Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM102896 MINUTES WEEK OF OCTOBER 28, 1996 Chainnan Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the Minutes of October 21, 1996 as presented. Chainnan Wojt seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Huntingford. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC SERVICES BRIEFING: Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on the following: . State Auditor's Report of their recently concluded audit will have one finding regarding the cash handling in District Court. Gary Rowe will be working with District Court to COITect this matter and report back to the State Auditor. The Water Resources Council has a meeting scheduled for tomOITOw. They will be discussing the preliminary basin assessment. The Board will be meeting the new CEO of Pope Resources at a breakfast meeting tomOITOW in Port Ludlow. In reference to the Zoning Code issue of establishing minimum lot sizes, the Zoning Ordinance that existed prior to last February required a 5,000 square foot lot size for residential uses. There was not minimum for other types of uses such as commer- cial. There are various lot size requirements, detailed in a table, in the Emergency Ordinance that was passed last February. Paul McIlrath is currently doing a legal review of this matter. The Hearings Boards have said that nothing in GMA should preclude an owner of an existing lot ITom being able to develop that lot. Recom- mended changes to minimum lot size requirements will be drafted and submitted for legal review and then brought back to the Board in the next two weeks. . . . Page 1 , I ,22 " 0 1530 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: an information request for the draft Comprehensive Plan and other information; the lot size requirements for Irondale; a suggestion was made that a moratorium be placed on land- owners splitting their lots until the issue of minimum lot size is resolved; the citizens having a lack of confidence in the County's administration of existing laws; and a sugges- tion that a review procedure be set up for notification of the public for all permits. AI Scalf advised that next Wednesday night the Planning Commission will be forming their recommendation on the BMP's. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commis- sioner Hinton moved to delete item 1 and to approve and adopt the balance of the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETE Resolution re: Ordering Certain Road Improvements, Establishment of a County Road and Creating a Road Improvement District; Determining the Sufficiency of the Petition; Providing for the Payment of the Cost of Such Improvements by Special Assessments; Describing the Method of Assess- ment; Creating a Road Improvement District Fund; and Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Road Improvement District Bonds and Interim Financing Warrants or Notes; Seton Road, Road Improvement District #5 AGREEMENT re: 35 Year Lease of 4.1 Acres Located in the Southeastern Comer ofH..J. Carroll Park; To Construct an Environmental Learning Center and Interpre- tive Trails; Wild Olympic Salmon AGREEMENT re: To Provide Log Trucks and Loader to Transport Trees for Cabling and Debris Relocation; Oil City Road Emergency Bank Protection Project No. XO1245; Jefferson County Public Works; Westerlund Logging Co. AGREEMENT re: Temporary Help; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Civil Department; Jennifer Wurtsmith Final Plat Approval, Hastings Mill Short Plat #SUB95-0055; To Divide 9 Acres Into 4 RecreationallResidential Lots; Located West of Jacob Miller Road and Hastings Avenue Intersection; Richard Broders, Applicant Reappoint Two Members to Continue Serving on the Fire Code Advisory Board; Three Year Terms Expiring August 7, 1999; Gary Winberg, Representing General Business and Levi Ross, Representing the Liquefied Petroleum Industry Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26 for $211.24 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARING re: Appeal of Hearing Exam- iner's Decision Reversing the Administrative Decision; Quilcene Log Dump; Charles Manke, Manke Lumber Company, Appellant: Chairman Wojt called the continued closed record appeal hearing back to order and asked if any of the Commissioners had any ex parte communication on this matter. Commissioner Hinton and Wojt answered no. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he was given three sealed envelops (one ad- dressed to each Commissioner) by John Boulton on Friday night. He advised Mr. Boulton that the record on this matter was closed and he brought the three sealed envelops in and gave them to the Clerk of the Board. He never discussed the matter with Mr. Boulton. Page 2 VOL 22 rAGE 0 1.53~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Community Services Director AI Scalf explained the hearing process which will be to hear the arguments for and against prepared by the attorneys for each side. At the completion of those arguments, the Board is to deliberate, the merits of the project. The Board can recess or table this hearing to come back at a later date. The Board can also fonn a legal question to submit to the Prosecuting Attorney in writing. During their open deliberation the Board is to: 1) affinn the Hearing Examiner's decision, 2) reverse the Hearing Exam- iner's decision, and develop their own findings and conclusions based upon the law, or 3) remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner with conditions. "IIi r r in stated that they are here to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to reverse the decision of the County's Planning staff. The law presumes that the expertise the Planning staff has ITom working with codes day in and day out is entitled to deference. They believe the Hearing Examiner made a mistake when he didn't pay enough attention to what the staff had interpreted and instead brought his own interpretation based on his other experiences. This case involves an issue important to many in this room and has significance outside this room because it applies to virtually every shoreline property in the County. The Hearing Examiner decided that if you have a use that was lawful when the County's Shoreline Master Program was adopted in 1989, that wasn't good enough. Even if that use was perfectly lawful at the time the Code was adopted, you had to ask the County for a pennit. According to the Hearing Examiner's interpretation, if you didn't apply for that pennit within a period of a year after the Shoreline Program was adopted, your use became a non-conforming use, and then if you didn't use it for a period of time, you lose your rights altogether. That ruling would apply to more than just the Manke family. The second thing the Hearing Examiner did was