HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111300District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole
District No. 2. Commissioner: Glen Huntingford
District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt
County Administrator: Charles Saddler
Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of November 13, 2000
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Dan Harpole
and Glen Huntingford were both present.
COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING: County Administrator Charles Saddler reported
on levy rates for the 2001 budget. He has worked with different departments to put together a balanced
budget. At the Board's next meeting, he will present proposed levy rates with his recommendations and
concerns. He suggested that the final budget hearing format be changed from a week long process to a two
day process. The County administrative departments would meet one morning and all other budgets would
be reviewed in an afternoon. If 1-722 is the lawful limit, the levy will be set at 1.85 or 1.83. Neither of
these rates will provide sufficient funds for the base budget as presented last year. His recommendation is
to set the budget to cover the needs and then see what happens with 1-722. Major reductions in force will
be needed if 1-722 is implemented. There will be some increases in programs that are currently
understaffed, but no new programs are proposed. This may be the last year that the County is able to levy
any amount greater than IPD. The County needs to look at revenue sources other than property taxes and
take issues to voters. The County lost $200,000 in property tax revenues from 1-695 and will potentially
lose another $600,000 with 1-722.
DISCUSSION re: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application and
Certification of Compliance; Proposed Housing Preservation Program to Provide Financial and
Technical Assistance to Low Income Families in Jefferson County; Olympic Community Action
Programs (OIyCAP), Applicant: Charles Saddler explained that this grant application submitted by
OlyCAP is for funding for a housing preservation and rehabilitation program in Clallam and Jefferson
Counties. At the hearing for the grant application on August 14, 2000, the County proposed a 6% fee to
cover the short term funding needs of the grant between payment and reimbursement. OlyCAP has
indicated that the budget submitted for the grant does not include this 6% for the County's administration
needs. If OlyCAP is required to provide the County with this 6%, they will not have the funding to
rehabilitate 33 units as proposed in the grant. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels it's important
that the County help with the grant program.
Page 1
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Commissioner Harpole moved to sign RESOLUTION NO. 88-00 giving the County Administrator the
authority to sign the necessary documents for this grant application, and directing that the County
Administrator work with Auditor's Office on the administration of this grant. Commissioner Huntingford
seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
The Board met in Executive Session from 9:01 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. with the County
Administrator and the Clerk of the Board regarding personnel.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were received: Two Planning
Commission members commented regarding the Planning Commission's work on the UDC and the short
timeframe their review has been under; there have been honest differences between the members of the
Planning Commission; there were no games played by the Planning Commission members; the County
needs to find alternative sources of income instead of property taxes; and the UDC is important.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole
moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion
which carded by a unanimous vote.
1. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance to Impose a Conservation Futures Tax in Jefferson
County; Heating Scheduled for Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners
Chambers
2. RESOLUTION NO. 89-00 and HEARING NOTICE re: Final Assessment Roll Heating for
Country Ridge Road Improvement District (RID) #4; Heating Scheduled for Monday, December
11, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers
3. RESOLUTION NO. 90-00 re: Adopting the Cost Allocation Plan for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
4. AGREEMENT Amendment #5 C 08612(5) re: 2000 Consolidated Contract; Jefferson County
Health and Human Services; State Department of Health
5. AGREEMENT Amendment #3 G9800290 re: Quilcene/Snow Watershed Project WRIA 17;
Jefferson County Environmental Health; State Department of Ecology
6. AGREEMENT re: Computer Network/Internet Support Services; Jefferson County Public Works;
City of Port Townsend
7. Accept Resignation of Person Serving on the Jefferson County Parks Advisory Board; David
Whipple, District #3 Representative
8. Accept Resignation of Person Serving on the Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities
Advisory Board; Judy Erlandson
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
The Board met in Executive Session from 10:06 a.m. to12:00 p.m. with the Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney, the Community Development Director, and the County Administrator regarding
potential litigation.
Board Initiated Unified Development Code (UDC); Discussion of Planning Agency Report:
Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reported that this meeting is to get the Board's direction on
the UDC Chapters. Commissioner Harpole asked that Planning Staff go through specific policy changes
from the last document.
