Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032596 MINUTE S WEEK OF MARCH 25, 1996 The meeting was opened at the appointed time by Chairman Richard Wojt. Commissioners Robert Hinton and Glen Huntingford were both present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1996 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Richard Coram, Department of Community Trade and Economic Develop- ment and Eric Andersson. Economic Development Council of Jefferson County re: WashinJ:ton State RevolvinJ: Loan Fund: Richard Coram from the Business Finance Unit of the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DC TED), explained that he works with banks and small businesses on financing to complete projects when there is potential economic growth as a result of the project. This loan is through the Coastal Loan Fund, North Coast Revolving Loan Fund, for the Bacchus project (Twana Roadhouse) in Quilcene in the amount of $20,000.00. The loans through this fund are available when there is a gap identified between what the banks can loan on equity and what the project needs. The loan can be for no more than a third ofthe total project cost, and there are other criteria which must be met. Mr. Coram noted that there is economic benefit from this project because: 1) The Bacchus's will provide up to 3 jobs in Quilcene, 2) Tax base expansion when the project is completed; and, 3) Sales taxes generated from the project. The proceeds of this loan will be used to purchase non- capital equipment (chairs, plates, etc.), and inventory. Eric Andersson, Executive Director of the Economic Development Council of Jefferson County, reported that the Qui1cene Chamber of Commerce has been working to help this project go forward. They see this as an opportunity to reestablish a family type restaurant in the community. David Goldsmith reported on the status of the permitting process for this project. Commissioner Hinton moved to support the Washington State Revolving Loan Fund for the Twana Roadhouse. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 1 VC:I- 2.2 PA'~ 765 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Public Services Director, Gary Rowe, updated the Board on items that the Public Services Departments are working on: . The meeting with FEMA on the Flood Plain in Brinnon is being scheduled in June. . The Fire Code Advisory Committee has been working on an ordinance which is being reviewed by the Planning Department and the Prosecuting Attorney. David Goldsmith is going to meet in the next few weeks with the EMS Council committee on ALS. The Sheriff's Department voice mail will be tested next week before it is made available to the public. A food purchase policy for County Department's is going to be distributed to the Department Heads and the Elected Official for their review and comments before it is brought to the Board for approval. The Board will be "On the Road" at the Quilcene Community Center to discuss the Leland Community Plan this Thursday at 7:30 p.m. Al Scalf presented a Memo (See attached) regarding the results ITom the meeting last Thursday at Gardiner regarding the Gardiner Community Plan. . . . . . Request for Clarification of Board Action: Niichel Request for Reconsideration of Short Plat Denial: Roger Blaylock, Senior Planner, explained that Mr. Niichel's attorney is present and has submitted a request for clarification of the Board's motion on March 7, 1996 (See also Minutes of March 7, 1996). Roger Blaylock reviewed a memo outlining the Permit Center's concerns and recommendations for this application to be resubmitted. Commissioner Hinton stated that the primary argument on the lot configuration was the fact that the lots are bisected by the State highway, not the length to width ratio of the lots. Chairman Wojt stated that this project was denied on the basis that it was submitted, and now the question is what regulations it would be vested under if it is reconfigured? The Board denied the application without prejudice. Roger Blaylock stated that the Board did not waive charging the current fees for the subdivision application, and the Permit Center would like clarification on what fees should be charged as well as on the vesting issue. Commissioner Hinton stated that he feels the application is vested under the original regulations and that the fees would be those that were in effect at the time of the original application. Chairman Wojt stated that he feels the new fees would be applicable to this re-submitted application because of the review required. Commissioner Huntingford feels that this application is vested under the 1989 regulations, but that the current fees should be applied. Mr. Rutz, Attorney representing Mr. Niichel, stated that he appreciates clarification on the vesting issue, but added that after reviewing the tapes of the March 7, 1996 meeting, the issue seemed to be the lots running across the Highway. Chairman Wojt explained to Mr. Rutz that the Board cannot deal with the lot configuration issue today because this is a quasi-judicial matter. The Board concurred that the new fees be applied and that the application will be vested under the 1989 regulations. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: the status of the Quilcene restaurant project; testing of surface water being done by citizens on Marrowstone Island and the threshold for chlorides in the BMP's that are to be established as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance; the need to encourage the property owners in Quilcene to clean up their properties; if the issues raised at the workshop on the emergency density ordinance have been resolved; a request that an agenda be developed for the Board's community meetings; Page 2 VOL 2 2 rM,~ 76C Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 and concern that the Quimper meeting was put off until May 23, 1996 and how that will impact their input into the Comprehensive Plan. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to delete items 3 and 7 and to adopt and approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. 2. 3. PROCLAMATION re: Public Health Week; April 1 through April 7, 1996 Annual 1995 Certification; County Roads; County Road Administration Board DELETE Agreement re: Professional Services; To Complete Design of Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail; Nakano Dennis Landscape Architects (See next item in Minutes.) Request to Include Courthouse on the Spring Historic Homes Tour; May 4 and 5, 1996, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Jefferson County Hospital Auxiliary Letter to John Magnano, President WSAC Western District re: Consideration of Hosting the Washington State Association of Counties Western District Spring Meeting in 1997 at the Port Ludlow Resort and Conference Center Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Assistance Fund; Jefferson County Service Officers Association for $179.49 DELETE Approval of High Cost Area Accommodations for Lodging for Veronica Monis-Nakano, Health and Human Services Department. (See next item in Minutes.) 4. 5. 6. 7. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services: To Complete Desi¡:n of Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail: Nakano Dennis Landscape Architects AND Approval of Hi¡:h Cost Area Accommodations for Lod¡:in¡: for Veronica Morris-Nakano. Health and Human Services Department: Commissioner Huntingford asked if there is any connection between the persons named Nakano involved in these two items? Klara Fabry reported that there is no relationship between these people. Commissioner Huntingford then asked about the process used for awarding the contract for the design of the Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail? Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that the same procedure was used that is used, for other contract work. Commissioner Hinton asked. if the awarding of the contract is premature since the property issues have not been settled? Klara Fabry answered that the County has made the commitment with the Mill for the property. Commissioner Hinton stated that he is concerned about that commitment because there isn't total agreement on what should be accepted in the property transfer. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he doesn't have a problem with the trail, but he is concerned about the liability the County may face if the transfer station and the railroad "Y" are accepted as County property. Klara Fabry reported that the Public Works Department is still working with the Mill on these issues. She doesn't see any reason to postpone the approval of the design contract. Commissioner Hinton stated concern about the survey of the railroad right of way and the County never having clear title to that right-of-way. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve both of these items (items 7 and 3 trom the Consent Agenda) as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Possible Adoption of Proposed Re~ulatory Reform Ordinance: Permit Coordinator, Monica MacGuire, reported that the legal review of the draft ordinance is not completed. A final draft of the ordinance has been produced. Commissioner Hinton asked about the administrative interpretations such as the open record appeal. Monica MacGuire reported that this may be a typographic error. They will check it out. Commissioner Hinton then asked how a project would be handled that required a rezone and a shoreline permit? Senior Planner, Page 3 - VOL 22 rAf,~ 767 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 Roger Blaylock explained that this would be a problem. The way the regulations are s~t up . currently, the Shoreline Commission is required to hold a public hearing for the ShorelIne Pernut and the Hearing Examiner would hold the hearing on the conditional use zoning permit. The Shoreline Commission currently holds public hearings, not meetings, as the ordinance currently states. Commissioner Hinton asked about the pre-application conferences? Monica MacGuire answered that all pre-application conferences are taped. If people ask questions about regulations before they are involved in a pre-application conference, that is considered an informal meeting and is not taped. The discussion continued regarding fee refunds, posting requirements, and notification requirements. Commissioner Hinton moved to accept the Planning Department recommendation and to refer draft 3 to the Prosecuting Attorney for legal review. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Variance Request. ZON95-0058: Reduce Setback from 20 feet to 17 feet: Allow Construction of a Garaf:e/Storaf:e Buildinf:: Robert Hickish. Applicant: Last week Mr. Hickish asked that the variance he requested be extended across the ITont of the property, Roger Blaylock reported. Community Development Director, AI Scalf, has done an administrative review of the extension request and recommends approval. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the variance as recommended by the Hearing Examiner and the variance extension as recommended by the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Lead Af:ency: Development of an Airport Subarea Master Plan: Port of Port Townsend: Senior Planner Roger Blaylock reported that the Planning staff is working on a subarea plan for the Airport with the Port of Port Townsend. The issue is if the County should be the lead agency on the SEPA review ofthis plan or if the Port of Port Townsend should be. The Planning, Public Works, and Public Services Directors feel that it would be better for the County to be the Lead Agency since the intent is that the subarea plan will become part of the County Comprehensive Plan in the future. Bob Miulli, Assistant Port Manager, stated that the Port wants to work collaboratively with the City and the County in this process. They don't want the issue of lead agency to become a source of conflict, but they would like to maintain