say that the Zoning Code has priority over the Shoreline program. The result of that is, that of the 26 pennitted or even encouraged uses in the Shoreline Program, only 9 would be left after taking away uses that would not be allowed by the Zoning Code. They feel this is a mistake and flies in the face of the direct language of the Zoning Code. Mr. Lynn stated that the Board has to give deference, in their review, of any factual detennination made by the Hearing Examiner. In the interpretation of the County's Codes, however, the Board has the authority to overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner if they disagree with his interpretation of the law. On the Shoreline issue, Mr. Lynn agreed that this shoreline is designated Urban. This is the highest shoreline zoning and it is designated for high intensity uses. A log dump is one of the uses that is allowed in an Urban designation. There are not many shorelines in the County that are designated Urban. This property was designated Urban because of this log dump. The Hearing Examiner felt that was appropriate, but he said that there was an exemption for this designation and that exemption expired within a year. If Manke or their predecessor didn't come in and apply for some kind of a pennit ITom the County their use became a non-confonning use. He then detennined that since the use had ceased operation for some period of time, the rights had been lost. This would presumably mean that if someone had a house on the shoreline in Jefferson County, which is also exempt ITom any requirement and is a lawful use, the property owner must come in and seek some kind of Page 3 VOL 22 fAGF 0 153~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 fonnal exemption from the County in writing. This is not the case in any other County he's worked in and he doesn't believe it's the case in Jefferson County. He doesn't believe that the County has ever issued a pennit to someone who had a valid use in 1989 and just wanted to keep that use operating. He doesn't believe the Code has ever been interpreted that way. He feels the Hearing Examiner was confused and applied a provision that had no application to this particular use. The provision talks about applying for a written exemp- tion. But, Mr. Lynn stated, it is clear in the context, that it applies to proposed develop- ments. This isn't a proposed development it is a development that was existing at the time. There was a lot of testimony about abandonment. Mr. Lynn explained that you don't lose rights to a legal use by not using your property in that way for period of time. Abandon- ment requires an intent to abandon. You don't lose valuable property rights just because you physically don't use your property. The law says you have to intend to give up those rights. In this case, Pope and Talbot, the prior user of the property, continued to pay $11,000 per year to the DNRjust for the privilege of leasing the land on which the log storage activities were taking place. This doesn't indicate that Pope and Talbot intended to give up their rights. He thinks the Hearing Examiner got off track by looking at abandonment. Mr. Lynn continued by saying that they don't feel that the people that brought this issue to the Hearing Examiner did so in a timely manner. They filed an appeal about shoreline issues and then used that as an excuse to boot strap in some theories about zoning. The thing that's important is that the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Program conflict in this matter. Under the Shoreline Code a water dependent commercial use is not just an allowed use, it is a preferred and encouraged use. In the Zoning Code this would be a prohibited use. To resolve the conflict you have to look at the two codes. The Zoning Code says that in cases of overlap the provisions of the Zoning Code shall be subordinate to the Shoreline Management Program. He feels that the Hearing Examiner played lawyer word games with this. He said the words "substitute, or supplant or supersede" weren't used therefore he felt they must have meant something different than those things. The word subordinate clearly means beneath. In other words, where there's a conflict the Zoning Code gives way to the superior Shoreline Code. The Board needs to look at the intent of the codes. If this decision is allowed to stand it means that of the 26 uses that the Shoreline Program allows and encourages, almost none of them will remain. The Hearing Examiner said 9 of 26 uses would remain, but Mr. Lynn indicated he couldn't find that many. The only uses that would remain would be aquaculture, or recreational, and they are uses that don't carry out the spirit of that urban intensity. Mr. Lynn concluded by saying that they feel the Hearing Examiner made errors when he overturned the staff decision. They feel the staff knows these laws best and they request that the Board overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. Chairman Wojt asked if the Urban designation of this site had been changed? Mr. Lynn stated that this designation has not be changed. AI Scalf reported that the designation of this shoreline has not been changed. Page 4 VOL 22 FAGf 01533 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Mark.Hmh, Attorney representing a num~boring property owners on East ~, stated that this whole issue started because a Stop Work Order was issued by the County when some construction began on this site. The Stop Work Order was backed up by a letter from the Deputy Prosecutor which said that the activities were in violation of State and County law. It remains on the site today. The representatives of Manke met with AI Scalf in his capacity as Community Development Director to discuss the problem. Manke then sent a letter asking that the County detennine that they had a non-confonning use. AI Scalf did issue the decision that the use was non-confonning and that was then appealed to the Hearing Examiner. His decision was that under the Shore- line Program this is an area designated as Urban. The underlining zoning of the area changed, but the Shoreline designation hasn't changed. This ruling didn't answer the question of whether the log dump was a grand fathered, "non-confonning" use. At the time, it was felt that Mr. Scalf s detennination meant that Manke was going to have to apply for pennits. Because the decision didn't say that, however, and because his clients felt that Manke may begin operations at the site, they appealed Mr. Scalf s decision to the Hearing Examiner. In his statement Mr. Lynn said that the Hearing Examiner should have deferred to the expertise of staff. That is one of the tenets of the law. The question Mr. Scalf was presented with was fairly simple and the grounds on which he made the decision were very few. He had a