Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM041497 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. 1 Commissioner: District No. 2 Commissioner: District No. 3 Commissioner: Daniel Harpole, Member Glen Huntingford, Member Richard Wojt, Chairman Clerk of the Board: Director of Public SelVices: Deputy Director of Public SelVices: Loma L. Delaney Gary A. Rowe David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of April 14, 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard W ojt at the appointed time. Commissioners Daniel Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1997 as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request to Waive Fees for Earth Day Cleanup; Port Townsend Civic Trust - Main Street Program: Deputy Director of Public Services David Goldsmith reported that he has talked with the Public Works Department and the City. The City has not budgeted anything for the reimbursement of this fee, but the emphasis this year will be to collect garbage outside the City limits. Since there isn't good information on the amount of garbage collected from County road rights-of-way as opposed to private property, he advised that the Community Services Fund will reimburse the fee for the portion that comes from the unincorporated portions of the Count. The Road Fund will reimburse for the potion that comes from road rights-of-way. Commissioner Huntingford moved to use the Community Services Fund and the Road Fund to reimburse the Solid Waste Fund for the tipping fees for Earth Day. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reviewed the five top issues the Board would like to work on this year: Solid Waste, Comprehensive Plan (including Page 1 ','c 23,.', 227 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 J4"ll~ '~~l. . < 01:" 1'l,{\"'t water), Law and Justice, Economic Development, and Public Outreach (improving public confidence in County government.) A separate meeting will be set up for each issue, possibly on Tuesdays. The discussion of the law and justice issue will be started through the Law and Justice retreat that is scheduled for May 7, 1997. Since economic development hasn't been something the County has dealt with in the past, Gary Rowe asked how the Board would like to become involved in this -- at the staff level or through a meeting of all interested parties (i.e. Port of Port Townsend, Chambers of Commerce, City, Economic Development Council). He recommended that the staff review the opportunities for County involvement in this area. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Board be briefed on what the Port, the EDC and the PDA are doing and what role the County might play. A workshop will be scheduled with staff to begin discussions on the public outreach topic. Chairman W ojt asked about the letter from Pete Piccini on a security system for the Courthouse. Gary Rowe reported that there is $10,000 in the budget for a security system. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: appreciation for the Board's "On the Road" meeting in Port Ludlow; a request that the Board consider trying to get on solid ground with the Comprehensive Plan map, and be prepared to act on an emergency ordinance to place a moratorium on subdivisions if substantiation is provided by staff today; a request that an agenda be provided for workshops; and a question of exactly what area is defined as Hadlock. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve and the adopt the items on the consent agenda with the exception of item 5. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 50-97 re: Establishing a County Project Designated as MD1322: Maintain and Manage an Open Channel (per Drainage Easement) Traversing the Shock Property Located in Brinnon 2. RESOLUTION NO. 51-97 re: Amending the 1997 Staffing Schedule Adopted As Part of the 1997 Budget; Increase Staffing Level for the Solid Waste Scale Attendant 3. EASEMENT re: Purchase of Easement for Jefferson County Parks Project #CR1069; Larry Scott Memorial Park; Dale Barron 4. AGREEMENT #CA-072092-1, Supplemental No. 10 re: Amend Section IV. Time of Completion; Berryman and Henigar 5. DELETE Agreement re: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement for Political Subdivisions; Office of State Procurement (See item later in the Minutes) 6. AGREEMENT, Revision re: Distribution of Funds Received from the State Department of Natural Resources for the Sale of Real Property Acquired by Deed for the H.J. Carroll Park Project; H.J. Carroll, William White and Olive Paddock 7. CONTRACT re: Old Gardiner Road Emergency Project #X01285; Hydro Seeding, Inc. 8. Preliminary Subdivision Approval, #SUB95-0106, Beaver's Pond Long Plat; To Divide 10.91 Acres into 6 Lots; Located at 3851 Larson Lake Road, Port Ludlow; R. Kent DeWitt, Applicant 9. Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26 for $500.00 Page 2 VOL 23 tM:~ 228 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 -t... :-tC,,,,..,, THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 10. Accept One (1) Resignation and Re-appoint Three (3) Members to Serve Three (3) Year Terms on the Jefferson County Olympic Area Agency on Aging Advisory Board; Reappointed Members, Henry Redkey, *Elizabeth "Rusty" North, and *Robert L. Baker (*= Terms Retro-Active to December 30, 1995); Resigning Member, Carlyle Lovewell 11. Letter Supporting Jefferson County's Formal Involvement in the Development of the Olympic Discovery Trail/Larry Scott Memorial Trail AGREEMENT re: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement for Political Subdivisions; Office of State Procurement: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the agreement with the State Office of Procurement to allow County Departments to purchase supplies and equipment from the State contract. