Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060500District No, 1 Commissioner: I~anHarpele District No. 2 CommiSsioner: Glen: Huntingford District No. 3 Commissionen Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney M IN U T E S Week of June 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order by !Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford were present. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner:Harp°lc mOved to approve the May 15, 2000 minutes as corrected (page 3 - last paragraph of the Water Conservancy Board hearing - change motion sentence to read "... present a proposal and sample by-laws, for a future public hearing, ") and the May 22, 2000 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS BRIEFING SESSION: Deputy County Administrator David Goldsmith reported on the following in the absence 0fCharles Saddler: · The YIPPEE program has received funding for 2 more-years. The summer program is currently recruiting staff. · The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is reviewing a report on regional tourism promotion efforts~ The report will be issued within the month: · Commissioner Huntingford explained that he will be attending a meeting of the State Transportation Committee this week where the Peninsula Regional Transportation Organization will give an update on the transportation needs of the Olympic Peninsula. · The County Administrator will be updatedon a proposal for developing a trailbetween Gibbs Lake and Anderson Lake. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: What is happening with the Conservation Futures Program?; the problems for a property with 2 permitted septic systems and the property owner's options (the Board will discuss this with DCD stafJ); and a group from Brinnon who want to see the Bayshorc Motel reopened and an Offer from a Bdnnon man and the Secretary of the Brinnon Senior Association to help mn the motel in :the interim until CAC can look into the possibility of converting it to an assisted living facility, ffhe Board asked that the Public Works Department work with ' the Brinnon community to open the motel for the next few months.) Page 1 ' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June: 5, 2000 APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve thc Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. 1. PROCLAMATION re: June 19-25, 2000 as Amateur Radio Week 2. RESOLUTION NO. 52-00 re: Statutory VacatiOn of a portion of Elizabeth, Bay View & Charles Streets inthe Plat of Eisenbeis Bay View Addition; James Eades, Petitioner 3. AGREEMENT re: Veterinarian Services to Spay and Neuter Adopted Pets; Jefferson iCounty Health and Human Services; Oak Bay Animal Hospital 4. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services for Interim Managernent/StaffTraining and Technical Support of the AS400 Computer System and Telephone/Voice Mail Systems; Jefferson County Information Services; Elaine Arey 5. AGREEMENT re: Examine and Report on Salmon Otoliths From Salmon Creek Summer Chum; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 6. AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Professional Services for Community. Access services Such as Specialized Assistance, Advocacy, Individualized Education and Activities for Individuals with Disabilities; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Concerned Citizens of Forks 7. AGREEMENT, Amendment #1 re: Professional Services; To Attend, Record and Prepare Minutes of Health Board Meetings; Joanna K. Sanders 8. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Establishing a WorkForce Development Council (WDC) to Provide Workforce Development Services; Kitsap County and Clallam County 9. Concurrence and Authorization to Proceed With the Real Property Negotiation and Easement Acquisition for Lindsay Hill Road, Project #XO1387; Jefferson County Public Works 10. Joint Letter with Clallam County Commissioners re: Appreciation for Educational Achievements as President of Peninsula College; Dr. Wally Sigmar 11. Appoint Five (5) Members to Serve Another Three (3) Year Term on the Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; 1) Carl W. Harmon, Term Expires March 17, 2003; 2) Jeanne Koester, Term Expires June 5, 2003; 3) Sheila WesteJ~man, Term Expires June 5, 2003; 4) Helen Brink, Term Expires June 5, 2003; and 5) Marie Smith, Term Expires June 5, 2003 12. Accept the Resignations of Two Members ofthe Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee; Pamela Botnen and David Gordon Jefferson County Treasurer re: Distribution Funds; a) Forest Development Funds; and b) I-695 Replacement Health and Law and Justice Funds: Deputy Treasurer Janet Holbrook reported on the Forest Development Funds received by the County. Commissioner Harpole moved to transfer the $315,086.14 from thc Forest Development Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous~vote. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 2000 Janet Holbrook explained that replacement funds for the losses from 1-695 have been received in the amount of $38,072 for the Health Department and $115,044 for law enforcement. The Treasurer has asked how these funds should be distributed? There is a question aboUt whether the funds for the Health Department were provided for in the budget process. Commissioner Harpole noted that the Health Department Fund reserves were spent down to cOver the budget needs this year and these funds should be used to replace those reserves. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this is one time funding or if it will continUe? David Goldsmith reported that the Legislature approved the funding for their fiscal year; and in order for the funding to continue, the Legislature would:have to vote on it.again. Janet Holbrook reported that the $38,000 is for the year 2000 and next year the County will receive $78,000. The County will receive approximately 53% of What was lost for the law and justice funding and 80% of the Health funding. Commissioner Harpole stated that there are other issues regarding these funds suchas the Health Department reorganization review and the Law and Justice Council. He asked that-this be put on hold until the County Administrator's return and then an update can be provided on how these funds were addressed in the 2000 budget. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Interim Controls Ordinance (ICO) to Provide the Zoning ~ldministrator with the Authority and Criteria to Review Appllcatlons for Consistency with Section 13 Use Table (Substantial Changes Made from May 8, 2000 Hearing): Planning Manager Warren Hart reported that the purpose of this hearing is to:receive comments on the proposed amendment to the Interim Control Ordinance. This is the second hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment. Substantial changes were made to the original ordinance amendment that required another public hearing. Commissioner Harpole has concerns about the fiscal impact of this amendment which indicates that it will take 150 hours of additional stafftime in the 7 months until the Development Regulations are adopted. Warren Hart reported that the County Administrator is aware of the staffing limitations caused by this ordinance amendment, as well as other staffing requirements, that haven't been met. Chairman Wojt asked how the work on the UDC would be impacted? Warren Hart reported that it will have an adverse impact onthe work on the UDC. There are several things: going on in the Department that will have an impact on the UDC work including the possible resignation of an employee and an appeal of the County's Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Commissioner Huntingford asked if impact is on the day to day workload? Warren Hart reported that is correct. He reminded the Board that they directed staff.to develop this amendment because of comments from the public requesting more flexibility in the land use tables. Page 3 COmmissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 2000 Chairman Wojt asked how requests would be dealt: with if this isn't passed? Warren Hart explained that the Department would have to determine if there is a similar use listed in the use table. If one is not found, and the use is not listed on the table, the request would be denied. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Collette Kostelec, 540 Benton Street, (Planning Commission Member speaking as a private citizen) asked why the Planning Commission didn't get to review this proposed ordinance amendment? She feels the Planning Commission should have reviewed it under the provisions of the Planning Enabling Act. The Board omitted this step because they are trying to amend an interim control. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, read and submitted her statement. (See microfilm document.) Freida Fenn, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, stated that she would like the Board to abandon or postpone action on this ordinance. She reviewed the following sections of the amendment ordinance: Section 13.10: The overall feel of this amendment is to move from Objective use tables to more subjective performance standards. This would increase flexibility; but she has concerns about how these subjective standards will be handled. Section 13.2: The Zoning Administrator would have more ~ubjective powers. There is no provision of notification of neighbors or adjacent property,owners for feedback before a decision is made. Section 13.140: There could be a flood of apPlications if this ordinance amendment is passed because ofthis retroactive clause. There was no chance for the Planning Commission to review this proposed amendment. She asked why the ICO should be changed now; especially since it has been 2 years since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the goal is to adopt the UDC in 7 months? :She: asked that the Board not approve this amendment so that the UDC process can move on toward the perm~t regulations. Todd MacGuire, 504 D Street, Port Townsend (Planning Commission Member speaking as a private citizen) stated that he agrees with the concerns raised about the workload for staffand :the affect that this would have on the timeline for the UDC process. There is also a eoneern about whether there is a sufficient number of well trained staff to do the job. The Planning Commis~'ion has agreed to devote a great deal of time between now and December to get the UDC adopted. He disagrees with Ordinance 03-0417-00 regarding the siting,of public purpose facilities, especially the lack of detailed review required when a public facility moves to another location. More specific criteria needs to be developed for public purpose facilities. A more adequate process is necessary to demonstrate how the Zoning Administrator reaches the decision. Section 13 will replace the site specific process with added workload to staff and will reduce the public hearing profile. Section 13 is in conflict to Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goal EDG 5.2 because it establishes a parallel path. He has Page Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week. of June 5, 2000 concerns about the process if the Zoning Administrator can,t meet the timeline requirements for responding to the application. He made three recommendations to the Board 1) discontinue the use of this resolution and ordinance and use the methods that were adopted in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) if, the resolution and ordinance are used, publicize the fact that this wilI affect the Comprehensive Plan implementation process; and 3) address any further actiOn on ICO Section 13 during the UDC development. Janet Welch, Port Townsend, stated that she feels this ordinance amendment:is flawed from the micro to the macro. She reviewed a number of "typo" errors and grammar errors as published in The Leader. She explained that there is no clear reference about the two decisions that the Zoning Administrator has to make, one is whether the Section 13 process will be initiated and the other isthe outcome of the Section 13 process. The decisions are intermixed and there is no timeframe for the initial decision. The second decision that the Zoning Administrator