control. They have the capability and the authority to be the lead agency, and they feel they can handle the process as expediently and effectively as possible. Rick Septer, Madrona Planning, explained that he is working with the Port on facilitation of the environmental impact statement process. A master plan has been prepared for the Airport which is subject to environmental review and will warrant a determination of significance and an environmental impact statement. An opportunity for public involvement is part ofthe environmental process and will al1ow the development of alternatives for different uses at the Airport. The County will make the decision on the subarea plan for the airport. The Port of Port Townsend is mandated to look at the environmental impacts for three reasons: 1) The safety requirements of the FAA, 2) concern for local land uses that surround the Airport, and 3) what uses can be accommodated at the Airport. The WACs (197.11. 926) provide that the Port can assume lead agency status for the subarea plan. The State Department of Ecology looks at the magnitude, duration, sequence of involvement, expertise, and approval authority, if they are asked to determine who should be lead agency. It is clear that the Port contains the magnitude because Port property is directly involved. As far as duration, this will be a lengthy process and the first decision that must be made is the Port's decision (the Port Commission must approve the Page 4 VOL 22 rAC> 768 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 draft alternatives.) In terms of expertise, it is clear that the greatest expertise is with the Port because they have developed the draft Master Plan and have dealt with noise and safety, etc. As far as cost to the community, it would be more cost effective to have the Port be the lead agency. The County will retain full authority over the outcome from the EIS. The Port is asking to be allowed to facilitate the environmental impact statement process because it will allow them to run the public process and get the community involved to a fuller, more focused extent. The Port could use integrated planning and EIS preparation which is allowed under the State SEP A rules which would save time and money. Chairman Wojt noted that one issue that has come out of the County's planning process is that there is too much commercial property in the County and the Airport represents a lot of land with the potential to be commercial. Rick Sepler explained that the Port views this as a joint process, and they are going into it with a blank slate. The interlocal agreement that is being drafted will provide ample opportunity for input from the City and the County to ask for review of various alternatives. The discussion continued regarding lead agency and who could best serve the citizens of the County. Commissioner Hinton stated that the County has to review all the plans, and doesn't have to accept anything the Port comes up with. He then moved to direct the Planning Department staff to continue to work on the interlocal agreement and to designate the Port as Lead Agency. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton voted in favor. Chairman Wojt voted against the motion. The motion passed. HEARING: Amendment to the Animal Responsibility Ordinance No 4-84 and Ordinance No. 14-1221-92 Fee Schedule: The Clerk of the Board explained that this amendment to the Animal Responsibility Ordinance fee schedule is to make the spay and neuter fees for dogs and cats the same amount. . Chairman Wojt opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment for or against the proposed amendment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 06-0325-96. amending Ordinance No. 4-84 and 14-1221-92 as presented. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion, in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Request for New Contract Position: Victim-Witness Advocate: Prosecutina: Attorney: The Board reviewed the written request ITom the Prosecuting Attorney to add a Victim Witness Advocate position to the Department staffing schedule. This contract position will be funded by a federal grant ITom the Crime Victims Fund. The continuance of the position will be dependent on the continuance of the federal funding. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the request for the addition of a Victim Witness Advocate contract position in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. David Skeen reviewed changes in the State law regarding the amounts the County receives ITom CrimeNictim assessments each year. Public Works Update: Public Works Director, Klara Fabry, updated the Board on projects that the Public Works staff is working on. The Board reviewed the proposed reimbursable work agreement between the Public Works Department and the Planning Department regarding work on Comprehensive Plan elements. There is no estimate for the cost of the work defined in the agreement. The Board asked that an estimate be made of the cost for this work before they make a determination. Page 5 VOI- ?2 'H~769 ..... r,<,,~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 The Board then interviewed Leonard Palmer who is interested in continuing to serve on the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Advisory Commission. HEARING re: Proposed Fee Schedule for Jefferson County Public Works: Development Review Section: (See also Minutes of March 11, 1996) Jim Pearson, Public Works, reported that this proposed fee schedule has been changed based on previous meetings with the Board. The changes in fees proposed for the Development Review Section of Public Works are: Short Subdivision $47.00/hour. Long Subdivisions with 5 to 14 lots would be $1,000 plus $100 per lot with Long Subdivisions with 15 or more lots being $1,000 plus $150.00 per lot. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Carol Swallow asked if subdivisions that are in process now will have to pay the new rate? Jim Pearson reported that the hourly rate on subdivision applications will raise to $47.00 per hour on the effective date of this ordinance. Hearing no further comment for or against the proposed fee schedule, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 07-0325-96. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted in favor, Commissioner Huntingford voted opposed, and Chairman Wojt voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried. HEARING re: Emerl:ency Interim Land Use Controls and Maps Ordinance #05-0214-96: Chairman Richard Wojt explained the hearing procedures. The Board concurred that written comments will be taken on this emergency ordinance until Friday (March 29, 1996) at 5:00 p.m. Community Development Director AI Scalf reported that letters have been received since the workshop last Tuesday from: Mari Phillips, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Palmer, Mark Beaufait, Carl Jacobson, Burt Loomis, Dale Brawn, The Schlade's of Chima cum Valley Veterinary Service, Jim Lindsey of First Western Development Services, Four Creeks Association, the Olympic Environmental Council (OEC), Delbert and Linda Perkins, and 1,000 Friends of Washington. He clarified that the Dragon Valley Farms at Beaver Valley felt that he misrepresented their position at the workshop. They requested a PUD not a density change. The Chairman then opened the public hearing. Marilyn Showalter submitted and read her statement. (See attached letter and refer to August 15, 1995 Port Ludlow/Shine Map.) She stated that she lives in Olympia, but has owned a piece of watemont property in the Shine area with her sister and parents for the past 20 years. She complimented the County employees she has talked with regarding zoning, property value and the water system on the property and noted that they have been helpful and informative. She explained as an example of the hardship that this Ordinance will cause, that she and her sister have planned to divide it as they reached retirement. That will be impossible with this new proposed zoning. She suggested that the County create a category called "Rural Watemont" which would be 1 unit per 2 acres with a minimum of 150 feet of waterfront. This would provide a category for waterfront which is quite a bit larger than the standard small watem-ont lots which are prevalent along the shoreline and it will provide a lot that is not so big that only the super rich can afford to own watemont property. She feels this category could be defended in front of the Growth Management Hearings Board because: . Waterfront is different than other properties. Page 6 VOL 22 rAc-770 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 It would be consistent with historical platting patterns ofwaterftont. Traditionally the waterftont areas are divided into smaller parcels sooner than the land just behind it because that is the only way it is affordable. It would have minimal adverse impact because so much of the shoreline is already platted into smaller parcels than is being suggested for this category. It would allow some measure of equity between people who already have small waterftont lots, and people who haven't got that yet. . . . She feels that failure to adopt this category will mean that only the super rich will be able to afford waterftont. They received the assessment on their five acre parcel last fall, which says it's worth $360,000. This is unimproved land with no water. She also noted that she is an attorney and would be willing to do more work to help the Prosecuting Attorney defend such a category. Paul Palmer: Mr. Palmer submitted and read a comment letter (see attached.) He stated that he and his family protest the following issues: . The 200 foot buffer zone on public right of way can financially cripple a small land owner. Limiting of the right to cut timber according to the age of the timber. The assessment of $6,000 per lot on his property. The inability to build on deeded property that is lesser in acreage because the property is adjacent to other lands with critical areas and requires buffer zones. . . . Mr. Palmer stated that he asked if property designated as Rural Forest Land with a density of 1 house per 20 acres can be divided to allow him to give a portion of his property to his children. He applied for a timber harvest permit on his property in 1992 and has had two extensions on that permit. He does not want to cut the timber on his property, but he may have to before November 26, 1996 (that's when his last permit extension expires) if he doesn't get an answer about being able to divide his property. He recommended that until all of these issues are settled all tax payments be held in escrow. Arnold Swan stated that he owns property (2 acres) at Black Point that is zoned 1 house per acre. They have followed all the rules to divide this property to put 2 houses on this 2 acres. He understands that now this property is subject to a density of 1 house per 10 acres. He has spent approximately $12,000 to prepare this property to be divided for the 2 houses. He asked what his options are and who will pay the $12,000 that was spent to improve the property under the County's regulations that are now useless? Commissioner Huntingford suggested that the Board have a workshop to review all of these comments to see what can be done to answer the questions brought up here and get responses back to these people. He then explained what has happened in this process to date. Delilah Perkins reported that her family has submitted letters (Edwin and Denise Perkins, Rick and Deanne Buchart and Delbert and Linda Perkins.) They purchased their property in 1989 (located south of Paradise Bay, White Rock Cove, Lot 8) as a family, with the intention that they could afford waterfront if they went in together as a family to purchase it. There are currently 2 houses on the 7 1/4 acres, 3 addresses, 3 septic permits, and they were in the pre-application process for a subdivision. When they started planning this, they were allowed to have 5 houses per acre. Their parents helped them get this property and have invested their retirement so the family can be together. She asked that since they already have 2 existing houses and 3 septic permits, if there could be some type of grandfather clause for people in this type of situation? Guy Rudolph said that the classifications used, such as Rural Activity Center, are not defined in the Growth Management Act. He asked where the County is going to come up with these definitions? Vem Garrison. 