Section 1:
This section covers the authority and purpose and establishes a Hearing Examiner system. Zones and
districts are from the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Manager Warren Hart reported that the significant
policy changes are:
· The Hearing Examiner ordinance will be repealed and replaced with this section.
· Appeals of Administrator decisions will be made to the Hearing Examiner.
· No fee schedules or costs are included in the UDC.
Section 2:
This section lists definitions taken from the Comprehensive Plan or the RCW.
Commissioner Harpole asked about the definition of individual water system? Warren Hart explained that
the change in the definition was made to address accessory dwelling units (ADUs.) A1 Scalfnoted that
page 23 defines well and approved water system. Mark Personious, Earthtech, Inc., said that the Planning
Commission asked that definitions in Section 2 be made consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Some line
in/line out changes were done at the request of the Planning Commission, but there hasn't been time for
them to re-review these changes so they appear in the document as staff changes.
Chairman Wojt asked about the use of the term Administrator and is concerned that this term not be
confused with County Administrator. Warren Hart explained that the UDC uses Administrator throughout,
but Section 2 defines this to be the Department of Community Development Administrator.
Section 3 - Conditional Uses:
Warren Hart indicated that the significant change is on page 4, Conditional Uses (Section 3.2.1 .c). This
section differentiates between Administrative Conditional Uses C(a) and Discretionary Conditional Uses
C(d). Staff disagrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation. These items are also tied to
Section 4 (Uses Impacted) and Section 8 (Conditional Uses.) He asked the Board for direction about which
recommendation they prefer. He explained that Conditional Uses can require a public notice and a public
hearing. The Administrative Conditional Use, under the staff recommendation does not require a public
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
hearing while the Discretionary Conditional Use has enough impact to require a public notice and hearing.
The Planning Commission recommends that all Conditional Uses require a public hearing and the hearing
can be waived if less than 5 comment letters are received. The public notice would indicate this
requirement.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the staff recommendation and revert to the original language
because they feel there are enough safeguards and an appeal process is provided. Commissioner
Huntingford asked about the Planning Commission's concern? Mark Personious replied that the Planning
Commission's intent was to shift the burden of proof. The way this was originally written, a public hearing
would not be required, unless certain criteria are met. The Planning Commission thought the presumption
should be that a public hearing would be held unless less than 5 comment letters were received. Warren
Hart pointed out that either way, he feels the public interest is protected. The Planning Commission's
recommendation would result in more public hearings. Mark Personious explained that there are
performance standards for uses to help streamline processing of these applications. Tom McNemy,
Planning Commission Chair, stated that his recollection is that one member was concerned that neighbors
have opportunity to comment. Other members didn't completely agree and that was why the requirement
for the 5 comments letters was added.
Chairman Wojt asked the Board members for their recommendation. Commissioner Huntingford stated
that he prefers the staff recommendation. Commissioner Harpole agreed and noted that either one of these
Conditional Use decisions can be appealed. The goal is to make the permitting process more predictable
and efficient. Chairman Wojt concurred.
Section 3 - Best Available Science:
Warren Hart discussed the Use Table in Section 3 where significant revisions have been made, as well as
the Best Available Science (BAS) language and references to stream buffers. Dave Christensen,
Environmental Health Specialist, explained that he reviewed the science on stream buffers. He didn't look
at everything (700+ studies) but did review a small subset that were most pertinent to the County. The
requirements for buffers are typically by stream type, but the studies were not necessarily done this way.
The studies were done on the functions of the stream (woody debris input, shade, stability, etc.) He tried to
come up with a range of protections. He then looked at stream typing and what types of functions need to
be protected for the stream type. The buffers being recommended are generally protective, but not totally
protective. The recommendations are minimums: Type 1 and 2 Streams - 150 foot buffer; Type 3 and 4
Streams - 100 foot buffer; and Type 5 Streams - 50 foot buffer.