has to make could involve conditional uses that would have to be addressed in only 13 .days. Gathering that information in that short timeframe seems unlikelY. Section 13:20 mentions criteria; but the substance of that criteria is not listed in the ordinance. A conditional use is different than a permitted use; nobody wants ~to be grandfathered as a conditional use, they will want to be designated a permanent use. Using performance standards has failed in the past, people want to see what they can and cannot do spelled out in black and white. She asked that the Board get rid of this ordinance and get the UDC adopted. Ryan Tillman, PO Box 1375, Port Hadlock stated that, in his recollection, the ICO never had a public hearing or planning Commission review. It was put into place as an emergency ordinance on the last day of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and it has been re, adopted every six months by emergency ordinance. The amendment before the: Board today.is a reasonable way to fix serious shortcomings in the ICO. The original use table does not cover all uses, For: example, the use table does not mention water towers; therefore they are prohibited. Reasonable public purposes have to be allowed to occur. The ICO was a last minute ordinance and it is not clear. A conditional use: decision from the Zoning AdministratOr would still have to go through the Hearing Examiner in a public process. Adoption of the UDC is very important; but the County has to move forward in the interim. Section 13.50 states that the applicant shall not be permitted to mention the presence of any grandfathered uses that might exist within the zoning district where their property is located: Not being able to supply this information seems a bit like a freedom of speech issue. He appreciates the changes made bemuse of his comments at the last hearing and is in favor of this amendment. The Clerk reported that a written statement was also received fi'om the Olympic Environmental Council. (See microfilmed document.) Page .5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of june 5,12000 Commissioner Harpole stated that the push behind this amendment was the siting of an office space for the CAC, as well as, to address the inflexibility of the use table. The intent was a desire to create a more flexible development environment for property owners. Due to the lack of staff to do the necessary work, he no longer supports passage of this ordinance amendment, Commissioner Huntingford asked how much time was spent developing this amendment? Warren Hart answered that they are on their 7th version of this amendment and he, A1 Scalf and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez have spent hundreds of hours working on it. Commissioner Huntingford stated that when this amendment was first suggested, the Board thought that it was a high enough priority for staff to take the time to do the work. This amendment gives staffthe opportunity to look at other options for property owners and move projects forward. Right now, people have no options. Chairman Wojt added that there are existing vacant fadlities in the County where environmentally safe businesses could locate and not cause any more disruptiOn than the original businesses. It makes no sense fora building to stand empty because the business that wants to locate there has a different name or is not listed in the use table. He asked if this amendment.only applies to exiting zones? Warren Hart explained that the use table applies to the entire County, but there are preferred uses for each zone and certain uses would not be allowed such as an industrial or commercial use in a residential district. Commissioner Harpole added that the UDC and the workplan submitted by Earthtech does not include work on ESA or Shoreline Master Plan issues. With the loss of an employee, the County will lose between 160 and 180 hours before a new employee can be hired and brought up to speed. What can be pUlled off the prioritized list to allow someone to have the time to manage this project? He reiterated that the workload is too much. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the amendment to the interim control-ordinance as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion. Commissioner Harpole reiterated that he cannot ' foresee DCD getting all their work done by December 11. He repeated that the original intent was correct; but he no longer supports the adoption of this amendment. Chairman Wojt asked for a recommendation from the Department? Warren Hart stated that the substance of the amendment to the ICO ordinance will accomplish: the original intent which is to allow property owners more flexibility and more options. He has some reservations about the ability of the Department to manage all of the projects before them and still produce the UDC. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 2000 The Chair called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion, Commissioner Harpole voted against the motion.: The motion carried approving ORDINANCE NO. 04-0605-00 as presented. Seal: JEFFERSON COUNTY MISSIONE S Delan ~ '~ Lorna ey, CM'~ '~~-~ Clerk of the Board Page7 Olympic P.O, County Commissio~rs County Court House Port Townsend, WA 98368 Environmental Box 1906, Port Townsend, Fax (36:0)379-8442 6-5-O0 Dear COmmiSsioners, Council 98368 JUN 0 5 2000 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The Olympic:EnVironmental Council is oppmed totbe .prop~ Imerim Control Ordinance. Thi~ ordinance if passed would f~cilitate subjective peff~nce based zoning, This is the type of zonin~ that was challenged in a law suit prior to the GMA based ComprehenSive Plan that now guiftes this county's planning. The county lost that taw suit and the appeal. ~e a ~dministmtive planning decisions allowed in this ordinance appear to be rett~Cfive a~ COuld ttl~a owhte vesting of projects not allowed in our Comprehensive Plan. Further this proposal could require the inordmta time and llaergy of our zoning administr~r who would have to ixmke decisions a~ut the use or non ~e of section 13 within ~welv0~ da3~ of a clients response. This is a~totally unreamnsable mm around time for decisions on projects that could change the land use in this?ounty. W_e have not s~nethe time to develop.well t~ught out perforrr~ce standards that meet the intent o~the Comprehensive Plan and the law. This proposed Interim Control Ordinance is not aa. efficient or effective proc, ess for decision making or monitoring. It is an insult to the tax payers of this county who ha¥~ spent the la~gten years dev.e, lopi.ng a million dollar comprehensive i~lan with goals and policies w~th the understanding that a code would be put into place to reflect and promote the intent of their plan. This proposed ordinance is not in the best interests of this county and its citizens. Olympic Environmental Council Board June 5, 2000 Public Hearing re: ICO Amendment Testimony by Nancy Dorgan CPA99-20 submitted last summer by the Port Hadlock~ and Quilcene Brinnon Chambers of Commeme promoted the complete elimination of the ElCO use tables. Their application stated: "The implementation of Section ~!3 Use Tables and Table 13-t Permitted Conditional Uses are inconsistent with the Goals and Policies of the Plan and have proven to be too restrictive and counter-productive to placement of :businesses in the rural areas that can provide the necessary services and jobs." The Chambers sought the wording modification, "including but not limited to" in major land use polices and argued that performance standards=could: be used instead. That was the first time I had heard of performance standards but the application didn't explain what they were or how they should work. SubSequent reports and findings and conclusions from staff, the planning commission, and the commissioners were not concerned with this aspect of the chambers' amendment, and I didn't know anymore about performance zoning at the end of the comp plan cyCle than I knew at the beginning. However, given the context of the chambers' faulty interpretations of the GMA in CPA99-20, I have been instinctively suspicious of performance zOning ever since, and I'm still waiting for the county to show me how this works and why it is a good thing. The ordinance whereas's refer very briefly to flexibility, timely procesSing, and future unknown uses, but that isn,t much of a real explanation. It bothers me that I don't know more about this approach to zoning and that I can't therefore offer yoU'more informed criticism at this hearing. Where I am on my personal learning curve as a concerned citizen, I do know that this ordinance is a major change to how the county grows~ The draft seems very long on process and short on criteria. Maybe the criteria listed are Sufficient, maybe they are not. What isthe overlap with SEPA requirements, for example? ;Criterion F, that a proposed use would be denied if "in conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan" does not refer specifically to land use goals and policies, so :1 am curious whether a use could still be approved if it did not demonstrate sustainability or provide family-wage jobs, which are goals and policies at the heart of our comp plan. I haven't been following county meetings, lately, butin ,the Spring I did go to a number of Community Development meetings in which their current work-plan was discussed. I don't recall hearing anything about allocating staff time to prepare an interim ordinance for this type of zoning, so why is it being worked on now when we have also just begun intensive work on the UDC? This staff project seems to have surfaced about the same time you discussed not accepting comp plan amendments this year. So now perhaps the county Chambers of Commerce might get -- afterall-- what they couldn't get last year through CPA99-20. If that is the case, it would rather be like:giving a big cookie to a hungry child while you are busy cooking up a proper meal, You know It isn't the:best thing to do, but it does keep things quiet for awhile. When I attended your May 22nd meeting I was actually shocked to see this amendment in the packet. It serVes me right for not paying closer attention to legal notices, but after the ElCO was renewed and amended recently, I thought that would be the end of my involvement until the draft UDC was released for public comment. This performance zoning ordinance really did seem to come out of the blue. At the May 22nd meeting I heard planning staff describe the importance and broad extent of future public involvement with the adoption of the UDC, so it seems very odd to me that this significant change is coming forward now with no known public outreach. If I missed it, I apologize and would like to know when it occurred. I do know that the:planning commision was not in this short loop, and because this is being adopted as an interim ordinance, it is possible for you to take that shortcut. I don't, however, understand why you would want to. Being curious about how this amendment evolved, I went back to your minutes and learned that on April 3 you approved a hearing notice for an April 17th hearing on amending the ELCO, but only with respect to siting to public purpose facilities and changing the name. Those April 3rd minutes also recorded that Commissioner Harpole was "under the impression that there are other items that the staff feel need to be changed." Just what those other changes might be was not recorded in those minutes, but they said Mr. Saddler reported that "this is the only change that the staff had ready for consideration. Al Scalf reported that the use tables need criteria established." It would appear, then, that as of April 3rd, staff intended to prepare performance zoning criteria, but had not yet started. Two weeks later at the April 17th ElCO hearing, there was no citizen participation. Later in your April 17th meeting, the minutes record that planning staff now had a draft ordinance ready for implementing criteria development regs, and they reviewed it with you and you then approved another hearing notice for a May 8th public hearing. At that hearing only two citizens participated, Ryan Tillman an engineer/developer and Bill Marlow, sponsor