4556 McNeil. Port Townsend asked if the map on the wall in the room is for the Ordinance that is in force now? He feels that the process has been going on a long time and he Page 7 VOL 22 rM,; TIt Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 doesn't know when the end is in sight. He feels it's time for the County to take the things that they are sure of and make some revisions to the plan that will be in effect. This a going to be a sequential decision making process, instead of all at once. Many of the people that feel victimized by the densities, didn't make it in with a subdivision application in time. There will have to be some statutory end to the claims. He urged the Board to make some decisions and move on. AI Boucher, Port Hadlock, stated that he feels that any ordinance that designates rural areas or densities, must reconcile with OFM population projections. He feels the present ordinance is defective in this sense. The current population for the designated rural areas (Ordinance No. 17- 0224-96) totals 16,000 residents. To that figure is added a rural population projection of 5,506 to give an aggregate total population of21,506 by the year 2016. This is a constraint on rural residential development. The rural population increment of 5,506 may be converted to 2,294 rural households on the basis of2.4 persons per household. If you assume that there are 1,000 vested, residential sites that are not bound by proposed rural densities, a maximum of 1,294 rural household permits would be left to be issued by the year 2016. The problem is how the allocation of 1,294 residential permits is to be administered. The Board could proceed on the basis of first come, first serve; or the Board could choose to give preference to high density housing permit applications to meet the affordable housing goal; or the Board could favor the provision of open space and give preference to low density residential permits. Given the constraints imposed by OFM population projections, the Board must be prepared to deal with trade offs. The Board should formulate a rural development strategy to implement adopted planning goals. The ordinance under review must demonstrate consistency with OFM population projections. John Swallow stated that under the rural center the density is one dwelling unit per three gross acres. He feels that one dwelling unit per two and one half gross acres would make more sense since most people don't have their land divided up into three, nine or 12 acre parcels. He feels this would better suit what is actually happening in the County. He stated, for Gene Seton who could not be present today, that the density in the Quimper area is identified as one dwelling unit per 10 acres, while the established subdivision patterns in this area is one unit per five acres. He asked why the density of one to five wouldn't be appropriate for the Quimper area? Mr. Swallow then asked what the emergency is under which this ordinance was created? This question was to be asked of the Prosecuting Attorney after the workshop last week. The Board indicated that there was no response to this question from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Frederick Tuso said that he is a member of the committee that developed the Brinnon Community Plan and a 25 year Jefferson County property owner and full time resident. The population of Jefferson County in 1892 was 35,000, with 20,000 of them in the City of Port Townsend. In 1971 the population was 10,700 which is a loss of24,300. He moved here because there were no restrictive regulations for property owners and there was a feeling that if you paid for property and made a commitment you had a right to build a home and develop your property. He then reviewed the history of his life plans and the land use regulations in the State and the County. He stated that he feels the previous Board of Commissioners sold the County out for money to help pay for planning and mapping. That Board was replaced by the voters at the next election. A new Board of Commissioners was elected and they have supported the right of each community to decide the future growth patterns for their area. The people of Brinn on, in doing their new Brinnon plan, decided to let health and safety factors be the limiting factors on lot size, not an arbitrary size. There are hundreds of property owners in Jefferson County paying taxes on undividable and unbuildable parcels, and with each new regulation that number grows. The property owners effected have little recourse and are not notified until they are denied a septic, and/or building permit, or subdivision approval. Their taxes do not go down. The elected Commissioners are responsible to the County voters and taxpayers, not the Growth Management Hearings Board of three people. Page 8 VOL 22 rM,~ 772 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 Rick Tollefson, submitted and read a letter from the Four Creeks Association (see attached). Crystal Moore stated that she lives about two and one halfmiles outside of Port Townsend in the direction of Middle point. They have just over seven acres with one dwelling on it and they do not want to subdivide their property. They would like to construct a boarding kennel for dogs on the property. When she asked ifthis could be done, she was informed by the County that a boarding kennel had to be placed in a commercial C 1 or C2 area. She feels