letter from Manke and a letter from Mr. Huth's clients. The Hearing Examiner had the entire record and a lot of testimony and his decision is more detailed than Mr. Scalfs. The Hearing Examiner went through the Code, step by step, and gave a legal decision based on the facts. Does the request that the Board defer to the staff's decision mean that the Board would go back and ignore the Hearing Examiner's analysis and expertise, in favor of the few facts that the staff had at the time? This just doesn't make sense and would invite further error. Mr. Huth continued regarding the substance of the decision. Mr. Lynn proposed the scenario that if the Hearing Examiner's decision is upheld it will threaten nearly all of the shoreline uses in Jefferson County. Mr. Huth stated this isn't true. The Manke Log Dump was no longer exempt and therefore it was required to get a pennit after a year's period of time. That is contained in the Shoreline Management Program. The Shoreline Program is a bit ambiguous in this regard, because it says "proposed" development. The Larrance vs Jefferson County decision of the Shoreline Hearings Board is the same situation. Mr. Larrance started clearing a trail on his land claiming that he was exempt under the Shoreline Management Act because there was a road on the site that was a grandfathered, prior use. The County's position was that he had not applied for an exemption and was not exempt. The County argued this in front of the Shoreline Hearings Board. The Shoreline Hearings Board said that because the County's program says that an exemption must be applied for before it can be granted, the exemption must be applied for. He feels the Hearing Examiner is right in this case because Manke had never applied for, or received a written exemption from the County. This doesn't mean that everyone using the shoreline needs to apply for an exemption. This situation is different -- they abandoned their use, and now they're going back to reinstitute it. Single family residences are totally exempt under the Shoreline Management Act. Not everyone that lives in a home on the shoreline is going to have to come in and apply for a Shoreline exemption because of the Page 5 VOL 22 fAG~ , 0 153'.í Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Board's decision on this matter. Commercial uses or development uses beyond single family residences may have to apply. The Hearing Examiner also based his detennination that this was a non-confonning use on the provision that the day the Shoreline Management Act was passed, this use was in existence and lawful. However, just because a use is present when a Zoning Code or Shoreline Management Act or some other land use program is passed, doesn't mean that the use is in confonnance with that regulation. It was never detennined to be confonning and that's why it was called a "non-confonning" use. This use has never been reviewed under any of the regulations of the Shoreline Management Act, so there is no way it could be detennined to be confonning just because it existed on the date the Act was passed. When this site was operating back in the 1980's the problems it caused show that it had never been reviewed under the Shoreline Management Act and SEP A. There were complaints, and water quality problems. If it was in confonnance with all the regulations of the Shoreline Management Act, there would have been conditions on the project to make sure that these problems didn't occur. Mr. Huth continued by noting that if a non-confonning use is abandoned for 12 consecu- tive months or any 12 months in a two year period, it is considered abandoned under the WAC definition and is no longer exempt from the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. That WAC clearly says that intent is not an issue. The Board is required to uphold the factual findings that the Hearing Examiner made that are supported by substan- tial evidence. There was testimony presented to the Hearing Examiner from numerous citizens that in 1989 or 1990 Pope stopped using the log dump. The last log boom that was there was broken up by a stonn and Pope didn't even salvage it. Manke advised the Hearing Examiner that Pope moved their operation to Port Ludlow. The only evidence in the record is that the site had not been used from 1989 until 1995. There was some sporadic use in that period of time, but no use of the site as a log dump and it was abandoned, therefore, they lost their non-confonning status and must reapply. In Mr. Lynn's argument he stated that they wouldn't be able to operate at this site at all which is not true. They are asking that this project go through the review process like anyone else with a project on the shoreline. Mr. Huth explained that on the zoning question he will rely on what he presented in his brief. The issue is whether or not Manke should have to apply for a zoning pennit. Mr. Lynn made the argument that the Shoreline Code is subordinate. Mr. Lynn's interpretation seems to be that the Shoreline jurisdiction starts 200 feet from the shoreline and the Zoning Code jurisdiction stops at that point. This is not COITect and is not the way the County or the State have ever interpreted the law. The cases Mr. Lynn cited in support of his position were not similar to this case because they dealt with situations where two laws were in conflict. The Hearing Examiner said in this case that these two regulations are not in conflict. This is why the Zoning Code has to apply. Is this a grandfathered use under the Zoning Code? Under the Zoning Code it is clear that in order to have a legitimate non- confonning use, the site has to be in use at the time the Zoning Code was passed. The Zoning Code was passed in 1994 and the evidence presented is that the site had been abandoned at that time. Whatever provisions of the Zoning Code that don't conflict with the Shoreline Program should be applied to this project and the proposal should be reviewed under that law as well. Page 6 VOL 22 fAG~ 0 :1535 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 The Hearing Examiner is correct in his application of the law, Mr. Huth concluded. Under both the Shoreline law and the Zoning law the proposal is no longer grandfathered and is required to undergo review. All they are asking for is that the project go through the process because it's a new use not a renewed use. The lease Mr. Lynn referred to as being evidence that Pope intended to use the site, isn't for the uplands portion of the site, it is for the bed lands under the water. DNR doesn't have any authority to lease Jefferson County property. All the lease shows is that Pope felt that if they wanted to sell the property they had better keep making the lease payments since that might be a valuable right that someone might want. Mr. Lynn stated, in