of CPA 99-20. Both were apparently very much in the information loop on this ordinance and made comments that led to further revisions According to the minutes, Warrent Hart explained the purpose and nature of the proposed ordinance and said that it would provide the opportunity for a previously denied proposal to go through the appeal process. Given the apparent speed this ordinance is moving, it would not surprise me if there.is just such a project in the background driving the abbreviated process. I don't find it reassuring that the whole subject will be reviewed again later during public process for the UDC. A lot can happen in six or seven months. After your May 8th hearing, you asked staff for more information and asked them to do more more work on the ordinance, and I think that also reflects the relatively short history of this proposed ordinance, and it also raises another red flag in my mind that it might still need work in addition to public education. It is my understanding that interim regulatory ordinances are usually more restrictive in nature in order to preserVe long term options but still allow the county to act more quickly by bypassing planning commission review. But the whole Point of this ordinance is to open up options in quite a significant way. I don't think this kind of expanion should happen so quickly and especially without the same kind of review that we all know will occur relatively soon with the UDC, which we also know will include some kind performance zoning. I would much prefer that you set this ordinance aside at this time and wait for the UDC. Regular Agenda Dept of Community Development Item #2 Page 1 of 3 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Agenda Request To: From: Dat~: Subject: Board of County Commissioners Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator A1 Scarf, Director of Community Developme Warren Hart, AICP, Planning Manager May 22, 2000 Setting a Public Hearing Date and Publishing a Hearing Notice on an Ordinance Amending Section 13 of the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO). Statement of Issue: Analysis: Attached is a' Public Hearing Notice for an Ordinance to amend Section 13 of the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO), granting the Zoning Administrator authority and criteria to differentiate uses in Table 13-1, Permitted and Conditional Uses. The Board of County Commissioners has previously held a public hearing on Monday, May 8, 2000. Staff has made, in xts opinion, substantial revisions to the Section 13 Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) based upon comments from the public and at the Board's direction to review certain secdons of the ordinance and is recommending that the Board hold a second public hearing. The public.heaxing has been tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 5, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Interim Control Ordinance on August 28, 1998 to pax'dally implement the Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC has directed the Department to prepare criteria for use by the Zoning Administrator to chrify omissions, ambiguities and other factual situations that arise with respect to the ICO use tables. This Ordinance is an interim measure until such time as the Unified Development Code is adopted. Regular Agenda Dept. of Community Development Item: #2 Page 2 of 3 The following narrative provides a summary of the changes made by staff to the Section 13 Intehm Control Ordinance (ICO): Section 13.20 Authority of Zoning Administrator. · Addition of language clarifying that the Zoning Administrator will use Section 13 when the proposed use is not already listed on Table 13-1 of the ICO. · Deletion of language requiring the applicant to submit cost estimates for a Section 13 Determination. · Addition of language requiring the applicant to submit a descripnon of the structure or structures (including the size of the "footprint" of such structures) and ff applicable, the proposed hours of operation and estimated number of employees for the proposed use. Section 13.30 Notice to A_&p_~licant or Proponent: · Addition of language clarifying that the full payment of fees shall be included with the application material. Section 13.50 Criteria for Zoning Administrator's Derision: Addition of language clarifying "rural development" and "urban services" will be defined as in RCW 36.70A.030. Addition of a new paragraph clarifying that an applicant cannot use a pre-existing or prior non-confomaing use to substantiate that :the proposed land use is less objectionable than other uses in the area. Section 13.70 T~g of Written Decision: Clarification of the mount of time that the Zoning Administrator has to issue the Section 13 determination. Addition of language granting the Zoning Administrator the ability to require the applicant provide additional information for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination, with the addition of a 15 day period. Section l'3.100~rocess: Clarification that the Zoning Administrator's decision to not use Section 13 for a proposed use, when the proposed land use is already listed on Table 13-1, is not appealable. Regular Agenda Dept. of Community Development Item #2 Page 3 of 3 Section 13.140 Retroactive a,,_ licabih' _..: Addition of a new section that clarifies that Section 13 is available to any landowner despite whether the proposed land use was previously submitted to the County. This applies equally to non-conforming uses, however, the Zoning Administrator camaot supercede limitations on nonconforming use policies found in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: Fiscal Impact: Reviewed by: The BOCC may concur with staff that substantial changes have been made and set the public hearing date, or determine that Substantial changes have not been made to the Ordinance and adopt as is, or send the Ordinance back to the Department for rewriting. The Department estimates that it will take approximately 150 hours of unbudgeted staff dine in the Development Review Division to process Section 13 decisions in fiscal year 2000 as a result of adoption of this Ordinance. Should the Board of County Commissioners adopt this Ordinance the Department will work with the County Administrator to accommodate staffing and workplan inconsistencies. Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator (or David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator) Publish one time: Bill to: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Department of COmmunity Development 621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Amending the Interim Control Ordinance With Respect to the Zoning AdminiStrator's Authority NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for Monda~ June 5th at 2:00 ..~...~. in the Commissioners' Chambers, County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port ToWnsend, WA 98368. Any person may submit written or oral comments at this public hearing with respect to the contents and adoption of this ordinance. Information relating to the ordinance and hearing or copies of the ordinance may be obtained from the JeffersOn County Department of Community Development at 621 Sheridan Street, Port ToWnsend, WA 98368, Telephone: (360) 379-4450. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS R/chard Wojt, Chair STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson IN THE MATTER OF amending The Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) No. 06-0828-98 With Respect to the Zoning Administrator's Authority Ordinance No. WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance (EICO) on August 28, 1998 to partially implement the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has renewed the ElCO on February 7, 2000 for an additional six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County, Board of Commissioners has recently enacted an Ordinance to change the name of the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance ("EICO'~) to the [nterim Control Ordinance or "ICO;" and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the Department of Community Development (or "DCD") to enter into a contract with Earthtec [an International Ltd. Co.] to prepare a Unified Development Code (UDC) as development regulations intended to implement the :adopted Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development chapter of:the'adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan provides a goal EDG 5.0 to provide regulatory incentives to encourage and facilitate economic opporumities within the County, as well as action items on page 7-18, providing gu/dance for future land use regulations such as Action Item #16. Action Item #16 provides that when rewriting the land use codes, County staffwill work towards: · Integrating and simplifying land use regulations; · Ensuring current procedures provide efficient and effective processing, monitoring and decision making; · Developing multiPle permitting process tracks to allow increased flexibility and rapid processing of development applications that conform to a prescribed set of regulations (Corresponding Goal: 5.0); and WHEREAS, Action Item #17 mandates a review [of] the County's permit review process to ensure current procedures provide efficient, timely and effective processing, monitoring and decision-making. (Corresponding Goal: 5.0); and WHEREAS, the Board of' County Commissioners have directed that the ICO, specifically the language located under the phrase "Note" on page 46 of: the ICO (see attachment. "A') be reexamined and analyzed in light of the two "Action Items', listed above; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has taken legislative notice that neither they nor any of the County staff can predict what types of uses, businesses, enterprises, for-profit entities or other commerce will come to exist or will come some day to be suitable for location and existence within this County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the County Administrator to generate for ultimate inclusion into the ICO specific criteria for use by the Zoning Administrator can clarify omissions, ambiguities and other unique factual situations that arise with respect to or as a result of Table 13-1, entitled "Permitted and Conditional Uses." NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, as follows: Section 1: The Interim Control Ordinance, specifically Section 13, entitled "Use Tables", page 46, is amended by the deletiOn of the phrase "Note" and all sentences, bullets and language that follow the phrase "Note" on that page. Section 2: The Department of Community Development shall be authorized to charge appropriate fees pursuant to the Indexed Fee Schedule Ordinance No. 12-1209-96, Ordinance No. 11-1115-99 and Ordinance No. 13-1212-99, specifically listed on said Indexed Fee Schedule as Code Interpretation - Administrative Review/Decision. Section 3: There shall be created in Interim Control Ordinance the following new sections: Section 13.10 Primacy_. of Use Table Table 13-l: Table 13-1 found within the ICO, entitled "Permitted and Conditional Uses," shall be and is the primary representation and compilation of the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners with respect to land uses and proposed land uses within Jefferson County. However, the County acknowledges that the description of land uses found within Table 13-1 contains only examples of usual and customary land uses. The uses described and listed in Table 13-i are merely intended to be typical and are not intended to represent all possible uses. Section 13.20 Authorit2/ofZonin. g Administrator: The Zoning 'Administrator, upon his or her written determination that, because a proposed use is not found within Table 13-1 of the ICO or because of the unique qualities or facts underlying a particular proposed land use, Table 13-1 of the ICO does not provide or can not provide a clear or definitive answer to determine if such a proposed land use would be permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this County, shall be empowered to use the following decision criteria when determining the status of that proposed land use. The Zoning AdministratOr is also authorized, upon