HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060595
c-~ P''¿'~
c./. ~
V
MINUTES
WEEK OF JUNE 5, 1995
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Glen Huntingford. Commissioner Richard
W ojt was present. Commissioner Robert Hinton was not present.
COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION
Bob Mintv re: Special Event Permit: Port Hadlock Davs. June 10th and 11th: Port
Hadlock Lions Club: Emergency Service Coordinator Bob Minty reported that all requirements have
been met for this permit. Commissioner W ojt moved to approve the permit for the Port Hadlock Days
celebration as submitted. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous
vote.
GMA Update: Public Services Director Gary Rowe read and submitted a memo advising
the Board that the discussion draft of the Comprehensive Plan is now available. He thanked Pat Dugan,
Gary Phillips, and the Planning Commission for all their hard work on this draft. He then read a memo
trom the Planning Commission regarding the draft. All the community groups will be given copies of it.
There will be copies available for the public to review at the County and City libraries. The final draft and
the environmental checklist on it, are expected to be out in the middle of July.
The discussion turned to the planning process for the Tri Area community. Gary Rowe reported that the
draft Comprehensive Plan has four alternatives for this area and a workshop will be held in the Tri Area
. to discuss the issues, the alternatives, and the planning process.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following issues were brought before the Board:
Concerns about the Forest Lands, Aquifer Recharge, Agriculture and Mineral Lands Ordinances and the
need for them to meet the needs of the people of Jefferson County, not the Growth Management
Hearings Board; the need for more information on costs so that communities can make decisions
regarding inftastructure needs; the reports on subdivision applications and building permits that are to be
provided by the Permit Center; and the Timber Tax programs and how and if they are being monitored.
APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner
Wojt moved to approve and adopt the items on the consent agenda with the exception of items 15, 16
and 22. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 41-95 re: Order Budget AppropriationsÆxtensions for Various County
Departments
. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 42-95 re: Establishing the Date for 1996 Budget Submissions, Review
Hearings and Final Adoption
,r"'j:
.Ui~
65""1
21 Í",~.S~ ;
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
.ç.?~~.~~~!~.~.~E.~...~~.~~!~.~...~.~.~~.~.~~.:......~~.~~...~.f....!..~P.:~...?!..}'??.:?..........................................................................................
APPROV AL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
RESOLUTION NO. 43-95 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Located off
of Cape George Road; Penny Lane
RESOLUTION NO. 44-95 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Located off
of Middle Point Road; Haada Laas Road
RESOLUTION NO. 45-95 re: Adopting a Road Project Programming Priority Process;
Jefferson County Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 46-95 re Vacating a Portion of a Certain Alley in the Plat of
Chalmers No.2; William and Kitty Sperry, Petitioners
RESOLUTION NO. 47-95 re: Revising a County Road Project Designated as CR1135;
Improvements to Center Road
Final Approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, #SDP93-0010; Installation
of a Recreational Use Mooring Buoy; Located in Kilisut Harbor, Mystery Bay; John
Stevens
Findings, Conclusions and Decision re: Preliminary Subdivision Approval, #SUB95-
0009; Divide 7.1 Acres into 3 Lots; Located off of Boardwalk Avenue, Port Townsend;
John Nesset, Applicant
Application for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; American Legion Post #26
for $300.00
Two Applications for Assistance from the Veteran's Relief Fund; VFW Post #7014 for
$194.98 and $300.00
HEARING NOTICE re: Annual Adoption of Jefferson County's Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program for the years 1996 to 2001; Hearing set for
Monday, June 26, 1995 at 2:00 p.m.
EASEMENT Granting Right of Way (Amend wording in #2-Access); Install and
Maintain a Guy Pole and Anchor; Located at Anderson Pit, H.J. Carroll Park Site; Puget
Power & Light Company
AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Relocation of the City of Port Townsend's Chimacum
Road Waterline; City of Port Townsend
DELETE AGREEMENT, Interlocal (Addendum No.1) re: Moderate Risk Waste
Collection and Disposal; Port of Port Townsend
DELETE AGREEMENT re: Phase II of the Larry Scott Memorial Park; State
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
AGREEMENT re: Right of Way Turn Back for Larson Lake Road and Belfrage Road,
Port Ludlow; State Department of Transportation
CALL FOR BIDS re: Resurfacing and Drainage Improvements to Center Road,
#CR1135; Bid Opening Set for Monday, June 19, 1995 at 11:15 a.m.
