Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM052698JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. I Commissioner: Daniel Harpole, Member District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Hunting£ord, Chairman District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt, Member JTHEI-iEARI" Of" 'fJ-i't~t~~~tOlYM, l>IC PF, i'.IINSUI.A ] Clerk of the Board: Director of Public Services: Deputy Director of Public Services: Lorna L. Delaney Gary A. Rowe David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of May 26, 1998 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioners Daniel Harpole and Richard Wojt were both present. The Board met from 8:01-9:00 a.m. in Executive Session with the Director of Public Services regarding personnel issues. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wojt m~)ved to approve the minutes of the week of May 11, 1998 as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING SESSION 14~atershed Grant Application: Associate Planner Harriet Beale reported that this grant application is for a two year period. There is only a general description of what will be done in the second year because that work will be determined during the first year after the scoping process. Public Services Director Gary Rowe noted that the Hood Canal Coordinating Council may be able to provide assistance to the County. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the Navy at Indian Island be contacted about providing assistance also. Gary Rowe pointed out that there are two goals in asking for assistance from other agencies: 1) being able to leverage grant funding to secure funding from other sources, and 2) being able to provide credible information. Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Chairman sign the grant application to the State Department of Ecology for $250,000 and support letters (see also Consent Agenda item No. 7) to Mason and Clallam Counties for Watershed Management planning under HB2514. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 1 · v.o,...."".. Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 Salmon Recovery Process: HB2496 (the Salmon Bill) was discussed, including how it will be implemented in the County in conjunction with the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Gary Rowe reported that there isn't an immediate deadline for grant applications, but there is an immediate deadline for administrative funding through the Fish and Wildlife Department. Commissioner Harpole stated that he wants the lead agency status for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council on the ESU for Summer Chum to be clearly defined in the agreements that will be signed. Gary Rowe will contact Fish and Wildlife to see if there is an option for applying for administrative funding that would allow extra time for the agreements to be worked out between the Counties, the Tribes, the Cities, and the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: a man submitted a claim against the County Health Department on a failing septic system; and another man asked why the County is charging for copies of draft ordinances? (The Board determined that there will be no charge for copies of draft ordinances and directed that copies of the Interim Control Ordinance be made available at the public libraries.) APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole asked about Item 9 and if the application will make this project a Master Planned Resort under the Comprehensive Plan? Chairman Huntingford asked if all of the items listed in the Shoreline Permit revision were applied for in the original application? Community Development Director Al Scalf reported that the type of activities requested has not changed, but the site plan for the activities has changed. Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Items 1, 4, and 6 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DELETE Resolution re: Naming ora Private Road Rocktogo Road, or Bedrock Road, or Vanhulle Road; Pope Resources Applicant (See item later in Minutes.) RESOLUTION NO. 39-98 re: Accepting Bid to Modify and Expand the Existing Septic System at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility Project gCC 1349; Jefferson County Public Works; Wilson Michel Inc. Accept Recommendation to Reject Two (2) Claims: 1) #C-8-98; $26,035.00+; Discipline Administered Unfairly and Without Just Cause; Chester Prudhomme 2) #C-10-98; $35,000.00; Discrimination; Rayma Mery DELETE AGREEMENT, Supplemental #2 re: Professional Services for Land Use Permit System Assessment; Driscoll & Hunter (See item later in Minutes.) AGREEMENT re: Professional Services Employment as Deputy Prosecutor; Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Paul E. Mcllrath Page 2 24 749 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 10. 11. DELETE Eleven (11) Grant Applications for Fish Passage Barrier Removal, Design and Construction; Jefferson County Public Works partnering with Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Washington State Fish Passage Grant Program; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Department of Transportation (See item later in Minutes,) Grant Application and Two (2) Letters of Invitation (Skokomish and Lower Elwah Klallam Tribe); Watershed Management in WPdA 17; Jefferson County Health and Human Services, Environmental Health Division; Washington State Department of Ecology One (1) Year Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, #LPA92-0008; To Divide 23.5 Acres into 52 Residential Lots; Located at the Old Alcohol Plant and Marina (Canoe Cove), Lands End, Port Hadlock; AK Sharma, Manager Port Hadlock KSC LLC, Applicant Revision to Shoreline Development Permit #SDP92-0015; Proposed Mixed Use Development Consisting of Detached Single-Family Residence, Condominium Multi-Family Residential