it makes more sense to have animals in a kennel in the rural areas. She asked if there is a possibility that a variance could be granted for the construction of animal related facilities? Archie Smith said that he lives on Van Trojan Road, in Section 15 mentioned by Rick Tollefson, and he belongs to that community. He was not notified of the meeting they held. He also doesn't think Jim Shaw or Mr. Peters who own property in this area were advised of this meeting. He objects to the RR20 designation and supports the original density of one unit per five acres. All the properties that surround his 30 acres are five acres or less in size and there is no commercial timber bordering his property. He owns frontage on West Valley Road and both sides of the Van Trojan Road. His property is located one mile from the Chimacum School, businesses, and fire protection. He has a rental house that he may want to sell some day. That would be impossible under the 1 unit to 20 acre density. The sale ofthat house would be part of his retirement money. Penny Herrick congratulated the Board on creating an emergency, at least for most ofthe people in the room. She feels that is a useful thing to do because now people are making specific comments about how they are going to be effected by some of the growth management policies. She stated that she wants to address the sprawl of commercial use, and presented a flyer for a nursery in the Four Corners area as an example. She then related a story about her parents purchasing property in the Lynnwood area 40 years ago and how that area has changed and is now an example of what happens with unplanned strip and commercial development. Most of the community groups have said that they want to maintain rural character which would include paths to provide for alternative means of transportation, clean air, clean water and they want to be left alone to do what they want to do on their own property. The individual decisions that each person makes about their property, in particular commercial property, do collectively add up to strip development and a kind of commercial growth that chokes off our highways and makes automobile dependent communities which she feels aren't the best places for kids to grow up. She feels that some of the commercial regulation that was put in the original ordinance, before the Board amended it, was consistent with the kind of rural communities that people said they wanted. These regulations set up a situation where all highways will be bordered with parking lots and we're not encouraging these developments to share access onto the highway. A representative of the State Highway Department met with the Planning Commission and indicated to them that the State will not have the money to make revisions in the traffic patterns in the County and they suggested the County conserve the transportation access along the State Highway corridors and avoid strip development. She offered the example of the way the Silverdale area has grown and as a contrast the way the Edmonds area has grown. She urged that the Board consider some of the suggestions made by Senior Planner James Holland for the commercial areas, like making the density higher in the commercial cores of the neighborhoods and the rural activity centers, and lower the densities beyond those areas. Joe Day, President of the QuilcenelBrinnon Chamber of Commerce, stated that he is here to speak on behalf of many of the businesses in that area. According to this new ordinance, if a business was to lose their building, they would not be able to build again. He doesn't feel this makes sense for zoning in the rural area. The County needs to look at the rural zoning areas. People are here in America to buy their land and do what they want with it. All of the communities have made community plans that were adopted. Communities should be allowed to say what they want in their area. The Commissioners should be listening to the communities and getting back to the basics and the grass roots of what this country is all about. GMA doesn't fit Page 9 . VOL 22 rM); 773 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 many of the rural areas. We do not want to see strip malls or that kind of development in our communities. The demographics of the area do not allow for that. We're in an area where the State can't afford to improve the Highway and strip development can't happen. He asked that the Board use some common sense to make things in the ordinance work the way they should work. Jim Olson stated that he is the Secretary of the Quitcene Community Planning group, and they are deeply concerned over the recent approval of the land use control ordinance. This ordinance blatantly disregards the wishes of the Quilcene Community and the Quitcene Community Plan proposed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission on October 1, 1995. The Ordinance severely restricts residential and commercial growth, creating in effect, no growth as opposed to managed growth. These restrictions mean a higher cost of housing plus elimination of job opportunities for the residents of south Jefferson County. It's difficult to understand this being done to an area that has already been designated timber impacted and economically distressed. This ordinance appears to be designed to appease the State Hearings Board which is out of step with the needs and wishes of our County. They request that the County reinstate the October 1, 1995 land use proposal of the Quilcene Community Plan and the Jefferson County Planning Commission. They also asked that the Board hold open the public comment period on this ordinance until after all of the meetings in the communities have been held. Mr. Olson added that the community plans were ignored in the drafting of this ordinance. The community plans will be the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. It is a waste of staff time to disregard the community plans that took thousands of hours to