rebuttal, that the question of whether or not there is a conflict isn't just a matter of going in and applying under the code because according to the Hearing Examiner this is a prohibited use of the property. He doesn't know what would better demonstrate a conflict when one of the codes says this is a prohibited use and the other says that it's an encouraged use. Commissioner Hinton stated that the Board members, as a decision making body, have to set aside any personal beliefs and prejudices and make a decision based on the merits of this case. This is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the Hearing Examiner. The County's Hearing Examiner has a good track record, but the Board doesn't always sustain his decisions. This has been an emotional issue, and the appellants who are the property owners around Quilcene Bay have concerns about environmental and quality of life issues. On the other side there has been testimony of individuals in support of economic development, the timber resource base, and the opportunity for revenue and jobs. He stated that he appreciates everyone's concern on these issues, but they are not relevant in the detennination that the Board must make today. The Board's responsibility is to review the Hearing Examiner's decision based on the record, case law, and regula- tions, and nothing more. The Board's decision must be based solely on the record of the Hearing Examiner. Findings in this case indicate that the Quilcene Log Dmnp was operated by Buck Mountain since early in the 1940's and continued to operate until November of 1989 by Pope and Talbot. Sometime after 1989, Pope shifted their log dump activities to Port Ludlow. The record is void of any shoreline pennits or exemptions being issued to Pope Resources. Assuming that the log dmnp was a legal use, it would have converted to a non-confonning use at the adoption of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan in 1974. Absent language in the Shoreline Master Plan, the standards of WAC 173-14-055 shall apply. Since use of the log dump was discontinued for more than one (1) year, after November 1989, the non-confonning status expired November of 1990. Additionally the record is clear that Pope did move the activity to Port Ludlow in 1989, thereby the confonning status expired at that time. The only activity at the site from 1989 to present has been some minor grading, moving, and razing buildings. None of these activities constitute log dmnp operations. The preponderance of evidence in the record supports and Commissioner Hinton moved to sustain the Hearing Examiner's findings of fact and decision dated August 15, 1996 reversing the decision of the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Huntingford stated that he has looked at all the infonnation presented to the Hearing Examiner and the letters of concern or support from the neighbors. He is Page 7 VOL 22 fAGf 0153G Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 concerned that as the County has gone through the Growth Management process and designated thousands of acres of long tenD forestry land, and that this should be a use that goes hand in hand with that long tenD forestry designation. If we don't support this activity in the community, he questioned if there will ever be the chance for someone to open a small sawmill in the Quilcene area that will utilize the timber off the long tenD designated forest land? When there is long tenD forest land designated in the County, the expectation is that there will be other uses that will go hand in hand with that. Based on the record that he's seen, he feels the Hearing Examiner has made the right decision. If Manke Lumber Company would like to go fO1ward they will have to apply for the required pennits. He encourages them to do so. Chainnan Wojt stated that he read the record and concurs with the statements Commis- sioner Hinton made that this became a non-confonning use and then because of lack of use it reverts to having to go through the process of review if they chose to reopen it. Commissioner Huntingford added that everyone should take notice of what non-confonn- ing use may mean to businesses in the future. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion can1ed by a unanimous vote. Chairman Wojt explained that anyone who disagrees with the decision can appeal within 21 days to the Superior Court. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S BRIEFING: Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported: . The South Shore Road will be open to the public next week. The Department is still working to improve the bank stabilization for that project. The Duckabush Road culvert replacement is still under construction. The final fonD of the Solid Waste study will be finalized and mailed to interested parties next month. The SW AC will be reviewing it at their next meeting and will submit a recommendation to the Board so they can act on it before the final budget hearings. . . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Various Property Owners re: Request/or Improvements to Arcadia West Street: Jim Tennyson introduced his wife Cindy and stated that they own property in this area and are representing nine property owners who own property located behind Mr. Hagen's property. There is a problem getting access to properties located behind his properties. There is a 30 foot un-conveyed easement between Mr. Burris and Mr. Hagen's property. Surveys indicate that the road intended by a previous property owner, Muriel Thompson, was to be straight and not offset as it is. The road being constructed by Mr. Hagen is not very straight or useable for the property owners behind Mr. Hagen and Mr. Burris has put up some fence posts restricting access to these lots even further. In order to get the road back to these lots and keep peace, Mr. Tennyson said that the County needs to help. From his research, he feels that it was the intent of a previous property owner to provide right-of- way all the way through this area. He then reviewed plat maps of the area with the Board. AI Carmen then presented a map of the area. He reported that there is a three foot difference between Mr. Burris' property description and the actual right of way. Mr. Page 8 VOL 22 fACt 0 1.53r;J Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Tennyson reported that the existing road encroaches on Mr. Burris' property. Alan Cannen reported that Mr. Hagen has given an easement to the Rose Short Plat. Public Works Director Klara Fabry reported that the location of Mr. Hagen's proposed road was checked by her department and it was correct. All of the utilities to the area are within the unconveyed 30 foot area where slash and brush has been piled. Commissioner Huntingford asked what Mr. Tennyson wants the County