Units, Marina Services, Restaurant and Lounge, Health Spa/Recreation Area, Swimming Pool, Reception, Banquet Facilities, and Three-level Parking Garage; Located at the Old Alcohol Plant and Marina (Canoe Cove), Lands End, Port Hadlock; AK Sharma, Manager Port Hadlock KSC LLC, Applicant Letter of Support for Mason County to Serve as Lead Agency in Watershed Management in WRIA 16; Washington State Department of Ecology Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; Jefferson County Service Officers Association for $152.25 Naming of a Private Roa& Rocktogo Roa& Pope Resources Applicant: (See Item 1 on the Consent Agenda) Chairman Huntingford reported that he has recieved comments from several people that would like to have this road named Vanhulle Road. After considering this information and the petition of the property owners, Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 40-98 establishing the name of Rocktogo Road for this private road as submitted. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Harriet Beale stated that a $19,000 grant has been received to assist with updating the Shoreline Management Plan. Senior Planner John Holgate reported that the Commissioners' draft of the Comprehensive Plan is now on the Internet. The draft Interim Control Ordinance will be on the Internet also. Commissioner Harpole said that he would like to see the policy of not charging for draft ordinances continue and he would like these documents available at the public libraries. The Board concurred that there will be no charge for copies of the draft Interim Control Ordinance. Page 3 24 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 Director of Community Services A1 Scalf reported that the only permit being reviewed on the project at the Mats Mats Quarry is the mining permit which is required by the State Department of Natural Resources. When a State agency has a permit, they usually take lead agency status. He advised that the County may be asked by the State to be the SEPA Lead Agency on this permit because there have been concerns raised by the local community. There may also be a land use permit required from the County on this project. The Board noted that they would prefer that the DNR be the Lead Agency because that will allow the County to provide comment from the community on this project. Commissioner Harpole asked about the current use issues at the Mats Mats Quarry? A1 Scalf reported that the operating hours and grandfathered status of the Quarry operations are currently being reviewed by the Prosecuting Attorney. He will report back to the Board when he has more information. Al Scalf reported on the procedures for the Closed Record Appeal hearing on Termination Point. He noted that a request for an extension of Xime has been submitted by the Olympic Environmental Council which has party of record status. After the hearing is opened, the first item for the Board to consider is this request. June 19, 1998 is still set for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Harpole noted that the agreement on the Consent Agenda for Driscoll and Hunter indicates that their work on the Comprehen- sive Plan will be done by June 30, 1998, which is well after the proposed adoption date. This discrep- ancy will need to be resolved. John L Scott (Tarboo Traders) Building at Shine Road and Highway 104: This application was appealed to the Hearing Examiner. His decision was to deny the appeal of Tarboo Traders and to uphold the administrative decision of the Administrative Official. This Hearing Examiner decision could be appealed to the Board as a closed record appeal. PUBLIC WORKS Director's Update: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that: The Larry Scott Memorial Trail project is on schedule. A meeting is scheduled with Fish and Wildlife and DOE to discuss the construction of the last 400 feet of the Trail. The Trail will be formally opened sometime in August. There will be an open house at Cooperative Extension regarding the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study. Commissioner Harpole noted that he has a number of concerns regarding the packet of informa- tion he received from Bruce Laurie about the special study. He noted that the maps of commer- cial areas are not part of the Comprehensive Planning process and there are binding site plans that are in the special study area which are not included with the maps. He also noted that only one Commissioner is on the interview list. Klara Fabry reported that the base of the study is the 1994 zoning maps and that is why the maps that are included are not the same as the current Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 maps. The list of persons to be interviewed is the same as the Citizens Task Force that was established previously. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the Planning Commission members be added to the interview list, as well as, the Presidents of the County Chambers of Commerce. The majority of the H.J. Carroll Park construction has been completed. The opening ceremony will be scheduled in August. The final cost of the project is approximately $3,000 below the estimate. The construction of the correction facility is on schedule. A site visit with the Board will be scheduled within the next 2 weeks. Commissioner Harpole noted that he feels the City's need for a place to house the Police Department should be incorporated into the County's Administrative Building planning. The City and the County would both need to hold a public vote on the funding required for any new building. Eleven (11) Grant Applications for Fish Passage Barrier Removal, Design and Construction; Jefferson County Public Works partnering with Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Washington State Fish Passage Grant Program; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Department of Transportation: (See Item 6 on the Consent Agenda) After reviewing the grant applications with the Public Works staff, Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the following 11 grant applications as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Alder Creek on the Upper Hoh Road 2. E. Fork Tarboo Creek #2 on the Coyle Road 3. Leland Creek Tributary on Leland Valley Road West 4. Hoh River Tributary on the Upper Hoh Road 5. Bamhouse Creek on Center Road 6. Winney Creek on Oil City Road 7. Dismal Creek on the Upper Hoh Road 8. Fletcher Creek on the Lower Hoh Road 9. E. Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road 10. N. Branch E. Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road 11. E. Branch E. Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road The Board met in Executive Session from 11:45 a.m. to Noon with the Deputy Director of Public Services and the Public Works Director regarding personnel issues. LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING Re: Public Works Union Contract Clarifications; Teamster Local #$89: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the Letter of Understanding for the Public Works Labor Contract with the Teamster Union, Local 589, as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 The Board attended a workshop with Planning Department staff to review and comment on the draft Interim Controls. HEARING re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision; Termination Point Plat Amendment, #SUB96-0008; Russell Trask, Appellant: The Chairman read the following at the beginning of this closed record appeal hearing: The closed record appeal hearing is now open regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to affirm two administrative decisions made by the County Planning Department: 1) A decision denying phased environmental review under SEPA. 2) A determination that a proposed drainage system is a utility and requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The appeal is related to a proposal to amend the Plat of Termination Point (SUB96-0008) and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application (SDP95-0003) for shoreline erosion control measures. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Russell Trask, and his agent, Barbara Blowers. A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL is "an administrative appeal following an open record hearing on a project permit application, when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument is allowed." The concern is that this hearing be fair in form and substance, as well as appearance. Therefore, I would like to ask if there is anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? If there are objections, please state the reasons. No one objected. 1) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? All three Board members answered NO. 2) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of the hearing? All three Board members answered NO. 3) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? All three Board members answered YES. Page 6 ,:7753 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 4) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? All three Board members answered NO. The purpose of this hearing is for the Commissioners to hear and consider the pertinent facts relating to this appeal and to take action on this matter. The Board's options are to: 1) Adopt the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the appeal, or 2) Remand the matter for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner identifying specific areas of analysis for the Hearing Examiner to address, or 3) Reject or amend the Hearing Examiner's decision, and amend and reverse the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner and replace them with new findings and conclusions based upon the analysis conducted in this Closed Record Appeal. Each Board member has received and reviewed the entire case record including the listed exhibits and the footnoted log items in the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Decision dated March 24, 1998. The Clerk will be recording what is said, therefore when you speak, begin by stating your name and address. Speak slowly and clearly. Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time. The first matter of business is for the Board to consider the request for an extension of this hearing submitted by the Olympic Environmental Council. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf presented a letter dated May 18, 1998 from Julie Jaman, representing the Olympic Environmental Council, requesting a 10 day extension of time for submitting memorandums concerning the Termination Point appeal. Commissioner Harpole asked if the OEC is a party of record? A1 Scalf answered that they are. Commissioner Wojt asked if it is mandatory that the Board honor this request? Al Scalf explained that it is the Board's role to decide whether they want to honor the request. Commissioner Harpole moved to extend the time line by 10 days for submitting memorandums from parties of record regarding this appeal. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion for discussion. After a brief discussion, Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion. The vote was unanimous against the motion. The motion was denied. Commissioner Harpole moved to allow the OEC's memorandum, dated May 26, 1998 to be submitted if both parties would allow it to be read into the record. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Pat Schneider, representing the appellant, stated that he has no objection to the memo being submitted as argument. A1 Scalf reported that the Department has no objection to Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 this memo being entered into the record. Chairman Huntingford read a portion of the letter into the record. (See attached memorandum.) Pat Schneider asked if a letter from Ryan Tillman, Tillman Engineering, concerning information that is already in the record, could also be admitted? A1 Scalf stated that staff objects to the inclusion of this letter because the person submitting the letter is not a party of record. The Board concurred that Mr. Tillman's letter not be allowed since there is sufficient information in the record already. Chairman Huntingford stated that the appellant will be asked to state the appeal arguments first, with time for rebuttal if necessary, and then the Planning staff may make a presentation to the Board. After that, the Board members may ask questions of staff, the proponents, or the opponents, on the informa- tion provided. After that, the hearing will be closed and the Board will make their decision. Pat Schneider explained that there is confusion regarding the appellant's request for phased SEPA review. They feel that it will improve the quality of the environmental review. The history of the geo- technical study of the site goes back decades. The most recent study is the Jones and Scott Report which was prepared at the request of the County. Mr. Jones and Mr. Scott prepared the report independently and arrived at the same conclusion: that the primary problem is poor drainage and if erosion on the beach caused by wind and wave action was addressed, the majority of the site would be stabilized. The County reviewed the report and determined that a peer review was appropriate. The AGI peer review agreed with the Jones and Scott Report except for a disagreement about the extent to which the lots below the bench could be safely developed without further geotechnical monitoring. Both reports, however, recommended that the shoreline protection and drainage should be installed as soon as possible and that this would determine the geotechnical stability of the site. After those reports were prepared, the BOCC amended the moratorium on development to allow the process to go forward on that portion of the property. After 2 ½ years in the County permit system and the appellant paying for both geotechnical reports, Barbara Blowers, agent for the appellant, received a letter from the County that the SEPA Administrator was recommending a Determination of Significance that would require an Environmental Impact Statement. One of the 5 issues to be addressed in the EIS was the geotechnical issue. The County's position was that the geotechnical review should be conducted before the work is done on the shoreline and drainage, which contradicted the recommendation of both reports that the County requested. Another independent engineering report was done and the same recommendation was received. The only contradiction to these reports and recommendations was testimony from a geologist, not an engineer, at the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The second reason that phased review is appropriate is because the property is eroding badly. Staff has stated that there was no testimony to the Hearing Examiner regarding the erosion although a large part of Barbara Blowers' testimony was about the erosion, there was also sworn testimony presented at the hearing from first hand observations over decades, and testimony from a geotechnical engineer stating that he could observe 4'-5' of erosion in just one winter. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to contradict the testimony that erosion and economic damage to the property is taking place. Pat Page 8 2. t Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 Schneider read from the SEPA rules regarding emergencies. He feels that this rule applies to the property. Staff does not agree, but quoted only half of an outdated SEPA rule regarding such emergen- cies in their summary. The appellant requested a phased SEPA review in December, 1997. There is an urgency now to resolve the issue because the construction season will only last about 5 months before the winter storms begin. Commissioner Wojt explained that he read in the record that it is not the wave action creating the erosion, but the land sloughing because of a rotational fault. Mr. Schneider stated that the geotechnical engineers who bored test holes at the site stated that they could not find a fault, but deeper boring may be useful. He reiterated that the issue before the Board is whether to allow the erosion and drainage repair before additional geotechnical studies required in the EIS are done. Commissioner Wojt added that he also read in the record that any development of the property for residences could change the configuration of the drainage system. Mr. Schneider stated that the drainage system plan approved by the County does not note that clearing for residences would create a problem. Mr. Schneider discussed the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit issue, referencing the precedent set by the Baily Short Plat, where the County Administrative Official ruled in 1997 that a storm drainage system for a subdivision was not considered a utility, but an accessary use to the subdivision. The Department of Ecology challenged this ruling, but the County successfully defended their position and the matter was settled in the County's favor. When Mr. Schneider brought this up in front of the Hearing Examiner, staff stated that the County no longer did things that way, but could not articulate the reason for the change. The appellant feels that this is an accessory use, because it would not exist if there was not a subdivision. He concluded that the application for this project was submitted to the County 3 ½ years ago, and there have been several delays on both sides. There was no indication until 1997 that the County would require an Environmental Impact Statement. There have been 3 studies, 2 of which were