prepare. He feels that the interim ordinance should be thrown out and the County should go back to the zoning that was in effect prior to this ordinance. Time and effort should be spent on developing a good Comprehensive Plan based on the Community Plans. Commissioner Huntingford explained that the idea behind the passage of this emergency ordinance was to protect land use for the interim until the Comprehensive Plan is finished and adopted. He asked if Mr. Olson felt it would be acceptable to continue this ordinance until the meetings with all of the Community Planning groups are completed? Changes could then be made to the map densities. Mr. Olson stated that if the comments from the communities would be recognized and acted upon, and the interim ordinance modified to be more in step with the comments from the communities, then he feels that would be a good way to go about changing this ordinance. Chris Hertle, Quilcene, stated that the County used to allow a transfer of property to family members. Chairman Wojt explained that it is against State law to allow that type of transfer. Chris Hertle added that he supports Mr. Olson's suggestion that the public comment period on this ordinance be left open until all of the Community meetings are held. Mari Phillips, Quilcene, said that she assumes that the Board is interested in supporting the reinstatement of the community plans. She asked if the County has developed the information that would help build the record to protect those plans (community plans) ITom a negative Growth Management Hearings Board decision? Does the County know how many lots are one, two or five acre parcels that are existing and how much land mass this represents? Does the County know how many individual parcels are within the Quilcene Community Plan, including size breakdown? This is information that could help the County defend its position. Commissioner Huntingford reported that the Planning Department has a list of information to gather. The Board asked the representative of the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, that was here last week, what information is needed to defend an action with the Hearings Board. He said he didn't know what the County could provide. Man Phillips stated that in reading through the Snohomish County decision ITom the Growth Management Hearings Board on their rural lands, one half, one, two and two and one half acres are easily defensible, but you have to show your work. The information contained in the community plans is similar to many Comprehensive Plans. They reflect the bottoms up approach that they were assured would prevail. We need to make sure that the record that will Page 10 VOL 22 rM1~774 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 help protect these plans reflects the pre-existing platting, development patterns and the level of intensity of physical improvements that have already been installed. She urged that the County develop this data and that it be used. This ordinance needs to be put in the circular file as soon as possible and the County needs to reinstate the Community Plans. Bob Reed said that he applied for a short plat in September and paid his fee. His surveyor called him to say that there was a moratorium and that he wouldn't do any more work. He called the Permit Center and they said that he could divide into lots of an acre and a quarter. Now they are saying the lots must be five acres in size. He asked if he can divide his property into lots an acre and a quarter in size? Monica MacGuire, Pennit Coordinator, explained that Mr. Reed had only come in for a pre-application meeting and had not submitted a formal subdivision application. Mr. Reed asked how long he would have to wait to do his subdivision? Monica MacGuire answered that right now the densities don't allow him to apply for his subdivision. Should the densities change, he can apply. She added that he can submit for a refund of the fee he paid. Mrs. Perkins asked what they can do from this day forward? Commissioner Hinton stated that the Board has decided to leave the written testimony portion of this hearing open until 5 p.m. this Friday (March 29, 1996). The Board will be reviewing the comments, the ordinance and the issues to decide what should be done with it. Mrs. Sexton said that she had been in this area for 24 years. She purchased a piece of property to have a place for her family to retire to which may include people coming together in a cooperative manner to provide their own sustenance (food provided by a small farm). She has spent the last 25 years and thousands and thousands of dollars trying to develop her property to provide future homesite. The GMA has thwarted her process. She is now in a position of paying money on her property, rather than collecting it and wondering how she will pay her loan. She thought she could subdivide and sell off some land to get out :£Tom underneath her debt, but now she finds the density allowed in this area is one dwelling per 20 acres. She can't sell her land, she can't seem to make a living on it at this point, and she may have to sell out. She feels the family is a cornerstone and foundation of this government and this law is going to erode that. Edwin Perkins stated that they weren't informed of the Paradise Bay Community Plan until after it was all cut and dried. They are located 3/1 0 of a mile from Paradise Bay and he wondered why those people should determine what size of lot he should have on his property. This plan goes clear into the Shine area and he doesn't think anyone in Shine was aware that there was a community plan being developed for that area. They didn't have a chance to put any comment into that plan. He added that he is used to having doctor's offices and shopping available and he feels with this density plan there won't be any businesses in this area because there won't be enough population to support it. He advised that they applied for and have three septic tank permits