Jack Trumble: He made several comments regarding the E.I.S. Recreation fiver spill was understated. What about the visitors who are not allowed -on -site, where will they be accomodated? Bike trail statements were inadequate, he believes they will be overused. Comments on deterioration of land values and on depletion of marine life were not strong enough. Mr. Trumble questions protec* Lion of people's loss of privacy. He stated water quality depletion from dredg- ing should be quantified. Jack Emel: Mr. Emel questions the E.T.S. on several points. Is the lake man --made` or natural? Who is to do maintenance? There is a contradiction in the By -Laws regarding maintenance, it states the campers will pay for maintenance but the . Developer will not be responsible. page 2 ., R Rhea Cunningham: Mrs. Cunningham read a letter of William Rhodes dated July 17, 1975. In brief it stated his opposition to the.E.I.S*. on conflicting statemenis;organization of the Club and use of the facilities by members, unknown damage to marine waters and marine life as a result of dredging, and the effect of projected population, automobile, and boat traffic on existing public roads and fisherman Harbor. (Letter on file with the Planning Department) Rod Culp: Passed Chairman Edward Richey asked if any late comers would like to present testimony. No response. PART II (Proposed Project) Chairman Norris Short of the Planning Commission began the second part of the Hearing by presenting all the Planning Commission members and the Shoreline Management Advisory Commission members to the audience.. He also introduced the County Commissioners present.. Then he noted -how Part II would be conducted.. Mr. Newgard from Evergreen Environmental Development Corporation presented -a slide show of the proposed project, pointing out the area as it is now and what they proposed to do with it. He gave an explanation of the -reservation system to be used in their development. Mr. Newgard concluded with an explanation of his background. Regnar Kearton, consultant for the Developer, explained the development mech- anics. Testimony: Bill Jensen: Mr. Jensen noted the main objection to the development is the tres- passing situation. With no development, property owners find i-t hard to keep trespassers off, with the development it would be near to impossible. He believes the area should bee kept in the same character as it is now. Tom Date: His opposition is concerned with the loss of priva;y, which he empha- sized by giving the Engineer's car count given to him being in contridiction to the Developer's count. He believed the cost*.of public'services,would- be -greater. Again -Mr. Date endorsed the 5 acre tract subdivision alternative, which*he said would bring in more dollars than Developer said, therefore it would be more feasible. Michael Shupe: Mr. Shupe is opposed, believing people who live there keep their property in better care. He supports the 5 acre parcel concept. Ernest Kochevar: He is opposed, believing the project.can't be entirely financed and the developers are just out to make money. Herbert Covert: He stated that an average size lot of existing property owners could not be estimated, they are too varied. He questions the concept of locked gates and asked how the proposed gas station and grocery store could not be within the enclosed area. Pauline O'Neil: She opposes development stating over -use will destroy the natural area. page 3 4 � ' Donald Ward: Mr. Ward objects to the over development of the area, partic- ularly the shoreline area. He noted, as a petitioner for property owners responses, none were in favor of the proposal. Jerome Hellmuth: Mr. Hellmuth opposes the development on several points. The taxes will go up and the valuation of property will go down, as stated in the E.I.S. He believes the Harbor will become dead from dredging.- The proposed fire protection is inadequate. Sound will increase and be di4turbing. Jack Trumble: Passed Jack Emel: Mr. Ammel believes that all recreational assets Developers proposed are already available. He -questions whether these same recreational means that: are available to everyone now, would be available to everyone after the develcip-- - ment is made. _ Elaine Hellsmuth: The Commissioners must weigh losses to environment and .people. She outlined the culturaland natural losses that would be made. Rhea Cunningham: Passed Les Lambert: Passed Ronold Jones: Will write a letter. - Beverly Jones: Passed Ethyl Houghton: She questioned how approval could be made when a proposal by previous owners (condominiums and golf course) was denied for water, sewage,. " and soil unsuitability. Florentine Larson: Will write a letter. Rod Culp: He does not oppose the project, because the property owner should not have rights infringed upon by land development.laws. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD Chairman Norris Short asked the people in the audience.to write down any questions and pass them to the Chairman.,.. Who agreed to vacate the County road to Evergreen Corporation and put in a gate? The answer to this question was not fully established. A man from the audience stated that the road was built by the County but they have no records of owning it. A previous property owner tried to vacate the road but there are no records that he did. Will this campsite be similar to Timber Trails near Chehalis? Mr. Newgard replied, similar but different. Section 3 of the By -Laws states "campsites will be availabe ofi*a non -assigned basis", if this is so how can the calendar arrangement be possible? Mr. NewgaM. stated that the By -Laws would be corrected to reflect the new calendar arrange- ment. What number of boats did you project would be owned by the members and is the Harbor big enough to accom wdate�them? Mr. Cunningham explained the basis for no definite approximation on hoW many boats could be accomodated. page 4 What is the reason Dorgreen Development proposes to move the North -South property lines of the 16 privately owned properties on Oak Head 30 feet East from existing lines? Mr. Newgard replied, they were not going to do any such thing and any confirmation coul.d be made with their Engineering Firm in Oak Harbor. What Is projeicted impact on marine life? Hap.Leon, Marine Biologist, presented his findings of the proposed areas marine life existence. In brief, he con- firmed that the marine life would falter according to the species Who is to pay for the proposed new road? The Developers. Would Evergreen Development be willing to cash out? -If so for what price? Mr. Newgard said any -propositions should be made privately. Would pumping. 2 deep wells draw down aquifer, which would feed the deep wel.l Water District 3 is going to drill? Mr. Turpin, Professional Engineer, reapon,' ded, saying he could not say for sure but he believed wouldn't draw it that far -away. Mr. Covert stated it is a mile and a half away. Private owners at south end of Peninsula must use County road, how do you propose to limit access to this area to members? Mr. Newgard explained that two other alternative routes would be available and they would not limit access. Where did you get the ATD road count? Developers replied they got it from the County Engineers. Will the facilities be fenced? Mr. Newgard replied they would be fenced par-- tially. Where has this reservation system worked before? Mr. Newgard stated that Silent Springs, California used an eight year system that works. It is located between Palm.Springs and Los Angeles. Is someone from the Port Townsend Leader present? If so, will there.be an - article written? Yes, said Chairman Short, and he introduced Mr.-Brueckmann, reporter from the Leader. Respectfully Submitted, Laura Southmayd Planning Department Secretary and Acting Secretary for the Commissions NOTE: This meeting was tape recorded and the tapes are on file with the Jeff- erson County Planning Department. Page 5