required by the County and paid for by the appellant, that would have been done as part of the EIS. The rejection of the conclusion of these studies prolongs the project for several years and adds to the expense of the project. Director of Community Development A1 Scalf explained that the major concern of the Department is the issue of public safety and probable environmental impact. There is concern about the area above the primary scarpe where the small lots exist (above and near Linda View Drive). The bulkhead drainage system and the relocation of the road would alter the natural conditions so that previous studies could not be compared with the studies to be performed. Evaluation of the site should be made without improvements in order to be able to assess the site using all available data under existing baseline conditions. The site, as a whole, must be evaluated intact. The wood bulkhead built in the 1970's to hold back erosion on the shoreline is still intact. The appellant states that they will go through SEPA review on the project, but asks to be exempt from review because of a "state of emergency". VOl_ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 The Shoreline Master Program does not allow the building of permanent structures where none previously existed in the case of an emergency. The shoreline is not being proposed for development because it is in the area covered by a the 1980's moratorium. Wind and wave intervention needs to be evaluated for offsite impacts including neighboring properties or fish and wildlife habitat. The issue regarding the Bailey Short Plat was a question of transportation, not the utility. The decision did not go to the Shoreline Hearings Board, the County engaged in a stipulated agreement with the parties and after the debate over the definition, the County withdrew their position on the transportation definition and docketed this item for amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. The Hearing Examiner's decision states that there was no improper action or exceptional delay from staff. Pat Schneider rebutted A1 Scalf's comments by noting that this is not an emergency under the Shoreline Master Program, the issue is whether it is an emergency under SEPA. There is not time to do an EIS before additional damage is done to the appellant's property. The Bailey Short Plat case ended in an agreement with DOE that the item would be docketed and the Shoreline Master Program amended, but the Shoreline Master Program has not been amended to date. Chairman Huntingford advised that the Board members could ask questions of the appellant, the staff or the opponents of this project. In response to a question from Commissioner Wojt about whether a property owner has an obligation to protect their property against wind and wave damage, Pat Schneider stated that he feels it is the right of a property owner to protect their property if they so choose. He stated that the issue is not whether and how the County is going to issue the permits to allow that to happen, but how to conclude' the environ- mental review so that the Board can make that decision. Commissioner Harpole asked about a letter sent to the appellant in 1995 stating that a SEPA Determina- tion of Significance was probable? Al Scalfreported that a letter dated September 27, 1995 from Dennis Thomason of the Jefferson County Planning Department was sent to Terminal Investments that incorporated by reference, along with attached copies, several letters regarding the project. He quoted from a letter to David Goldsmith. from DOE dated August 21, 1995. "Since the project would have significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. However, the applicant should not be required to complete a lengthy and costly SEPA process since it appears from the current information that the project cannot proceed under existing laws. If the County decides to proceed with a threshold determination, we recommend the County discuss with the applicant the following: the necessary studies which are the responsibility of the applicant could be very, time consuming and costly, with no Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 guarantee of approval. The documentation submitted by the applicant fails to address fundamental concerns about the project. Attached is an evaluation by Hugh Shipman, coastal geologist with Ecology's Shorelands and Water Resources Program. Documents submitted by geoteclmical experts in other state and federal agencies appear to support Mr. Ship- man's assessment. The placement of the rip-rap will trigger a Federal 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. If more development is intended, be aware that the Corps would most likely require the applicant to submit a complete project proposal. Geotechnical evaluations of slope stability under relevant development scenarios would need to be completed. This would also influence the Shoreline Permit process. Even if no development is intended, a thorough geoengineering study would need to be conducted by a qualified and certified engineer. Necessary studies would include mapping of hydrology, including sub-surface complex waterflows, geology and previous slope failures. The study would also need to address shore processes including erosion rates, litoral drift and potential impacts to nearby shorelines. These studies are essential because the established development in the nearby area may be adversely affected by the proposed rip-rap. If you have further questions, call Jeffree Stewart. Sincerely, Jim Pendowski, Environ- mental Review and Sediment Section." Chairman Huntingford noted that one concern he has is the requirement by the County for the applicant to do the first geotechnical study, the peer review, and then a third review. He asked Pat Schneider about the amendments to the SEPA rules. He questioned