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BRIEFING: Frank Gifford, Comprehensive Plan Team, gave an update on the schedule for the Comprehensive Plan review and adoption process. Commissioner Harpole asked about the scoping meeting for the Tri Area study? AI Scalf reported that there is a staff meeting later this week to discuss scoping the Tri Area Study. The Board will review the RFP for this work before it is released. Chairman Wojt asked when the Planning Commission by-laws will be ready for adoption? Senior Planner John Holgate reported that a resolution establishing the Planning Commission will be on the Board's agenda next week. There will be a discussion of whether the Board or the Planning Commission will develop by-laws for the new Planning Commission. John Holgate then reported on the recent Planning Conference he attended. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BRIEFING: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported on the following: the 1996 financial statement for the Road Fund has been finalized. The Road Crew started to work in the Port Ludlow area last Thursday and will finish their work sometime this week. A staff meeting will be held to discuss traffic issues in the Port Ludlow area and suggestions to address these issues will be reviewed with the Board at a later date. The issue of the services provided by the Road Department to the Little Leagues has been brought up. Klara Fabry reported that the services provided have not been changed, but the information process for the provision ofthose services has change. She will report to the Board on any request for use of County equipment by the Little Leagues before the equipment is used. Gary Rowe reported that all of the Little League fields are County owned facilities and the County road crews have donated their time to run the equipment on weekends. Page 3 YOL 23 f~J;; 229 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~'-""" ; ;:, ., -i.. .~,\,it WORKSHOP re: Critical Areas Ordinance; Critical Aquifer Areas Best Management Practices (BMP's): On-Site Septic BMP's Environmental Health Director Larry Fay reported that a map has been developed to show the areas identified as susceptible for critical aquifer recharge, with a residential density that exceeds one unit to 2 'l1 acres, and areas identified for industrial and commercial uses. Areas where there are existing lots that are smaller than 2 'l1 acres were also included on the map if they intersect with a susceptible area. These are areas of concern identified in the Critical Areas Ordinance for septic systems in critical aquifer recharge areas. The concern is nitrate contamination from septic systems. This map would change if the land use map changes or could change if a rezone is done. The map also provides priority areas identified for further analysis. The standards being discussed would apply to building or septic permits for lots that are in one of the identified susceptible areas that are less than 2 'l1 acres in size. Some further analysis may need to be done in some target areas where there is a condition identified, or there is a strong reason to believe the groundwater is quite deep, and there are enough wells in the area to do analysis. The BMP's identify Table 7 of the On-Site Sewage Regulations as the minimum site size for a building permit if the site is in a vulnerable area. The building site size depends on the soils, type of water supply, etc. Once the minimum lot area is determined then the type of on-site septic system to be used is determined based on the amount of nitrogen reduction prior to final disposal. There are several alternative systems being reviewed and evaluated by the State Department of Health for use and may be available in the next 3 to 6 months. There is an exception to the minimum lot size requirement which requires a waterless toilet system for the site (approved compo sting toilet with disposal of the compost at the City's facility.) Chairman Wojt asked what the process will be for a property owner? Larry Fay reported that they will be working with the designers and engineers to have them check the maps before anything is done for a property owner. Once they know that the property is in a susceptible area, then they will have to look at the soils to determine what type of septic system will be required for the site. The Critical Areas Ordinance says that the Critical Area Administrator can adopt rules to implement sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance. These BMP's will be adopted through that administrative process. Once the rules are adopted they are subject to review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners. AI Scalf reported that these BMP's have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and will be forwarded to the Prosecuting Attorney for legal review before they are presented for final adoption by the Board. Dick Broders noted that the Critical Areas Ordinance said that the BMP's would regulate areas where there is an intersection of the susceptible and vulnerable areas, and those areas that were zoned for a density greater than one per 2 'l1 acres. The ordinance didn't specifically say anything about existing small lots which have been identified on the map. Does this require a change in the wording of the ordinance? The Prosecuting Attorney will be asked to review this issue. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the Board should give direction on whether the ordinance wording should be amended. Chairman Wojt pointed out that ifthe small lots are not included in the map, there won't be many areas left on the map. Larry Fay reported that the rural centers and industrial areas would still be Page 4 ,VOL 23 IA('~ 230 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 I]""""~' , . ~. '\,,' 1'1<', mapped, but residential applications would not be. The question is if the language of the ordinance means only what is on the land use map even though building in higher density is allowed on existing lots? Or is the issue density, and if so does that require an amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance language? In response to a questions from the audience about Special Aquifer Protection Areas, Larry Fay explained that the well head protection area for the City's Sparling well has been identified on the vulnerable area map, even though the State has not yet adopted the City's Water Plan. Sea Water Intrusion BMP's: Commissioner Huntingford asked for the definition of a sole source aquifer? This designation has been given to Marrowstone Island. Larry Fay reported that this designation means that more than 50% of the people in an area are dependent on the aquifer or a system of aquifers for their groundwater supply. It has no regulatory implications and there are no rules or standards that go with it. If a federally funded project is to be done in an area with that designation, an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Dave Christensen explained how he mapped the susceptible and vulnerable areas for seawater intrusion. Larry Fay asked if the Board feels the County should proceed with adoption ofBMP's for seawater intrusion when there hasn't been enough data collected to determine that there are any vulnerable areas? Maybe the focus should be on data gathering and education. The consensus ofthe Board was that the best way to proceed with BMP's for sea water intrusion is to continue to collect data and to develop a program of public outreach and education. Larry Fay reported that they will have the Prosecuting Attorney review the BMP's for on-site septic systems. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Public comments made were: The County needs to stop permitting the creation ofIots to allow the time for the Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed and adopted and the State Legislature has made a provision for the County to enact an emergency ordinance to protect planning options. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS EMERGENCY SERVICES Bob Minty, Emergency Management Coordinator re: Program to Provide Tsunami Warning Signs for Coastal Roads and Access Areas: Bob Minty explained that the State of Washington and the coastal counties have been meeting to discuss Tsunami warning signs in coastal areas. A sign program to warn citizens has been developed and the State has agreed to pay for the signs if the counties will install them. The signs indicate the evacuation route for hazardous areas and informational signs that say to move to higher ground ifthere is an earthquake or a Tsunami warning. This program is being funded for the coast, but there are other areas in the County that may also be effected. There will Page 5 VOL 23 i~[,~ 231 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~~'''''' .~. ~t. to( ~(.,....,,'t probably be only half a dozen signs put up on the coast in Jefferson County. The Board concurred that Bob Minty continue to work on this program for the County. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Advisory CommiUee (SWAC); Proposed Ordinances Amending Solid Waste Fees: Bill Perka, Vice Chairman of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, reported that there have always been issues with solid waste funding and the RW. Beck report brought them to everyone's attention. A crisis has ensued from the Olympic Disposal proposal to take their waste to another disposal site if the County doesn't provide some relief from the tipping fee. The issue of separating fixed costs from the actual cost of disposal has been discussed for some time, but has now come to the forefront because of the ultimatum from Olympic Disposal. The loss of Olympic Disposal's waste stream would mean a reduction of between 25% and 30% in solid waste fees. This would be a huge impact on the Solid Waste budget. If the tipping fee to Olympic is reduced as a short term solution to this problem, the dilemma becomes where the money will come from to make up that shortfall. The Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed the question of whether different fees can be charged to different classes of users. The SW AC and the Public Works staff have been looking at proposals to make up the difference in revenues if this fee is reduced. The possibility of a disposal district has come up which would mean that the fixed costs for closure, post closure monitoring and transfer station construction, may be separated from the current costs of collecting, trucking and disposing of the waste. This may be the long term solution, but public hearings are required to do this. The Public Works Department has prepared three ordinances for raising the tipping fees. The SW AC would like to see no fee increase and very little reduction in service. Michael Atkins, Chairman ofSWAC, reviewed the memo from Klara Fabry dated April 10, 1997. He noted that on page 3 item 2, the SW AC only recommends reducing or eliminating the drop boxes. They do not recommend reducing or eliminating any other services. The SW AC specifically identified the County General Fund as the "other source." The SW AC is opposed to the use of any funds left in the General Administration budget to continue with RFP development by R W. Beck. The SW AC would like to see any RFP' s done by County employees. The SW AC feels that any budget shortfall should be made up from modifications to the recycling