for their property. Two of the septic tanks have been installed, and the other permit is due to expire in September. He asked if they will be allowed to renew that permit? Fred Tuso stated that they understand that the County has to justify their findings with the GMA Board. He feels that the Board must stand firm on what their position is in supporting or not supporting the community plans. He asked that the Board pretend like their jobs depend on this. Unidentified Woman asked if they can comment on this ordinance at the Community meetings? Chairman Wojt explained that the Board has about two weeks to decide what they are going to do on the emergency ordinance. Walter Moa, Discovery Bay, stated that he doesn't live full time at Discovery Bay, but his father and grandfather did. He is extremely disturbed about this whole situation and how affordable housing is being treated. Small communities like Discovery Bay rely on older and younger people living in the community. It doesn't seem that the County wants that. We're losing the character of the communities because there are not small lots available for the younger and older people who can't afford larger properties. There should be densities in the small communities of at least one house per acre, without that we will lose the younger people and their families. The Page 11 ~OL 22 rM,; 115 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 small businesses can't keep people living in the area to work in the small businesses because they can't afford the land. The federal and State governments address affordable housing, but it is not being addressed here. If you continue with this ordinance with the densities as suggested, you will destroy these small communities. Jim Olson stated that they appreciate the road show being evening meetings. He feels that something as important as this ordinance should be reviewed in an evening meeting. Joan Thompson, Brinnon, asked about Bill 6637 that was passed in Olympia that reverted the power of the Growth Management Hearings Board back to the Counties? Commissioner Huntingford stated that the bill is on the Governor's desk for signature. This bill does not gut the Growth Management Act. It may make the Growth Management Hearings Board take a closer look at what their doing. It will also address the invalidity issue and some other things. The Governor may not sign the bill. Ms. Thompson asked if this bill will allow the County to change this interim ordinance into something more realistic? Commissioner Huntingford stated that it may make the Growth Management Hearings Board give more consideration to local planning efforts. She then stated that there are a lot of retired people in the Brinnon area who bought land to pass on to their children or to subsidize their retirement. When the area is zoned one unit per 10 acres, where does that leave them? Cy Heffernan, Chairman of the Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee, stated that regarding Section 6.10 (3) and (1) (from the February 5, 1996 document), there is no difference between what those two sections say and the moratorium that this ordinance replaced. There is a question if any sort of water regulation is under the control of the County. It should possibly be the Department of Health because the County entered into the Coordinating Water Planning Act. He asked that the County take action to strike those two clauses from the ordinance because public water systems in a rural zone are not prohibited by the Growth Management Act. The State Departments of Health and Ecology both encourage public water systems to prevent aquifer degradation and contamination. He recommended that the County send notice to all property owners regarding proposed changes while they are going through the community process. Unidentified Woman asked if the Board is going to make changes to this ordinance within the next two weeks? Chairman Wojt stated that the Board may change the ordinance based on the comments received. Community Services Director Al Scalf reviewed the Board's options: retain the current ordinance, modify the table of uses, return to the old table of uses in the Zoning Code, or return to the moratorium. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Huntingford suggested that a workshop be set up for the Board, staff and the Prosecuting Attorney to review the comments and changes that need to be made to this ordinance. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday afternoon. All three Board members were present. Acceptin¡: the Bids for Equipment Rental for the Upper Hoh Road Park Boundary Washout Project #XO1244: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 29-96 accepting the bids for the equipment rental for the Upper Hoh Road Washout Project #XOI244. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 12 . VOL 22 rAU 776 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of March 25, 1996 Clerk Hire and Temporary Employee Pay Rates: Public Works Department: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Clerk Hire and temporary employee pay schedule for 1996 for the Public Works Department (Recreation and Solid Waste). Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: American Leeion Post #26: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the application for assistance fÌ"om the Veterans Relief Fund as submitted by American Legion Post #26 in the amount of$266.63. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Commissioner Huntingford moved to appoint Ray Anibas to serve a two year term on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee as a "Citizen at Large" representative. His term will expire March 26, 1998. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then interviewed Phil Andrus who is interested in continuing to serve on the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Advisory Commission. MEETING ADJOURNED ,} ~(j~~~ orna Delan , CMC Clerk of the Board Page 13 VOL 22 rA{'~ 777