Request to Open Right of Way; to Construct a Private Driveway; Pittsburgh Street,
Irondale; Li Li Mei Raiquel, Applicant
Approve Appraisers Certificate Determination of Value; South Discovery/Cape George
Road Acquisition, #CP1181; Discovery Timber Company and Grace V. Wood, Owners
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS re: Transportation and Recycling/Disposal of Moderate
Risk Waste; Project Number SW1161RFP; Closing Date set for Monday, August 7, 1995
at 9:00 a.m.
DELETE Hearing Examiner's and Planning Commission's Recommendation re: Binding
Site Plan and Planned Unit Development Application #SUB94-0042; to Develop an R. V.
Park;; Located near Hoh River, West End; Big Spruce R.V. Park; Jim Decker, Applicant
Approve Requests for Membership Changes to the Water Utility Coordinating
Committee; Appoint David Clevenger to Replace Gary Winberg as Representative
of Snow Creek Ranch; Appoint Gary Winberg as Representative for Olympic
Mobile Home Village; and Appoint Gloria Shelton as the Alternate Representative
for Pleasant Tides Water Co-op
HEARING NOTICE re: Creating a "No Shooting" Area; Located in the Vicinity of
Kala Point; Hearing Set for Monday, June 19, 1995 at 2:00 p.m.
AGREEMENTS, Addendum re: Amendment to Public Works and Sheriffs
Department Labor Agreements; Teamsters Local Union No. 589
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Page: 2
21 r~G~ 658
.VOL
.ç?~~~~?~~~~..~~~!~~..~~!.~.~.:....!y~.~.~..~f..!.~~..??...!.?..~?...................................................................................................
BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS:
PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER
HEARING re: Amendin2 Ordinance #13-0926-94. Fee Schedule for the
Development Review Division of the Permit Center: Chairman Huntingford opened the public
hearing. Deputy Director of Public Services David Goldsmith reported that this proposed fee schedule is
to consolidate all of the fees for the Permit Center. There are no fee increases in this proposed ordinance.
A portion of the permitting fee will apply to the pre-application process and would be credited toward
the permit fee once the application is made.
Chairman Huntingford asked how much revenue is generated by the fee schedule? David Goldsmith
reported that the fees support approximately half of the cost of operating the Permit Center.
Hearing no public comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner W ojt moved to
approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 10-0605-95 the new fee schedule for the Permit Center.
Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Discussion re: "On the Road Meetin2s": Gary Rowe reported that the following dates
have been tentatively scheduled for the Board to go to the following communities for "On the Road"
meetings: June 27 at Quilcene, July 6 at Port Ludlow, July 13 at Quimper, and July 18 at the Tri Area.
The main discussion for this round of community meetings will be planning issues since the discussion
draft of the Comprehensive Plan is now available. A broader range of issues will be encouraged at future
liOn the Roadll meetings.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTINUATION OF HEARING re: Conditional Use Application: to Construct a
Cellular Communication Facilitv: Buildin2 and Steel Tower with Antennas: Located on Camelot
Road. Ouilcene: US West New Vector Group: The Chairman reopened the hearing on this conditional
use application. He asked the Planning Department staff for a briefing on the application.
Associate Planner Jerry Smith reviewed the information the Board received in their packet including:
Letter rrom Fire District #2 dated May 11, 1995; a letter rrom adjacent property owners Clifford and
Barbara Woolfolk, dated May 15, 1995; a copy of a letter rrom the Planning Department to the
Woolfolk's; and a packet of information rrom Leslie Ross.
Scott Greenburg. URS Consultants (1100 Olive Way. Seattle) representing US West New Vector Group,
stated that they filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for denial of this application
because they felt there were errors in the facts presented in his report. This application was filed with the
County last fall for a certain area of the Handly property. After the first hearing with the Hearing
Examiner, alternative locations on the Handly property were reviewed and the present site was found.