to do? Mr. Tennyson replied that the property owners need a decision. They can't improve the road because of the property owners on each side. Alan Cannan added that Mr. Hagen would be agreeable to someone improving the road next to the road he improved. He had originally offered to have all of the property owners join with him to pay for improving the entire road, but he didn't hear from them in time and improved his portion of the road. Mr. Tennyson stated that the property owners behind his property were interested in doing whatever it took to get a road back to their area, but the issue of the unconveyed area came up. The discussion continued regarding the road that is existing and the new road Mr. Hagen is constructing as well as the property ownership in the area. The Board asked that the Public Works Department research this and ask the Prosecuting Attorney to review it to see if the County has any liability in this matter. Discussion of Process for Establishing an RID for Seton Road: Commis- sioner Hinton noted that the Prosecuting Attorney expressed his concern about the establishment of an RID for this project. More research needs to be done by the Prosecut- ing Attorney before this is put on the agenda again next week. Discussion re: Resolving Issues Related to the Draft Stormwater Manage- ment Ordinance: Jim Pearson, Public Works Department, reported that there are issues to be resolved on the draft Stonnwater Management Ordinance: ~ Including Class IV General Forest Practice pennits and conversion harvest plans for review under this ordinance. Critical Area Ordinance triggering pennits. The intent of the Stonnwater Management Advisory Board regarding single family residences that are greater than 5,000 square feet in size. Ryan Tillman, Chainnan of the Advisory Board advised that they intended that single family residences over 5,000 square feet have the same potential for impacting water quality as other projects over 5,000 square feet in size, and they intended to write the ordinance as presented. The Public Works Department has reviewed the suggestion that no fee be charged for reviews done under this ordinance and they have concluded that conducting these activities without an identified budget source will have a significant negative effect on the Department's budget. The proposed ordinance amends some sections of the Hearing Examiner Ordinance and the Regulatory Refonn Ordinance. The way variance requests are reviewed has been changed to be an appeal of an administrative decision under the Hearing Examiner Ordinance. Fees for mobile home parks and RV parks will be charged using the hourly rate instead of the subdivision rate. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 9 VOL 22 rAGf 0 1538 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 ~ The Public Works Department recommends that the Stonnwater Administrator be the County Engineer. In response to a question 1Ìom Chainnan Wojt regarding fees, Jim Pearson explained that the Public Works Department estimates it will cost approximately $40,000 per year to administer this program (this amount was estimated by taking the hours for a halftime employee times $47.00 per hour). Ifno fees are charged, a budget transfer to the Public Works Department 1Ìom the County General Fund will be needed to cover the cost of this work. If a funding source isn't identified, the Public Works Department recommends that the Ordinance not be adopted at this time. Commissioner Huntingford stated that the Department is already doing some of this work required by this ordinance without a fee. Klara Fabry stated that the first recommendation for funding was to propose a fee to cover this work. Commissioner Huntingford said that he is concerned that a new half time position is being created to cover work that is being done now. Klara Fabry reported that a full time person could be hired and half of the person's time would be paid through the Public Works budget for work on stonnwater issues for roads and the other half would be funded by revenue generated by development review fees. She added that this request is included in the 1997 preliminary budget, but would not mean an increase in staffing because there is an open position in the department that has not be filled. Commissioner Huntingford also questions how this ordinance would be administered -- through the Pennit Center or through the Public Works Department? Klara Fabry stated that the Department will follow the same process it follows now for review of these applications. The discussion contin- ued regarding how these applications will be handled between the Pennit Center and the Public Works Department. The Board the concUITed that the following be included in the ordinance: . The issue of the wording for single family residences that are 5,000 square feet or more is to be left as written and intended by the Stonnwater Management Advisory Committee. Class IV General Forest Practices and Conversion Option Harvest Plans will be included for review under this ordinance. The reference to the Critical Areas Ordinance in the Stonnwater Ordinance makes it clear that the Public Works Department will use the Stonnwater Ordinance and Stonnwater Manual standards for review. R V Parks and mobile home parks will be charged for review at the hourly rate, not at the subdivision rate. Changes to the Hearing Examiner Ordinance include: Striking any reference to the Hearing Examiner reviewing appeals of variance applications. These appeals would be of an administrative detennination. . . . . With reference to designating the County Engineer as the Stonnwater Administrator, Commissioner Huntingford stated that he isn't ready to do that until the funding question is addressed. Jim Pearson reported that Section 9 of the ordinance proposes fees. Commissioner Huntingford asked that the Pennit Center and the Public Works Department set up a team Page 10 VOL 22 rAG~ 0 1.533 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 to detennine the best way to fill the position needed to do this work. The Board concurred that the $47.00 hourly fee is acceptable. HEARING re: Proposed Budget Appropriations/Extensions Various County Departments: The Chainnan opened the public hearing on the budget appropria- tion / t . d £ 11 s ex enSlOns requeste as 0 ows: Current Expense Funds: Amount Other Funds: Amount Sheriff 19,883 Construction & Renovation 25,000 Emergency Management 7,607 County Fair 40,000 Civil Service Commission 2,000 County Road Fund 2,950,000 Juvenile Services 45,000 Facilities 15,000 Operating Transfers 75,000 Flood/Stormwater Fund 5,200 Total $149,490 Total $3,035,200 Commissioner Huntingford asked about the request for the County Road fund? Gary Rowe reported the amount requested represents emergency projects due to flooding and stonn damage beginning in 1995. He explained that a request has been included in the operating transfer for $75,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund to do improvements to the wiring in County facilities for the computer network. Hearing no comments for or against these requested appropriations/extensions, the Chainnan closed the hearing. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 94-96. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which caITied by a unani- mous vote. Notice of Public Hearing re: Community Development Block Grant Amendmentfor the Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council; State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development: Commissioner Huntingford moved to set the CDBG Grant hearing for November 12, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which caITied by a unanimous vote. Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the application for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund as recommended by the Service Officers Association and submitted by the Port Ludlow VFW in the amount of $400.00. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which caITied by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business on Monday and reconvened at the Jefferson County Library on Tuesday evening. Chainnan Wojt and Commissioner Hinton were both present for the following business. Commissioner Huntingford was not present. Page 11 VOL 22 rAGE 0 :1540 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 HEARING re: Intent to Establish Road Improvement District #4; Country Ridge: Chainnan Wojt called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing on the intent to establish Country Ridge Road Improvement District #4. Will Butterfield introduced the staff members present from the Public Works Department. He explained that this RID was initiated by a petition of the property owners. This hearing is to discuss the boundaries for the RID, review the estimated costs, establish the assess- ment method for the RID and take testimony from the residents of the area. He then reviewed the proposed boundaries of the RID and reported that the property owner of Tract 3 has added their name to the petition and the owner of Tract 22 has withdrawn their name from the petition. This resulted in a change in the acreage amounts within the boundary, but the front footage has not changed. If the boundary lines remain as they were originally established, the withdrawal of Tract 22 means that the acreage percentage does not meet the requirement for establishment of an RID. If the boundary is reduced to include the people that really want the RID, then there would be sufficient acreage and frontage to go forward with the petition. He then explained that the cost estimate for the road improvements being requested is $101,000.00. That number divided by the total number of lots yields a cost of$3,900.00 per lot. This estimate, the Public Works Department feels, will be within 10% of the cost of the project. ~, owner of Tract 14, stated that she feels the boundary should be modified to exclude the large lots that don't provide the potential for the petition meeting the gross acreage requirement. Tom Foley, owner of Tracts 16 and 18, stated that he is just now moving into his home on 134 Brothers Road. He asked how the detennination was made that maintaining the gravel road would be expensive or impractical? He explained that he lived on a gravel road that the area residents maintained at a cost of about $50 per household per year. The original letter they received about the maintenance of this road (from Mr. SheITed) didn't include any figures it just said paving the road would be a much better deal. ~ stated that the letter did include figures as well as the rationale that there was no one who would oversee the road maintenance project. ~ 165 Country Ridge Drive, stated that he has been helping to coordinate this process. He lives on Tract 6. He got bids from two local contractors who do this type of road maintenance work. The bids varied from just over $5,000 to over $11,000. Tom Foley then explained his experience with maintaining Sand Road and the costs associated with that work, as well as his experience with the local contractors. Chuck SheITed, added that there were residents in the community who didn't want to pay for anything. Another problem was finding someone to coordinate the project. ~ reported that there was no road maintenance agreement put into effect at the time the property was subdivided. At the time the property was sold they were told Page 12 VOL 22 rAGf 0 154~ Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 that the roads were going to be finished and dedicated to the County. She noted that she has traveled Sand Road and it is not the type of road that she would want drive on a daily basis. Sand Road is also a level road. Country Ridge and Blue Mountain Roads are not level. They have some steep inclines, especially toward the intersection with Eaglemount Road. That is a rough and dangerous area. ~ said that part of this discussion will be how this improvement can be paid, so it doesn't hurt the property owners so much. Will Butterfield reported that the number of years for repayment of the assessment will depend on the bonds sold by the County Treasurer. He explained that the amount per tract (lot) would be a special assessment on top of the property owners real estate tax. The repayment would be stretched out of the number of years for which the bonds are sold. The rate of interest on bonds is currently between 6 and 8 percent. ~ asked when the property owners will be given the information on how the special assessment will be paid? Will Butterfield explained that more information is needed regarding the boundary of the RID before the final costs can be estimated. Will Butterfield confirmed that there is only one tract owner on Brothers Road that signed the petition to establish the RID. The discussion then turned to the properties and roads that should be included or excluded :!Tom the RID. ~ stated that his two lots :!Tont on both roads. He has access to his lots :!Tom Brothers Road. He asked how these lots would be included or excluded? ~ asked if the assessment is per lot or per road :!Tontage? Assistant County Engineer Bob Nesbitt explained that the assessment can be done one of three ways: 1) Front Footage - if this method is chosen the lot owners who have :!Tontage on two roads would only be assessed for the :!Tontage on one road. 2) Square Footage (acreage). 3) Equal shares (per lot) - This is the method usually chosen. The :!Tont footage and square footage methods require that the total estimated cost be divided in half and everyone pays an equal share of half of the cost. The other half is then paid on the basis chosen. He further explained that when the bonds are issued, the options for paying them off are: 1) Payoff the full assessment within 30 days without any interest. 