In response to a question from Chairman Wojt, Dave Christensen explained that he reviewed studies that
would be supported by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for BAS and ones that were
applicable to the Pacific Northwest. He gave preference to studies from this area. A1 Scalf added that the
wording in the UDC complies with the Comprehensive Plan and ESA. The WAC sections on stream typing
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
were changed in March 2000 by an emergency rule. The UDC also complies with the State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development determination and Hearings Board decisions for BAS.
The UDC becomes effective upon adoption and is not retroactive. Commissioner Huntingford asked the
following questions:
· Ifa landowner is going to do some maintenance on a stream or ditch, does the County require a
permit as well as the State's hydraulics permit? Al Scalf answered that any work in an
environmentally sensitive area will require County review.
· Randy Kline pointed out that page 10, Section 3 (3.6.4.f- General Exemptions) addresses pre-
existing and on-going agricultural activities and on-going maintenance of irrigation and drainage
ditches as being exempt.
· Is an hydraulic permit a triggering permit for the County? The hydraulic permit is a State permit
and is not a triggering permit for the County, Randy Kline answered.
This section has been reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Warren Hart asked if the Board is comfortable with BAS and the buffers as presented? Dave Christensen
reiterated the criteria he used in the review of the studies on BAS: 1) peer review by experts in the field;
2) methods used to obtain information are clearly stated and can be reproduced;
3) conclusions were logical and based on a study;
4) some quantitative analysis;
5) assumptions, techniques, data and conclusions are appropriately framed; and
6) well referenced and credible citations.
Best Available Science has to be published and available.
Commissioner Harpole observed that BAS in the UDC relates to meeting the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and not necessarily the ESA rules.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if an applicant has the ability to change a buffer? Dave Christensen
explained that BAS says it is best to look at each site, but without the staff.ability to do that, the County
must rely on buffers that will be generally protective. The County's ability to review all the cases must be
considered, Warren Hart noted. Commissioner Huntingford asked how the County would deal with a
request from a property owner who has someone review and suggest different buffers? Warren Hart
answered that the County doesn't have the staff.to do a case by case review, but there is enough staff.to
review and react to habitat management plans, geologic reports, and wetland reports.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Section 3 - Seawater Intrusion:
Dave Christensen advised that staff originally recommended that the saltwater intrusion section in the
UDC be removed. Staff, after listening to the Planning Commission, agreed to include some wording about
saltwater intrusion. Last week the Board expressed concern that the stipulated agreements with Shine
Community Action Council and the City of Port Townsend not be violated. Staff is currently working with
these groups. The cost to the County of continued annual monitoring for 70 wells is $20 per well or $1,400
per year plus 2 ½ weeks of staff time. The monitoring depends on the access to the well and there are a
number of property owners who no longer want to participate in the monitoring.
Commissioner Huntingford asked why there is a difference between the County's standards and the State's
standards for seawater intrusion? Dave Christensen explained that the County uses the State's drinking
water standards for chloride which is 250 milligrams per liter. If a well has a higher chloride level, a notice
is put on the property title that the drinking water requires treatment. The language in the UDC states that
islands or property within 500 feet of a coastline are potential seawater intrusion areas. The new
regulations require infiltration to be maximized onsite to improve aquifer recharge. Warren Hart explained
that the changes are in Section 13 and are based on the Environmental Health Department's
recommendation. Dave Christensen is currently working with the City and the SCAC and will bring
recommendations that they suggest in order for the County to meet the obligations of the stipulated
agreement.
Section 3 - Use Tables:
Commissioner Harpole pointed out that Bed and Breakfast Inns and Bed and Breakfast Residences are
defined as commercial uses rather than residential uses as the Use Table indicates. The Board concurred
Bed & Breakfasts need to come under the commercial category in the Use Table.
Commissioner Harpole noted the asterisk on page 48 under Hotel/Motel and asked that wording be added
to clarify that this is an allowed use in this instance.