The site is now located 270 feet away rrom the Ross house (see Attachment 5.) This site was selected
because it is more heavily wooded. The Hearing Examiner's finding #2 indicates that the proposal is for
a 150 foot high lattice tower. The application has been changed to a monopole structure which they feel
will be more aesthetically pleasing. This pole can be painted any color to blend in with the surroundings.
At the base the diameter of this pole will be three to four feet and it tapers to a narrower diameter at the
top.
The Hearing Examiner's finding #3, Mr. Greenburg continued, found that the antenna would be in the
primary view of the neighbors homes and thus would be incompatible with surrounding land uses. He
reported that Figure 1 (on page 5 of the Hearing Examiner's report) indicates in graphic form the view
rrom the Ross house indicating one tree between the house and the tower. Attachment 4 of the URS
letter dated April 17, 1995 shows the results of a survey done which indicates that there are more trees
between the property line on the Handly property and the Ross property and the proposed tower site. He
then reviewed some photographs of the area (see file documents -- 5 photographs marked Exhibits 1
through 5). In the Hearing Examiner's Report, Figure 2, the Lovewell house is shown as being almost
Page: 3
: VOL
21 r.\G~ 659
.ç~~~~~~~~~~..~~~~~~..~~!.~.~.:....!y~~~..~.!..!~~..??...!.?~?....................................................................................................
directly east of the proposed cell site. The Lovewell house lies south of the access road which is far away
rrom the cell site.
In response to the Hearing Examiner's finding #4, Mr. Greenburg reported that the proposed facility will
be adequately screened by the existing vegetation and does not have the traffic, noise or lighting impact
to surrounding property that commercial development often has. This use is a quiet, ftiendly neighbor.
The site will be visited once a month by a technician in a Jeep Cherokee type vehicle. The site has a
central alarm so if there are any problems the staff will know about it immediately and send personnel to
the site.
Chairman Huntingford asked if there is any requirement for a flashing light on the top of the tower? Mr.
Greenburg stated that there is no requirement for a flashing light because of the location of the site. This
requirement depends on the proximity to airports, flight patterns, landing patterns, heights of trees, etc.
Hearing Examiner finding #5, Mr. Greenburg continued, states that the site would substantially impact
the reasonable use or enjoyment of neighboring properties. For that finding, the Hearing Examiner relied
primarily on Finding #3 in which he found that the antenna structure would be in the face of the neighbors
(The Lovewell's and the Ross' .) This structure will not be visible rrom the Ross house or the Lovewell
house.
Finding #6 is faulty because the Hearing Examiner says the conditional use criteria is not met. The
Hearing Examiner doesn't give any explanation of the reason he feels it isn't met. Commissioner Wojt
asked if guy wires are required on this pole structure? Mr. Greenburg reported that the tower and the
antenna do not require guy wires. They are both rree standing and have foundations.
Mr. Greenburg reported that they met with the Ross' last week in an attempt to find out if anything can
be done to address some of their concerns. They have reviewed the two alternative sites on the Handly
property. Both of these sites are southwest of the property on the opposite side of the road. Alternative
C (see Picture Exhibit 7) is directly in the view ofPuget Sound and the mountains rrom the Handly
property. They feel this site would have more of an impact than the chosen site. Alternative D (see
Picture Exhibit 8) is more to the southwest and would be visible to all the neighbors as they travel up
their road. The ground level of this site is approximately 25 feet lower than the selected site which
means that the tower would need to be approximately 200 feet high to broadcast over the trees. A lattice
tower may be required for a tower of that height.
In conclusion Mr. Greenburg stated that they feel this site is the best site of the three alternatives and that
it is less visible rrom the Ross house.
Leslie Ross. 1532 NW 64th. #3. Seattle WA, stated that she is representing her mother and brother.