program, the drop box closures, any administrative funds left in the budget and from the County General Fund. Commissioner Harpole stated that the Prosecuting Attorney expressed concern that if the fee is reduced for one commercial hauler, it would have to be reduced for other commercial haulers. He understands that Superior Refuse is also asking for a lower rate. If that is given it would make the short fall much higher. Klara Fabry presented a memo addressing the concerns raised by the Prosecuting Attorney regarding equal rates for equal services. She stated that these commercial haulers receive different services and can be charged different rates because ofthat. Bill Perka pointed out that the tipping and hauling fees charged by the County are not outlandish. The tipping fee is bumped up by the fixed costs (i.e. the closure, and post closure monitoring costs) and SW AC would like to see if there is a way to separate those costs and keep the tipping fee low. Page 6 VOL 23 w~ 232 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~~""" . -;. "~l. , . ~ . :>l\;\'" Commissioner Harpole stated that he is trying to get a sense of the scope of the short term problem and he doesn't feel that it is totally understood yet. He would like legal review of the issue. Anne Sears then reviewed the short term budget reduction recommendations from the Public Works Department: 1) Restructure the recycling program. This was also a SW AC recommendation. a) Do not recycle glass. If glass is stored on site it would require a change in the County's permit to allow an inert landfill, Larry Fay explained. b) Remove heavy metals. c) Recycle on the tipping floor after the item goes across the scales, but before it is shipped. d) Auction the surplus equipment from the closure of the drop box sites. 2) Reduce or eliminate other services such as education, the Moderate Risk Waste program, and expedite the closure of the drop boxes. 3) Create other sources of revenue a) Provide for donations at the Moderate Risk Waste Facility. b) Support specific portions of the Solid Waste program that are desired by the community, but are above solid waste services from other sources. c) Raise the tipping fee. d) Impose a fee for recycling to cover cost of recycling. Anne Sears reported that each year depreciation of equipment is budgeted into the Solid Waste Operating Costs, but it is not actually an outlay at that time. The fund is being maintained, but there is no reserve for replacing equipment. Michael Atkins reported that the SW AC is opposed to raising the tipping fee and opposed to a fee for recycling as a short term solution. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he is in favor of raising the tipping fee. Right now everyone is paying a tipping fee that pays for everything including recycling. He feels the items covered by the tipping fee should be identified and people should know how much they're paying for recycling. Michael Atkins stated that he feels the SW AC is committed to developing a long range plan for all solid waste services. There is no point in having a taxing district if you don't know what the tax per residence is going to be. They need to find out what other services are wanted by the citizens of the County and what they will cost. Diane Thompson, representing the City, stated that they understand the dilemma for the County and would like to be part of the long range solution. The City feels it would be irresponsible to their citizens if they didn't consider all of the options which might reduce the tipping fees. The City pays the tipping fee for all the garbage from the City. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the tipping fee is reduced for Olympic Disposal and the City, would the County be going to the UTC and asking for a rate reduction to their customers? Michael Atkins noted that if the tipping fee rates paid in Jefferson and Clallam Counties are too far apart, then the UTC will require that they charge separate rates for each County. The discussion continued regarding the UTC requirements on garbage disposal companies, the closure of the drop boxes, and garbage dumping on the back roads and in the woods of the County. Page 7 VOL 2 3 fA('~ 233 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 11""",, ~ ~t. f;~ Nt;'I."t Klara Fabry stated that for the very short term their recommendation is to add two additional revenue sources 1) add a fee which reflects the real level of expenses for operating the drop box sites, and 2) remove non-profitable materials from the recycling programs. These items should solve the short term revenue problem. The Public Works Department will continue to work with the SW AC to develop the long term solution. She asked that the Board start the public process to raise the tipping fees as soon as possible. Commissioner Harpole stated that he feels that some of the short term solutions are meaningful and some are not, but his biggest concern is to resolve the legal issue around providing a different rate for Olympic Disposal and a different rate for other commercial haulers such as Superior Refuse. Michael Atkins pointed out that the SW AC has not reviewed these proposed ordinances raising the tipping fees, and they do not want the Board to act on the ordinance until the legal issue is resolved. Jim Westall, Skookum, stated that he feels all of the stakeholders, not just the SW AC, should be brought together to develop short term and long term solutions. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he would like to see time frames set for working on the short term and long term solutions to these problems. Michael Hildt reported that the City Council is considering their approach to negotiations with Superior Refuse, The City will be looking at the best options for their rate payers. Diane Thompson explained that the City pays the tipping fee for Superior Refuse. PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Discussion re: Subdivision Activity: Community Development Director AI Scalf reviewed the summary of subdivision activity for the week ending Wednesday oflast week. Associate Planner Barry Berezowsky reviewed a summary (see microfilm copy) of information on subdivision activity from March 1996, (when the Growth Strategies Ordinance was adopted) to present. In the first nine month period there were 18 pre-applications and 18 subdivision applications. From January 1, 1997 to present there have been 17 pre-applications and 17 subdivision applications. The Permit Center has been receiving the same level of applications in the last 3 Y:z month period, that they had processed in the preceding 9 month period. A map was created which identifies the areas where there are differences between the IGSO map density and the draft Comprehensive Plan map density. 16,172 acres are slated for down zoning if the draft Comprehensive Plan map is adopted. AIl of the subdivision applications were then mapped which include parcels near Old Fort Townsend, Marrowstone Island, Quilcene Bay, and south Coyle. 225 acres that would be down zoned in the south Coyle area have been taken out of the Planning Commission discussion because there is a subdivision application pending for this property. Since January 1, 1997, 7% of the land to be down zoned has already been taken off the table due to subdivision applications submitted. The projects added to the processing pipeline have increased by 50%. If the level of activity Page 8 VOL 23 r~(;~ 234 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~,.''''.. . ';' ~J. ole . ~,..."t continues, it can be assumed that about 15% of the land proposed for change in density will be lost to the Comprehensive Planning process. If this continues, it will definitely reduce the options the Planning Commission will be discussing with the communities. AI Scalf reported that of the 18 projects in the processing pipeline under the GSO most are short plats creating 2, 3, or 4 lots. 5 of the projects are long plats with the largest being a 60 lot proposal and the others being for 8, 11, 16, 10 and 14 lots. Commissioner Harpole noted that a comment was made at a previous meeting that the County has generated a crisis by releasing the Comprehensive Plan map which identified 16,172 acres that are being looked at during the Planning Commission review to down zone to different densities. This generated the crisis. The 16,172 acres need to be addressed as far as subdivision activity. Every property owner that has property within that 16,172 acres should have equal opportunity to address their concerns. One way to assure that is to halt subdivision activity on the down zoned acreage specifically. Chairman Wojt asked what the Board wants to do to hold the options open? One option would be to halt subdivision applications. He asked if this must be done for the whole County, or if it could be done for only the 16,172 acres. AI Scalf answered that a legal opinion is needed regarding how a moratorium can be prepared. Barry Berezowsky reported that while these areas have a change in density from one map to the other, the areas where densities didn't change from the IGSO map to the draft Comprehensive Plan map, are still up for discussion with the Planning Commission. AI Scalf pointed out that there are areas where up- zoning also has occurred. Cy Heffernan suggested that the Board look at how much acreage was down zoned with the adoption of the forest land map. Many of the properties that were designated under that map had greater densities and those people have no options to change that zoning. Gene Seton noted that people are trying to protect themselves because the densities keep changing. The County needs to review what this down zoning will do to the tax base. Dave Clevenger stated that he feels there needs to be a distinction made between the types of subdivision applications (long plats or short plats) being submitted. Just because property is being subdivided, not each lot is being built on. There isn't a builder who will subdivide and build a house on a 5 acre lot for a profit. The subdivision of property is not being driven by the forces of growth. People are trying to protect their rights. He reminded the Board and the new members of the Planning Commission that they work for the people of Jefferson County. AI Boucher said that the Board should make a distinction between process and action. He feels it is important that no reference is made to the Comprehensive Plan in findings for a moratorium. The Comprehensive Plan has no standing because it is draft. The Board needs to focus on why they are doing this. Page 9 VOL 23 r~r;~235 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~J'''''('' " , . " ,~;,''I' Dave Clevenger stated that whether a subdivision application was submitted prior to February or not, every citizen that is a property owner in this County has a right to look at their options. You can't say that someone who applied before February 14, has more standing than someone who applies today. Commissioner Harpole stated that he wants to see an even playing field for everyone who owns property in Jefferson County. Some property owners who live in the County have the knowledge of what's going on in the County and can go before the Planning Commission and make their case. Other property owners may not know what is going on and don't know that their options may change. Placing a moratorium on these properties will preserve the options for everyone to have a chance to go