Commissioner Harpole asked for clarification that asphalt batch plants are conditional uses only in forest
and resource lands of significance and in heavy industrial zones. They are only allowed as a project
specific temporary use. Warren Hart added that there was a great deal of public comment on this issue and
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to make the changes.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the wording on a caretaker residence at a public park and if this
was specifically for H.J. Carroll Park? Warren Hart answered that it was added because it is an appropriate
use in a Park, Reserve and Recreation area. In the case of a residential area, this type of residence would be
considered an ADU. Under Small Scale Tourist and Recreation, there may also be a need for a caretaker's
residence and this type of residential unit would be allowed.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the category unnamed uses? Warren Hart explained that this was
originally addressed in the Interim Controls Ordinance (ICO.) Rather than listing uncommon uses that may
only come up a few times, it was agreed that, in these few cases, the Administrator can look at the criteria
in the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan and determine the type of use and the appropriate zone where it
could be located.
Commissioner Harpole asked about the Small Scale Tourist/Recreation designation and stated concerns
about cummulative effects that could allow a "necessary"use, such as a convenience store/gas station in a
residential rural area where it would otherwise not be permitted. The Mark Personious explained that
associated commercial activity is allowed as long as it is tied directly to the small scale tourist/recreational
use. It will be permitted on a case by case basis and there is clear criteria in the UDC that the
tourist/recreation use has to be what triggered the demand for the gas station.
Warren Hart explained that there are specific policies and clear direction in the Comprehensive Plan that
address appropriate uses in each zone. The unnamed use category is not a way to get around the original
intent of the Plan. There are adequate safeguards to prevent commulative impacts. The criteria is clearly
outlined on page 4-22 and 4-23.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if an excavating contractor can run a business out of their home in a
residential area? Mark Personious replied that it is considered a cottage industry and it is allowed.
Section 4:
Warren Hart explained that they received more comment from the public and input from the Planning
Commission on this section than any other chapter in the UDC. There have been significant changes to
address these comments. This section, Performance and Use-Specific Standards, works "hand in hand"
with the Use Table. Ifa proposed project in a specific zone can meet over 40 specific standards of the
zone, a conditional use designation is not necessary. Significant changes include:
· Outdoor Residential Storage of Vehicles: The Planning Commission recommended that not more
than 2 unlicenced or inoperable vehicles can be stored on any lot less than ½ acre unless totally
screened from neighborhood dwellings and rights-of-way.
· Accessary Dwelling Units (ADUs): Based upon a HUD standard, the square footage of an ADU has
been increased fi'om 800 square feet to 1,250 square feet.
· Recreation Vehicles: The Planning Commission removed this provision on page 4-3.
· Cottage Industries: The provisions regarding reclamation under Mineral Extraction and
Reclamation (page 4-17) were DNR standards and have been removed. For mines under 3 acres, a
stormwater management permit would be required if the threshold on clearing and grading is
exceeded.
Page 7
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Small Scale Tourist/Recreational Uses: Regarding recreation, cultural, or religious conference
centers/retreat facilities, 15 built cabins for overnight lodging (up to 6,000 gross square feet) are
allowed for every 10 acres up to 30 cabins (with no more than 12,000 gross square feet) over the
entire site and excluding the caretaker's residence. Using performance standards, the size of a
facility must be based on the need generated by the primary tourist use. There are several
safeguards against commulative impacts.
Commissioner Harpole asked how the County will address impacts from temporary outdoor uses and
temporary festivals? Charles Saddler answered that the County has a Special Event Permit and this is not a
land use issue. Warren Hart added that staff can reference the Jefferson County Code and the Special
Event Permit in this section.
Commissioner Wojt stated that there are many parcels in the County where families own separate houses
with separate wells and septic systems. Ifa family wants to sell their home, they would have to subdivide
the parcel which could result in increased density if permitted ADUs are built. Associate Planner Randy
Kline researched ADUs and found that the State's average rate for building ADUs is about 3%.
Commissioner Huntingford asked if a property owner could build an ADU first and then build a house? A1
Scalfreplied that this is allowed.
Commissioner Huntingford had additional questions about the following topics:
· Commercial Kennels and Shelters: Warren Hart explained that this only applies to commercial
kennels for 5 or more domestic pets. The Jefferson County Code is referenced in this section.
· Storage of buses: Warren Hart explained that this was added to address school buses stored in rural
residential areas and concern for neighbors.