They feel the Hearing Examiner is correct in recommending that this application be denied. He stated
that there is no location within the subdivision where the tower would not be intrusive. Their house is the
closest to the cellular tower site of the houses in this subdivision. They will be able to see the tower rrom
their house. A 170 foot tower will be visible rrom their property no matter how many trees are between
their property and the tower. She explained that the tree survey done by the project proponents shows
that the 108 foot tree is outside the cone of vision between their house and the cellular site. The rest of
the trees don't exist. There are no tall trees between their house and the site. The Hearing Examiner
Finding #3 says ". . . an unwanted non-residential structure always in your primary view becomes a
constant reminder. They adversely impact livability and property value." They agree this is a non-
residential structure. Her mother saved her money all her life to purchase a home in the country to have a
view of trees, not a cellular tower. In Finding #4 the Hearing Examiner says that ". . . it is not possible to
separate the proposed tower rrom the surrounding residences by the use of landscaping or fencing."
Commissioner W ojt asked what other views there are rrom the Ross house? Leslie Ross answered that
their site only has a view of trees. The house has been designed to take advantage of the view of the
trees and the southern exposure which is the direction of the tower. They are building this house for their
mother in her retirement and for them in the future. The Hearing Examiner personally visited the site and
stood where their house will be and saw what the impact of the tower will be. They agree that there is a
need for cellular service in this area, but they don't feel the tower should be in their residential area. This
is a rural area with thousands of acres of timberland that would be more suitable for this site.
She then presented video taped testimony of Mr. Lovewell an adjacent property owner (see also a sheet
of pictures rrom the Lovewell property - Exhibit 8.) On the video tape, Mr. Lovewell. 790 Camelot
Page: 4
.VOL
21 rAG~ 660
.ç~~~~~~~~~~..~~~~~..~~!.~.~.:....~~~~..~.f..!.~~..??}.?.~?....................................................................................................
Road. Ouilcene, stated that he purchased his property in 1991 because it was five acres covered with
beautiful trees. The property owners in this development formed a property owners association in 1993
and annually assess themselves for maintenance of the road and water system. All six homes in the
development rront on Camelot Road. A 170 foot cord was attached to a weather balloon which was
marked every 10 feet with a yellow ribbon. Mr. Lovewell reported that when the balloon was raised on
the cellular site he could see 7 yellow ribbons above the tops of the trees rrom his kitchen window. This
means 70 feet of tower would be visible rrom his house. The Hearing Examiner was absolutely correct
when he said that this tower will substantially reduce the enjoyment of his property. When the shade
trees are removed rrom the cellular site, it will condemn the Hemlocks on his property to death. He
urged the Board to uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny this application.
Leslie Ross then presented copies of letters previously entered in the record that were hard to read.
Rick Sepler. Madrona Planning and Development Services. representing the Ross family, said that this
house was designed, and the permits applied for, and issued prior to the location of the cellular site.
The Ross family's concerns, as well as those of the neighbors, are: aesthetics, health issues, and financial
impacts.
Aesthetics:
They met with the applicants in an attempt to find an alternative site. The Handly's, who
are being paid for the area of the cellular site, didn't want the tower within their view. The
Ross's, who are not being compensated, have little choice in the matter. While some
impacts can be screened, the tower cannot be obscured rrom the neighbors entirely. The
photographs don't convey the view rrom the site and he urged the Board to visit the site to
see for themselves.
A SEP A review was not done for this project. It would have been done in surrounding
jurisdictions (Clallam, Kitsap, King and Pierce counties) on projects which include
monopole construction. Health issues can be addressed through the SEP A process.
He questioned if it is permissible in this County for a long term lease (99 years) to be used
to get around the provisions of the subdivision ordinance?
Health:
Other:
Commissioner Wojt asked how far away rrom the tower the Ross house is located? Leslie Ross reported
that it is 270 feet rrom their house.
Assessor Jack Westerman reported that he was asked if there was a visible tower rrom the property, if
that would impact the value of the property? He explained that in appraisals external factors that effect
the value of your property are known as "economic obsolescence." It is difficult to measure if the Ross's
would have paid any less for their property if the tower had been in place when they purchased their
property. The question is if the property can be marketed with this tower in place? It is hard to say the
amount of impact it may have to the value of the property, but it would probably take longer to market
the property. The other concern is if the screening is provided by the Ross's, through use of their timber,
would that impact them because they may not harvest their timber? If the screening is provided on the
site of the tower that would be another consideration. He suggested that the Board make a site
inspection.