before the Planning Commission. Cy Heffernan asked how the County will notify all of the property owners who might be subject to down zoning? Commissioner Harpole noted that there is a large public out reach program being developed. Commissioner Huntingford asked the other Commissioners if they are interested in sending notices to people who own property in the affected areas to let them know what's going to happen? He would like an estimate of the expense to do this type of notice. Jeff Gallant stated that he thought interim controls were being discussed, not the Comprehensive Plan. Since the Growth Management process in this State has generated more conflict and controversy than any other subject across the State, he feels most land owners are aware of what is going on. It's been seven years since GMA was initiated. Sandy Sandman doesn't feel the Commissioners are required to inform people from out of State who buy property in Jefferson County. Mrs. Perkins suggested that the County notify all the property owners with a general statement letting them know that there is a process happening and when the meetings will take place. Gene Seton recounted his experience with the Quimper Planning area and how the property owners of the area were surveyed, but the results of the survey were not reflected in the Quimper Plan. Chairman Wojt asked what the other Board members want to do? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he feels the legality of doing a moratorium needs to be looked into further. Chairman W ojt asked how many more lots are needed since there are currently 13,000 buildable lots already created? Commissioner Huntingford stated that he's seen nothing in the Growth Management Act that says you can only have a certain number oflots and after that no more lots can be created. Chairman W ojt questioned if we need to subdivide and create more lots? The discussion continued regarding a "no growth" attitude. Commissioner Harpole stated that he is interested in assuring fair public process. The people that are most alarmed by the draft Comprehensive Plan Land Use map being released are those who feel that their property is more than likely going to be down zoned. They are afraid they are losing their opportunities. Page 10 VOL 23 fA(; 236 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~<>"'" '.' ~t. . . ... . N"'\''''' Commissioner Harpole moved to request the Planning staff create an ordinance with findings of fact for a moratorium on any new subdivision activity in lands proposed to be down zoned; have a legal review of it, and have it back on the Board's agenda on April 21, 1997. (The motion died for a lack ofa second.) Chairman W ojt asked how working on drafting this ordinance will impact the schedule for the Compre- hensive Plan work? AI Scalf answered that staff can prepare an ordinance with findings for the Board's review on April 21, 1997, but if the legal advise is to extend that date, that will be reported to the Board. The discussion then turned to what date the moratorium should be made effective, because applications could be vested between now and April 21. AI Boucher pointed out that the Board should provide staff with the rationale for this action. Commis- sioner Harpole stated that the premise for the moratorium is that the County has created a speculative environment and people are submitting applications that are taking away the opportunity for land use planning that would potentially meet the preference of the community. Barry Berezowsky stated that his concern is that a moratorium publicly declared two weeks before it is enacted, is not a moratorium. The process should be that a moratorium is imposed instantaneously with no public notice or discussion. Once the moratorium is imposed the State allows a 60 day time period for a public hearing to be held. Chairman Wojt pointed out that what needs to be considered is if the evidence presented today is sufficiently strong to declare the emergency and impose a moratorium. If it is, then the moratorium is declared today and a public hearing is held within 60 days. He then asked if the information presented by the Planners is sufficient to declare an emergency? Commissioner Huntingford stated that if the Comprehensive Plan would have been released with the GSO map, he would have probably supported this moratorium. It was a hard decision for him to support the GSO map a year ago when it was adopted. He only supported it because he felt it was a good starting place and was as close as the County could get to the community plans and stay within the law set down by the Hearings Boards. To have the Comprehensive Plan map go so far over and above what is in the GSO map, there is no way he can't support a moratorium now. The County created the problem. Assistant Planner Michelle Grewell asked how a moratorium would effect the septic system exemptions that the Board confirmed could proceed? Many of these people have been notified to come in with their applications. AI Scalf answered that those applications that are being processed on the effective date of the moratorium will proceed and those that have not made an application will not. Chairman Wojt noted that the first interim ordinance was to hold the options open. The discussion continued regarding the best way to proceed to preserve planning options for the future. Chairman W ojt asked that AI Scalf obtain a legal determination on whether an emergency moratorium Page 11 VOL {~'"' 237 ~.j rAlJ~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~"""" -".'~ <;:~< . . ~ . ~1."" can be declared on just the properties identified as being down zoned, based on the fact that there is a lot of subdivision occurring within certain areas of the County? Since there was no second to the motion, the Board agreed to review this matter again on Thursday at 2:30 p.m. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Thursday afternoon with all three Board members present. Continued Discussion re: Subdivision Activity and the Possibility of Imposing a Mor- atorium on New Subdivision Applications: Chairman Wojt called the meeting to order to continue the discussion of subdivision activity in the County. The Planning Department was to ask the Prosecuting Attorney about the legality of a moratorium on subdivision applications for an area that would be down zoned if the densities in the draft Comprehensive Plan map are adopted. Commissioner Harpole noted that the Prosecuting Attorney's memo dated April 16 raises concerns about doing an interim control on specific areas of the County. He lists four potential courses of action for the Board: 1) Adopt by ordinance an interim zoning map, 2) Impose a Countywide moratorium on all new subdivisions until the County adopts the Comprehensive Plan, 3) impose a moratorium for a limited period of time until the County can amend the current interim regulation (IGSO) or adopt new regulations to regulate subdivision activity until final Comprehensive Plan adoption, or 4) take no action and continue to monitor the situation until it is determined that the circumstances merit taking some action. Commissioner Harpole stated that he has spent a considerable amount of time the past few days looking at information on this issue and then listed the following findings of fact to support a motion for an interim control: 1) Jefferson County is planning under GMA by the appropriate RCW's. 2) Jefferson County released a draft comprehensive plan on February 24, 1997. 3) A memo from Paul McIlrath dated April 10, 1997 regarding concerns about current administrative exemptions to subdivision regulations (page 4). 4) A memo from the Long Range Planning Division staff dated April 14, 1997 which shows heightened subdivision application activity over the first months of 1997. Notably, if the current rate of activity continues, by June of 1997 15% of the draft map will be impacted, and by September 1997 that number will approach 25 % . 5) The current status quo is exasperating the problem of the number of buildable lots in Jefferson County. This is a problem that was brought to the County's attention by the 1994 Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ruling. Page 12 VOL 23 rH~ 238 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~,.'''>'" .' ~,l. ole . H<'-,\,..,t These are the findings that he believes warrant and support the emergency for a motion for an interim control ordinance. He doesn't feel these are the only findings and would direct the Planning staff to add findings as necessary. Commissioner Harpole then moved for an interim control ordinance whereby Jefferson County will not accept any new applications for the subdivision of land, for Planned Unit Developments, for residential cluster developments, rezones or plat alterations, for a period of 90 days until the County can amend its current regulations or adopt new regulations to regulate subdivision activity until final Comprehensive Plan adoption. Chairman W ojt seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Board has made a commitment to not burden the staff with additional workload until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and he feels this would be giving the staff more work. Chairman Wojt stated that the real question is will there be anything for the Planning Commission to do if development continues at the current rate? The Planning Staff has indicated that until this issue is resolved one way or another they are working on shifting sand which makes the job of working on the Comprehensive Plan harder. This will allow their work to go forward in a more directed way. Commissioner Harpole stated that this issue needs to be resolved to allow current Planning staff to handle their current workload and help empower staff to deal with the issues. Commissioner Huntingford asked if this motion readdresses the septic exemption issue? Commissioner Harpole answered that he doesn't feel it addresses that issue. Commissioner Huntingford noted that from when the GSO map was adopted to the changes to the Forest land resource map there has been an additional 28,000 acres of forestlands taken out of one per five, one per 10 and one per 20 acre densities and put into the forest land designation. He asked when enough is enough? Is there enough concern that the 16,000 acres that would be down zoned would actually be subdivided. The GSO was an interim ordinance to protect the County while the Comprehensive Plan was being finished. The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney mentioned that in his memo and cautioned that the Board should look long and hard at what they are going to do, since GSO map was put into place as an emergency. Commissioner Harpole clarified that his intention is to allow the staff, working with the legal department, to come up with the necessary refinements to the GSO to make it effective. He does not believe that the status quo is being preserved. Commissioner Huntingford asked AI Scalf about staff workload? Is most of the workload with the Permit Center staff or the Long Range Planning staff? He feels most of the workload from subdivision activity is at the Permit Center and not with the Long Range Planners. He doesn't feel that the work on processing subdivision applications keeps the Long Range Planners from working on the Comprehensive Plan. AI Scalf eXplained that the Development Review Division of the Permit Center is swamped with work, but that hasn't been from a recent rush. The