· Uses Prohibited as Cottage Industries: No auto, truck or heavy equipment repair shops are allowed.
Warren Hart explained that there is a specific policy in the Comprehensive Plan that states that
these uses are prohibited. If someone rebuilds automobile starters, that would be considered small
equipment repair and would be allowed.
· Retail Sales in Home Businesses: Mark Personious answered that retail sales are limited to products
and services produced on the premises or items accessory to a service.
Section 5:
This section deals with the Shoreline Master Program and is currently on hold because it is in the process
of being revised. This section has been left blank instead of inserting the current shorelines rules because
the format does not fit the UDC format. There are also 2 ordinances that are being adopted in the UDC by
reference. These three documents will be shown as appendices. Commissioner Huntingford stated that it is
important to him to have all the regulations listed clearly in one document. Warren Hart said that when
someone receives a copy of the UDC the appendices will be included.
Page 8
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
There is a policy issue regarding the UDC and implementing the Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline
Master Program is adopted locally and by the State Department of Ecology. Both documents need to be
consistent.
Section 6:
Chairman Wojt asked about the bulk and dimension and building size caps? A1 Scalf replied that the only
building cap in the Comprehensive Plan applies to Glen Cove and is 20,000 square feet. Anything above
3,999 square feet requires a SEPA review. It is a policy direction of the Board to maintain rural character
in the rural centers. Prior to 1996, there were no building caps. Warren Hart added that the Comprehensive
Plan specifically says that in crafting development regulations there will be a cap on the size of the
building square footage in each district. The Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended and that
language removed if the Board wanted to change this.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about the impervious surface on lots? Mark Personious replied that in
the rural, commercial, and industrial zones impervious surface has been increased to 60%. There is no
minimum lot area in the commercial districts, but any development must meet performance standards of
impervious surface coverage, the setback, the fireflow, and the parking and landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Wojt had additional questions regarding the following points:
· If any variance can be allowed to increase the size of these buildings? Warren Hart answered that
the only variance allowed is on pre-existing, non-conforming uses. In Glen Cove it would be 3,999
square feet as long as it was under the 20,000 foot cap. A UGA can accept a big-box store; but
rural areas cannot.
· What about the maximum height of a building? Al Scalf explained that currently it is 35 feet and
there is no mechanism for a variance.
· Why restrict the height standards of mini-storage units to 18'? Commissioner Wojt feels that so
many of these mini-storage buildings are taking over commercial areas and restrictions on height
decreases the use of the property.
Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that marquees for drive-in movie theaters are exempt from State
highway codes. He does not see this exemption in the UDC. There was a discussion about the addition of
rules regarding campaign signs and if such rules would be worth the County's time to enforce. Why is the
issue of painted lettering or magnetic signs on vans that are parked and used as advertising mentioned?
Why restrict sandwich boards to 2 colors? Mark Personious explained that these regulations are in the
current sign ordinance. The Board agreed to leave the political sign regulations in and to take out the
reference to colors on sandwich boards.
Page 9
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Commissioner Harpole thanked staff for adding the "common wall" language regarding parking. He stated
that triplexes have not previously been mentioned or defined in the UDC. Staff agreed to change triplex to
multi-family.
Section 7:
Warren Hart explained that the only change in this section is the removal of the provision to extinguish
pre-1937 plats of one ownership. After researching the number of plats that come under this category, staff
feels that these plats can be legally regulated and there are so few of them that their development would
not change the rural character.
Criteria has been added to address boundary line adjustments that fall in different land use zones.
Section 8:
Warren Hart stated that the intent of this section is to streamline the permit process to provide flexible
regulations with adequate criteria to make sure the public's due process is served. This section integrates
SEPA and GMA review so that the notices can go out simultaneously. A1 Scalf added that this section is
statutorily driven, with one open record hearing and one closed record appeal. The Hearing Examiner's
system is maintained and there is an appellate examiner.
Table 8-1 and 8-2 list the types of permits, their noticing requirements, and details regarding the action and
appeal processes.