his or her receipt of. a written request fi-om a citizen for a Section 13.50 decision that includes the address or Assessor's parcel number of the location where the use would occur if approved, a reasonably detailed description of the use proposed, a description of the structure or structures (including the size of the "footprint" of such structures) such a use would require, and if applicable, the proposed hours of operation and estimated number of employees for the proposed use, to utilize this Section 13, including the criteria listed at Section 13.50, to respond to the written request fi-om that citizen. .Section 13.30 Notice to A :..licant or Proponent: The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant or proponent in writing that he or she has determined that the facts presented require a "Section 13" decision by the Zoning Administrator in order to determine if such a proposed land use would be permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this County. Included in the letter shall be a statement that the Zoning Administrator intends to apply the rules of Section 13, a copy of the criteria the Zoning Administrator shall use (all of Section 13) to make his or her decision and a copy of the fee schedule applicable to the interpretation and the subsequent publication of any decision reached. That written notification shall also inform the applicant or proponent that he, she or it has twelve (12) business days (measured fi-om the date of the letter) to provide proof to the Zoning Administrator that the proposed land use satisfies the criteria of this Section and to pay the appropriate fees for the interpretation and the subsequent publication of the Administrator's decision. Failure to provide this information and full payment within twelve (12) business days will lead to a denial of the Section 13.50 request. Section 13.40 Burden of Proofi The applicant or proponent of the proposed land use that is subject to a decision of the Zoning Administrator based upon the criteria listed in Section 13.50 below shall at all times have the burden of proof with respect, to proving via clear and convincing evidence that the proposed land use satisfies the criteria of this Section. Section 13.50 Cr/teria for Zoning Administrator's Decision' The Zoning Administrator, having previously determined that Table 13-1 of the ICO does not provide or can not provide a clear or definitive answer to determine if a particular proposed land use would be permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this CoUnty, shall approve the proposed land use only if the applicant has met his her or its burden of proof :with respect to demonstrating to the Zoning Administrator that the proposed land use will not: a. be unreasonably incompatible with the types of uses permitted and conditionally permitted in the specified zoning district by Table 13~ 1; b. create, generate, add or cause 'additional Pedestrian or vehicular traffic that would be substantially greater than would be created by similar legally-permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the area where the proposed land use would occur; c. create noise, odor, heat, vibration, air or water pollution impacts that would be substantially greater than would be created by similar legally-permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the area where the proposed land use would occur; d. be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; e. if applicable, adversely affect the historical or rural character as defined in RCW 36.70A.030 of the surrounding area; f. be in conflict 'with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; g. require the extension of urban services or expansion of existing urban services as urban services are defined in RCW 36.70A.030; h. be inconsistent with all other applicable local, state and federal regulations. Applicants or proponents of a proposed, land use that is being subject to a Section 13 interpretation shall not be permitted to mention or utilize in their oral or written arguments in support of obtaining a positive Section 13 decision the presence of any or all pre-existing or prior non-conforming uses, sometimes called "grandfathered' uses, that might exist within the zoning district where their proposed land use would, if permitted or conditionally permitted, be eventually located. Section 13.60 Written decision: The Zoning Administrator shall issue a written decision regarding his or her application of the Section 13.50 criteria to the proposed land use. Nothing in Section 13 shall prevent the Zoning Administrator from imposing, as part of his or her approval, reasonable conditions to mitigate the potential or expected consequences of the now-approved land use. A decision made pursuant to Section 13 that the proposed land use should be permitted outright or conditionally permitted does not relieve the applicant from ensuring, that his, her or its project or proposal is in full compliance with all other County Ordinances that apply to the specific proposal brought forward. Section 13.70 Timing of Written Decision: The Zoning Administrator shall issue his or her decision not later than twenty-five (25) business days after the date of the initial letter sent to the applicant or proponent stating that the Zoning Administrator intended to apply the procedures and rules of this Section. The Zoning Administrator shall be required to mail his or her written ~decision via ordinary~ mail to the applicant or proponent at the address provided by' the applicant or proponent no later than 32 business days after the date of the initial letter sent to the applicant or proponent informing the applicant or proponent that the Section 13 procedure would be used: If the Zoning Administrator needs additional information before he or she can make a decision, then he or she may send a written request to the. applicant or proponent at the address provided describing the additional information needed. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to grant the proponent or applicant not more than fifteen (15) business days [measured from the date of the letter requesting more information] to provide the additional information, during which time the deadlines mentioned in this section shall be revised to reflect the addition of the additional days given the proponent or applicant to provide the additional information. Thus, if the Zoning Administrator gives the applicant or proponent 15 additional business days to provide more information, then the decision of the Zoning Administrator must be issued not later than forty (40) business days [25 +15] after the date of:the initial letter to the applicant stating the Zoning Administrator intended .to apply Section 13. Failure on the part of the applicant to provide the additional information requested in the time provided shall lead to a negative decision regarding the Section 13 interpretation. Section 1'3.80 Malled Notice: A copy of the Zoning Administrator's written decision made pursuant to the Section 13.50 criteria shall be mailed to 1) the proponent or applicant of the proposed land use at the address Provided and 2) any person who has made written request of the Department of Community Development that they be advised in writing of all written decisions made pursuant to Section 13 of the ICO. Section 13.90 Published Notice: There shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within Jefferson County, at the expense of the proponent or applicant, who shall pay the cost of such publication, not more than fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the written Section 13 decision, a notice that contains a) the date of the written SectiOn 13 decision, b) the name of the proponent or applicant for the proposed land use, c) the street address or parcel number of.the real property suggested for the proposed land use, d) a brief summary of the Section 13 decision reached by' the Zoning Administrator ande) a statement that any person who wishes to appeal the Administrator's interpretation must do so by filing his or her appeal in writing with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development not later than 14 calendar days after the date of the written decision. Section 13.100 Appeal process: Any person may appeal a decision of the Zoning Administrator made pursuant to Section 13.50 by fully complying with the provisions relating to Type A ("Administrative Decision") decisions as delineated and described in the Land Use Procedures Ordinance, also known as Ordinance No. 08-1123-98. A decision by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed land use for which a Section 13 interpretation is sought is not entitled to a Section 13 interpretation because the proposed land use is listed on Table 13-1 and is denominated there as a prohibited use shall not be appealable. Section 13.110 Simultaneous heatings: In those circumstances where a proponent of a proposed land use has received approval with conditions imposed pursuant to Section 13.50 of this Ordinance AND another person or entity has timely appealed the positive decision made pursuant to Section 13.50, then there shall be a single open record hearing to determine both the validity of the conditional approval granted pursuant to Section 13.50 and the appeal of the positive decision. If the positive decision pursuant to Section 13.50 is reversed by the Hearing Examiner, then the Hearing Examiner shall also deem "moot" any analysis of the conditional approval granted under Section 13.50. Section 13.120 Supremacy of Section 13: Upon determination by the Zoning Administrator that Section 13 is applicable to a proposed land use because of its unique qualities or underlying facts or because the use is not present in Table 13-1, then this Section of the ICO, rather than any provision of Ordinance #05-0828-98, entitled "Procedures & Criteria To Clarify Land Use Regulations Ordinance," shall apply. Section 13.130 Effect of a Zoning Administrator's Denial: Should the Zoning Administrator, based upon the criteria listed in Section 13.50, issue a denial of the proposed land use and should any subsequent appeal or judicial review of the Zoning Administrator's decision be denied or rejected, then the applicant must seek and obtain a legislative change to Table 13-1 of the ICO before the proposed land use may be implemented. Section 13.140 Retroactive applicability: The procedure outlined in this Ordinance shall be available to any landowner (or the agent of that landowner if the agent has the written permission of the landowner) with regard to a land :use proposal made to the County in writing before the adoption of this Ordinance despite any prior rejection, disapproval or refusal on the part of the County to approve, license or permit that earlier proposal ADOPTION Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners this day of June 2000. This action is exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (20), which states that procedural actions are exempt when relating solely to governmental procedures, and containing no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment. This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 and becomes effective upon adOption. 6 Attachmen~ A, Ordinance No. SECTION 13 USE TABLES Key: C = Conditionally Permitted in the zone. ~' = Permitted Outright in the zone. L = Essential Public Facilities sited in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200 are a legislation action. Uses for the 3efferson County International Airport are described in Section 15. Note: · Crossroads are hierarchical in terms of' allowed uses i.e. any use allowed in a more restrictive crossroad allowed in a less restrictive crossroad unless otherwise noted. The absence of a check mark in a box means the use is not allowed in that zone. Uses not listed in this table or'the corresponding section as specifically permitted, outright or conditionallY, in a specific zone are prohibited unless: · determined to be similar to. a listed use through an administrative clarification, or · added to the table by amendment of this ordinance through a legislative process. Uses shall be strictly interpreted. 46¸ August 28. 1998 amended November 9. 1998