staff about when the loss of property due to wave action or erosion would come under the heading of an emergency if the landowner wanted to stop the erosion? A1 Scalf answered that, in this case, he inspected the property three times and in terms of degree of scale and impact, he felt that it was normal action occurring. There was no threat to a public highway or private residence which could warrant emergency intervention. Pat Schneider responded that the geotechnical reports that have been submitted say that if the shoreline erosion is not stopped, it will make the shoreline lots unbuildable and the scarpe would be undermined and could endanger the residences above. The entire bluff is in danger if the erosion is not dealt with. Chairman Huntingford asked for clarification on the difference between the Bailey case and this project. Lauren Mark explained that the Bailey Short Plat had to do with the transportation facility as defined in the Shoreline Master Program. The County approved the permit and DOE indicated that they were going to appeal the County's decision. The County and DOE entered into a stipulated agreement that the County would docket and amend the transportation facility section of the Shoreline Master Program once the Comprehensive Plan was in place. DOE asked for certain mitigated measures that would make the Bailey case acceptable. During this time, the Termination Point application was being reviewed. It wasn't until the third party review and the drainage plan was submitted that staff knew about the utility element. At that point, there was a revision in the drainage plan that prompted the utility element designation. Page vOL 24 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 Mr. Schneider objected to Ms. Mark's testimony which he stated was not part of the record. Paul Mcllrathd Prosecuting Attorney, noted that a closed record appeal does allow the Hearing Officers to consider limited new information. Mr. Schneider continued to object on the grounds that Ryan Tillman's letter and testimony, which had not been allowed at the beginning of the hearing, would rebut the statements being made by Ms. Marks. Chairman Huntingford asked how Mr. Schneider is tying the Bailey case to this matter? Mr. Schneider reported these items are both secondary uses, as opposed to principal uses. A1 Scalf stated in his letter to DOE regarding the Bailey case, that use permits are not required for secondary uses. Commissioner Harpole asked staff's opinion on the differentiation? Lauren Mark stated that in the Use Table of the Shoreline Master Program a rural, conservancy designation (Termination Point) requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit where a development in a suburban designation (Port Ludlow) requires a Shoreline Permit but no Conditional Use Permit. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Huntingford closed the appeal hearing. Julie Jaman reminded the Board that Commissioner Harpole's motion to admit the OEC's letter as testimony was based on the concurrence of both sides to allow the letter to be read into the record. Commissioner Harpole read the OEC letter into the record. (See microfilmed document.) Commissioner Harpole stated that the letter sent to Terminal Investments in September, 1995 informed the appellant that there may be a SEPA review required. He added that the nature of the development, the concerns raised by various agencies and the public, and the concerns about the drainage system that would be required throughout the property are reasons why he wants to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Commissioner Harpole moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the appeal. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion and stated that he still has questions about the movement of the slope that haven't been answered and the County needs to address the utility issue before the drainage system is put into the ground. Chairman Huntingford added that it appears staff did notify the applicant early in the process that there may be the need for an EIS. He explained that he has trouble comparing the Bailey case transportation element with the utility element of this project. In his opinion, the drainage on the property is a primary use because it is critical to the future use of the property. He agrees with the staff recommendation and the findings of the Hearing Examiner. He can understand the applicant's wish to work on erosion control before next winter, but he does not feel it is in the best interest of the County. Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 12 :¥o,_ . ,7759 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 26, 1998 AGREEMENT, Supplemental #2 re: Professional Services for Land Use Permit System Assessment; Driscoll & Hunter: (See also Item 4 on the Consent Agenda.) Commissioner Harpole noted concern with the team identified in this agreement which he feels should include A1 Scalf, Barry Berezowski, Paul McIlrath, David Skeen, Bruce Laurie, Ted Hunter and Susan Gulick. The discussion turned to the time lines in the agreement and how the dates need to be revised to meet the proposed Comprehensive Plan adoption date. Commissioner Wojt moved to give Chairman Huntingford the authority to sign the agreement with the amendments as proposed: 1) members of the team will be A1 Scalf, Barry Berezowski, Bruce Laurie, David Skeen, Paul Mcllrath, Ted Hunter and Susan Gulick; and 2) the dates for Task 3 and Task 4 will be revised to meet the proposed adoption date. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. After further discussion of the timing of the items in the contract, Chairman Huntingford called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: Clerk of tlt:eBY(~aCr~vIC (J JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~hard Wojt, Member Daniel Harp01e~