2) Payoff the bonds for the prescribed length of time, as determined by the Treasurer when the bonds are sold. The interest on the bonds cannot be deducted from the property owners income tax. Take a second mortgage out for the amount of the assessment and pay it off with those funds. The interest on the mortgage can then be deducted from the owners income tax. 3) Page 13 VOL 22 rAf,f '- 0 1542 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 ~ asked if it is possible to have the original developer pay part of the cost of this project? Bob Nesbitt answered that is possible. If the developer donated in kind services (road graders, etc.) to do the initial work, it would just reduce the cost of the project, and the bond wouldn't have to be for as large an amount. Mrs. Hendy asked if the roads in this area now meet present County standards? Bob Nesbitt answered that in some areas they don't. ~ asked about the costs if the County has to pay for all of the right-of-way for the road? Bob Nesbitt explained that this is an RID established by the property owners and they will be paying for the road improvements. The regulations allow all the property owners to donate the necessary right-of-way, however, if one person won't donate their right of way, all of the deeds are turned back to the property owners and the County will negotiate for the purchase of the right-of-way with each property owner. If the property owners donate the right-of-way the total cost will be reduced by approximately $33,690, based on $5,000 per acre for strip right-of-way. To get a more accurate figure the right-of- way would have to be appraised by a certified appraiser. Mark..Cas.tillQ, owner of Tract 12, asked what would happen if Brothers Road is excluded from the boundary? His property touches two roads. Would this mean he couldn't get access to his property from the back road (Blue Mountain Road) unless he pays? Will Butterfield stated that if a lot's primary access is from Eaglemount or Brothers Road, the property owner can state that they don't want to be included in the overall boundary of the RID. If they chose to be part of the RID, they could be assessed for the access off of Country Ridge Road. If Brothers Road was excluded from the RID he would have to pay to the RID to establish his main access to his lot from Country Ridge Road. Tom Foley stated that the access to his lot is off of Brothers Road, but both of his lots front on Blue Mountain Road also, so this means that he would be assessed by the RID even if Brothers Road is excluded and even though he won't access his lots from that road. He added that it sounds like he will have to pay for the privilege of keeping Brothers Road a gravel road. Mr. Foley stated that due to the topography of the lots, it's unlikely that these roads would be used for anything but a secondary access to his lots in the future. ~ (owner of Tracts 16 and 18) stated that another consideration is that she doesn't want Brothers Road to be a County road. She likes a gravel road because it keeps the traffic down, people don't go as fast on the road, and it's less likely that people who don't belong in the area will drive in. She likes the smallness and the quietness of it. ~, owner of Lot 2 of the Strickland & Swanson Subdivision, stated that she agrees with Ms. McIntyre and she would rather not have Brothers Road included in this RID. She would like the boundary to be modified to exclude her lot. She doesn't know how excluding Brothers Road entirely would work for the one petitioner on the road who wants to be in the RID. B.ar.bara Ward, owner of Tract 17, stated that it was her understanding that the paved road would end at the end of her property and would not continue up to the Strickland & Swanson Subdivision. Will Butterfield noted that is COITect. Page 14 VOL 22 fAG- 0 1543 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 ~ asked if he would be assessed for the RID if Brothers Road is left within the boundary? Will Butterfield stated that his property is within the original boundary even though the road improvements to Brothers Road don't go all the way to his property. Mr. Strickland stated that he would rather see Brothers Road left as a gravel road. ~ stated that she doesn't think: that the access road to the Strickland & Swanson Subdivision and the Lofan property (the large 20 acres tract) would be able to meet the same specifications as the roads in the original Country Ridge development. Mr. Strickland pointed out that the County has accepted that road. Bob Nesbitt explained that the County sets standards for private roads which are different than the standards for County roads. Will Butterfield asked the Ward's what road they access their property from? Mrs. Ward stated that they access their lots from Brothers Road, because it would be difficult to access it from Eaglemont Road. They were told by NDC timber that the roads would be County roads. Mark....Casiill stated that he isn't in favor of having Brothers Road paved. This isn't a big development, it was divided by a recorded survey. When he purchased his property from NDC timber they said they would bring the roads up to County standards. That's what they did. He later received a letter from NDC Timber that said they weren't going to deal with the County and they left the area. Brothers Road is a short road and the four property owners along it don't want it paved. Chainnan Wojt asked when the property owners are asked to deed over the right-of-way? Bob Nesbitt stated that this is a preliminary hearing. When the survey is obtained and the bonds are sold, the property owners will be asked to donate the right-of-way. ~ explained, in response to a question from Tom Foley, that when they purchased their property it was their understanding that paved roads would eventually be put in. ~ stated that she is a Realtor and she estimated some figures for the difference in property value for a property on a paved road or a gravel road. Minimally there is a 10% to 20% difference in per acre value of property on a paved street. Bob Nesbitt added that as long as a road is a private road, the police have no jurisdiction on them. If an accident occurs, on a private road the matter must be settled between the two parties. The only time law enforcement will go on a private road is if they are called to a murder, or robbery, etc. They will not handle traffic violations on a private road. Commissioner Hinton asked if there should be a majority of the property owners present to vote on the boundary and assessment method? Bob Nesbitt read from the portion