general workload over the last year has been extensive and required a great amount of review. Revisiting the GSO and clarifying some of the issues of Page 13 VOL 23 :~r~ 23Q Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~..""" . .,. ~f +... "*",\,,'t concern, such as the minimum lot sizes, gross density versus net density, definitions for the rural water supply, and the septic exemptions being turned into a variance procedure, will impact the workload for the Long Range Planning staff Commissioner Huntingford asked if the staff has been working on a moratorium ordinance to be presented today? AI Scalf reported that they have several drafts of a moratorium ordinance, but nothing ready today. Commissioner Huntingford noted that on Monday the Board had the same discussion about a moratorium and a motion was made to direct staff to prepare an ordinance and findings of fact for a moratorium. That motion died for lack of a second. He was disturbed to find out later that Planning Department staff had been directed by the other two Commissioners to start writing a moratorium ordinance. Neither ofthe Commissioners mentioned this to him during the week. He stated that he feels he's been left out of the loop. He is concerned and disappointed that the chain of command is being by- passed. Chairman Wojt answered that he didn't ask staff to prepare on ordinance. He did ask them for information. Barry Berezowsky confirmed that he was not directed by Chairman W ojt to write an ordinance, but he did have discussions with him about what has been happening. Chairman W ojt stated that his concern about public process is as strong as ever and he doesn't feel he has done anything to compromise that. His actions weren't aimed at circumventing an open public discussion. Commissioner Harpole stated that he's had discussions with several of the Planning staff and several legal authorities about the legalities around this issue and especially about findings to be brought forward to this public meeting. He attended a meeting yesterday, and asked several members of the Long Range Planning staff if they felt that this was a direction that merits further discussion and further findings. He is trying to bring enough information to this public meeting to allow the Board to make a decision. The discussion continued regarding the Board members discussions with Planning staff and if staff was given direction to proceed with drafting a moratorium ordinance. Commissioner Harpole reiterated that the motion he made today and the findings he cited are not new information. Chairman W ojt added that the question is ifthere is a problem and if there is a solution available for the problem. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Board is familiar with the memo from the Prosecuting Attorney dated March 5, 1997 and they are comfortable with it? Commissioner Harpole stated that he has read all of the memo at least 3 or 4 times and the April 10, 1997 memo from Paul McIlrath (page 4) which says "In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, I have serious concerns about the Board's action taken at the April 7, 1997 hearing directing the Director of Community Development to administratively process exemptions. I also have concerns regarding adequate notice to neighboring and other impacted property owners, as well as concerns for the right to appeal such administrative decisions unless current County ordinance are the basis for the County decision." He also feels that the memo from Long Range Planning staff dated April 14, 1997 regarding heightened activity in subdivision applications is also a strong case for this 90 day proposed interim control. Page 14 VOl, 23 r~U 240 Commissioners Meeting Minutes Week of April 14, 1997 ~t<""'" " . ~ .J~;'\..:'l Chairman Wojt noted that the limited time period is to allow time for the County to make modifications so that people within the boundaries of the Comprehensive Plan can get on with business. The idea from his point of view is not to put a stop to subdivision applications forever. Commissioner Harpole agreed that it is not his desire to stop these activities forever which was why he originally proposed the strategy on Monday to limit the moratorium to the areas where there are differences between the two maps. That idea doesn't have legal support, but the issue is still there. He is trying to address this issue quickly to allow business to proceed. Commissioner Harpole then re-read his motion. AI Scalf asked if this is clearly an outright moratorium on subdivision applications? Commissioner Harpole indicated that the motion says "will not accept any new applications for the subdivision of land" AI Scalf asked what the effective date and time for this moratorium would be? Commissioner Harpole answered effective today's date at 5 p.m. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the moratorium will be lifted in 90 days? Commissioner Harpole stated that is his intent. Chairman W ojt called for a vote on the motion. Chairman W ojt and Commissioner Harpole voted for the motion. Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carried. Resignation of Planning Commission Member: William B. Woolf: Commissioner Harpole moved to accept the resignation ofMr. Wolfe from the Planning Commission and that the Board members review the resumes of the remaining applicants from District No.2 and discuss the appointment of a new member on April 28, 1997. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. " ",,_.,,' '....... MEETING ADJoUiiNEI1 v :'~ " f {, . . ;" .(' , . ' . " . ~ / "~.A J ~.,~ 1 ,o(,:~ I~ t ,;:~~~ I '-'" " /."- to ... . ATTEST \. . \ , . \.. ~ ~cYMt C1.']ii:;'.. . Lorna Delaney, CMC ~ Clerk of the Board a SEAL: . of ~ Page 15 VOL 23 rM.~ 241