Section 9:
In their earlier workshops, the Board directed staff to make changes on amendments to the GMA
implementing regulations in Section 9.9. The fee schedule is referenced but not included in the UDC.
There has been a suggestion about a process for bringing Comprehensive Plan text amendments forward
that would be similar to an initiative or referendum process where a certain number of signatures would be
required. Warren Hart explained that it is important to encourage changes to the Comprehensive Plan; but
there needs to be a way to sort out frivolous text amendments because each amendment costs the County
over $2,000 to process. Commissioner Harpole stated that he feels 50 registered voters signatures would be
a fair amount. Commissioner Huntingford commented that this would create more work for the Auditor's
Office because they would have to verify the signatures. He added that all the amendments last year were
site specific and he does not feel the need to change the process for text amendments at this time. The
Board members had differing opinions and agreed to not put any requirement for a number of signatures
on the petition for amendment.
Page 10
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Section 10:
To address the public comment on Section 10.4, the Department is required to call ahead for onsite
inspections so that the owner can be there. They will respect "no trespassing" signs. If some sort of
enforcement action is necessary, they will resolve the problem at the lowest level possible, administratively
or between neighbors. Once the County signs off on a permit, staff can no longer go on the property.
Commissioner Wojt asked if there is a mechanism for the County to work with property owners that are
out of compliance without putting liens on the property or going to Court? Warren Hart answered that
there are voluntary correction compliance procedures outlined in this section. The intent is to keep
enforcement at the administrative level and not have to go to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. This
section does not set up an alternative dispute procedure if the County cannot work with the property
owner. Charles Saddler explained that the Court has to impose a fine or a lien. The County can make a
claim of lien and can withdraw the intention to go to Court if the property owner decides to come into
compliance. Commissioner Wojt wants it to be very clear in the UDC that the intent is to get compliance.
Commissioner Huntingford asked about appeals of administrative interpretations and who will review
them? A1 Scalf stated that they will be sent to the Hearing Examiner.
Commissioner Harpole asked that the title of Section 10.7 be changed by deleting the language public
nuisance.
Commissioner Harpole moved to direct staff to bring forward the corrections, additions and changes
that the Board has deliberated on today and notice the final document for public hearings on
December 11 and 12 with deliberations on adoption on December 18. Commissioner Huntingford
seconded the motion. He stated that he feels more comfortable reviewing the document after the Planning
Commission and staff reviews and he wants the Planning Commission to finish their review.
Commissioner Harpole clarified his motion to say that on December 18 the Board would adopt the
whole UDC or only sections of the UDC. In order to have public hearings on December 11 and 12, the
hearing notice needs to be published as is. He also wants the Planning Commission to finish their review
and give comments at the hearings, either as a Board or as private citizens.
Commissioner Huntingford reiterated that he is concemed about moving things forward before the review
is completed. Chairman Wojt stated that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission may not
want to schedule extra meetings in order to finish their review. Planning Commission Chair, Tom
McNerny explained that they have a meeting scheduled this week and he will make the Planning
Commission members aware of the Board's wishes. There was a discussion about whether the Planning
Commission would feel comfortable bringing forward their completed review at the public hearings?
Warren Hart emphasized that this document is a Board initiated ordinance at this point and the Planning
Page 11
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 13, 2000
Commission's "window of opportunity" is closed. Therefore, any additional review of the UDC by the
Planning Commission would be on a voluntary basis to help the Board in their deliberations.
Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board put the Planning Commission on a tight schedule for their
review and he feels they should be allowed to finish.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Chairman Wojt and Commissioner Harpole voted for the
motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried.
Warren Hart explained that staff will make the changes and bring forward the necessary paperwork to
notice the public hearings on the Board's agenda for Monday, November 20. SEPA requirements will
also be addressed that day. Commissioner Huntingford requested that as soon as staff makes changes to the
document it be made available to the Planning Commission and the public. The Board would like to have a
written report from the Planning Commission at the public hearing.
MEETING ADJOURNED
Seal: ' i" ;~
. l.,
ATTEST.k, ' k ~,..',,.~?.~' ' ./
Loma Delaney, CMC O
Clerk of the Board
Page 12