of the RCW that covers RID's as follows: "At this hearing the Board may make such changes in boundaries of the district or such modifications in plans proposed improvements as shall be deemed necessary. Provided that the Board may neither so alter the improvement as to increase the estimated cost of the amount more than 10 percent." Since this doesn't Page 15 VOL 2 2 rAf,~ 0154'" Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 say anytlring about decreasing the boundary, Bob Nesbitt suggested that a legal opinion be sought regarding this issue. ~ stated that there are several people present who are representing the upper portion of the boundary. The people in the Country Ridge Road and Blue Mountain Road area would be less effected, except for total cost, if a change was made in the upper boundary of the proposed District. Klara Fabry reported that she assumes legally, since everyone received written notice of this meeting at their address, that if a property owner didn't come to this meeting, they agreed with this proposal. She will discuss this issue with the Prosecuting Attorney. Chairman Wojt then reviewed the three options for changing the boundary as follows: Option A -- Original petition boundary (including all of the upper area). This option does not have the required acreage and linear fÌontage since Tract 22 has asked to be withdrawn fÌom the RID. The original estimate was $3,900 per lot. (No vote taken on this option) Option B -- Includes a portion of Brothers Road, but excludes Tracts 25, 22, the Strickland & Swanson Subdivision I and Tax 27 and Tax 26. This option would include 21 lots at an approximate cost of $5,238 per lot. (No one voted for this option) Option C -- Same as Option B excluding Tracts 17 and 12 and any improvements to Brothers Road. This option would include 18 lots at an approximate cost of $5,000 per lot. (8 property owners voted for this option) Klara Fabry stated concern that the boundary line was changed which then increased the cost per lot and many of the owners that are not present may not be comfortable with the new estimate per lot. Chairman Wojt reported that if the right-of-way is donated that cost will also be less. ~ expressed concern that the notification letter sent to all the property owners did not say anything about the possibility of the boundary line being changed as well as the cost per lot. Klara Fabry proposed that a copy of the minutes of this meeting be sent out to all of the property owners to advise them of the decisions made this evening. The Board of Commissioners will not act on this RID until a sufficient time has been given for the property owners to respond regarding the changes. The Chainnan then reviewed the assessment options and asked for a vote on the one that the property owners would like used. Option A -- By Lot -- (5 property owners voted for this option) Option B -- By Front Footage on the road-- (No property owners voted for this option) Option C -- By Acreage -- (No property owners voted for this option) Page 16 VOI- 2 2 rA~~ 0 1545 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Commissioner Hinton asked who makes the call on the length of tenn for the bonding? Bob Nesbitt reported that the County Treasurer detennines the tenn length based on the bonds that are sold. Regarding the type of improvements to be done to the road, Chuck Sherred stated that it is the property owners understanding that the only type of improvement the County will accept is chip seal. Bob Nesbitt advised that if 100% of the property owners were in favor of this, they could bring the roads up to County standards at their own expense and then petition the County to accept the roads as County roads. Chuck Sherred stated that they would like to do that but can't get the support of all of the property owners. Mark Castillo asked what happens if, when the work is done, the contractor runs into extra work or unforeseen circumstances that will cost more than the estimate? Bob Nesbitt reported that the estimate of cost is not binding on the amount of the assessment. In other words, if there are any extras or if it goes to contract and the bids received are over the estimate, then bonds would be sold to reflect that extra cost and the property owners would be assessed more. ~ said that she thought the costs would be limited to no more than 10%? Bob Nesbitt explained that the 10% applied only to the Board adding any additional work to the scope of the project petitioned. Chuck Sherred stated that is not what he was told. Tom Foley asked what limits there are on the actual costs? Bob Nesbitt answered that there aren't any limits on the actual costs. He then explained how the County handles its contracts for work that is bid by a private contractor. If a bid on a contract exceeds 10% of the Engineer's estimate, the Board of Commissioners can throw out the bid and redesign or change something about the project to get the cost down. Chuck Sherred stated that he doesn't know ifhe wants to go through with this RID if there isn't a limit on the cost or the amount that the costs can go up. He feels the property owners don't understand that if the costs go over 10% of the estimate they won't have a chance to review it again before the work proceeds. The discussion continued regarding the cost estimates for the project and what they include and a summary of what was decided at this meeting by the property owners that were in attendance. Klara Fabry stated that final action on this RID will be put on the Board's agenda again in four weeks. During that time the Public Works Department will clarify the issues regard- ing the number of property owners present at the hearing making detenninations that effect all of the property owners, and a draft policy for the Board to consider for notification of affected property owners if the costs change by a certain amount. Page 17 VOL 22 ~Af.ç 0 '154G '" Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of October 28, 1996 Jom Foley asked if there will be a final vote on the fonnation of the RID? Chainnan Wojt explained that because there weren't enough of the lot owners at this hearing, a letter will be sent to all of the lot owners again asking if they agree with the changes. ~ asked how non-respondents will be treated? Bob Nesbitt reported that if a property owner does not respond it is assumed that they are voting no. The property owners are not voting on the boundary. They will be asked if they agree with the new boundaries as established by the property owners at this hearing. That letter will be sent out by the beginning of next week to every property owner in the original petition. ert . ts>n, Member - L:~~ Gfén Huntingford e ber ~~YlçL ~O-M-W- Lorna Delaney, CMC~ 0 Clerk of the Board Page 18 '101. 22 rAr,' n ,: 1"":47 .' .I....)