John Hendrickson. Attorney, 777 108th Ave NE, Suite 1500, Bellevue, representing US West New
Vector, stated that US West Cellular has been in operation for over 12 years and has experience with
constructing facilities of this nature in a variety of areas (suburban, rural, mountains, urban). US West
has found in its experience that there has been no diminishment of property values for properties located
near these facilities. US West has hired trained appraisers to determine whether or not there have been
any impacts to property values rrom these facilities. These facilities are not radio or TV towers, they are
relatively small communication facilities. He then presented a report done (dated February 18, 1995) on
a facility in the Edmonds area. In reviewing the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, it does not appear
that property value impacts were a real issue, and that is why this report was not presented earlier.
The Hearing Examiner's recommendation seemed to focus on the proximity of the site to the Lovewell
house. The Hearing Examiner had a misunderstanding of exactly where the Lovewell house was located.
Finding #5 is in error because the Hearing Examiner shows the house on the north side of the road which
is not correct. This finding states that the tower will be in the view of that house and will cast a shadow
on that house, which is in error. That is not possible. The Lovewell house is oriented on the property to
the south away rrom the cellular site.
This particular site was selected because of the dense vegetation around it. US West does the best job it
can of locating these facilities by identifying a location that will have the least impact on the fewest
21 r"Œ661
Page: 5
c~ot
· -
.ç!?~.~~~~~!?!?:~!.~..~~~~~~..~~~.~.~.:....~~~~..!?~.!~~..??....!.???....................................................................................................
number of people possible. The proposed location, is such a location. It is uphill and away rrom the view
that will occur rrom the Handly and Lovewell house and rrom anyone driving on the road in a southerly
direction.
The Hearing Examiner also pointed out in his report, two alternative locations (he called them sites C and
D) and Mr. Hendrickson urged the Board to look at those locations and come to their own conclusion as
to which location would be preferable. He noted that US West can serve the public rrom this property at
anyone of the three alternative sites. They believe the proposed site will have the least amount of impact
to the residents. The proposed location is the superior location because it is the most densely vegetated,
it is the highest location of the three, therefore, the tower can be shorter and less visible. If the Board
feels that one of the other two sites is preferable rrom the public interest standpoint, they will provide a
facility there.
Commissioner W ojt asked why this particular spot gives more coverage than other sites in the general
area which are more suitable to this type of facility? Mr. Hendrickson stated that there are several factors
taken into consideration. Elevation is a primary consideration. The US West engineers provide a search
area to real estate agents which meet certain criteria for providing coverage to an intended area.
Commissioner W ojt asked if the property was chosen because it was available or because of certain
technical factors that are necessary at a site? Mr. Hendrickson answered that these are very low power
facilities which cover a relatively small area compared to a radio or TV type of facility. These are small
facilities which are typically located in isolated, small areas to cover an area in a particular cell. If there is
no facility in this area there will be no coverage on portions of Highway 101 and in Quilcene.
Chairman Huntingford asked how big a cell area is? An engineer rrom US West answered that in this
particular case the radius is approximately 4 or 5 miles. This facility is basically designed to cover four
miles to the north and south of the site on Highway 101. Since this site is in the center of the area to be
covered it means that another site won't be required to cover the area.
Rick Sepler asked if this specific property is the only site that could serve this area? Mr. Hendrickson
answered that he doesn't feel that is an issue the Board should deal with on this site. The engineers
designed the system with efficiency in mind by picking a site in the central portion of the cell, at the
highest location possible, and on property where the owner is willing to work with the company. They
feel no property values will be effected and no views will be obstructed at this site.
Chairman Huntingford asked Mr. Greenburg about the alternative sites? Leslie Ross reported that they
would be able to see the tower at the alternative sites rrom the road.
Chairman Huntingford asked about access to the site if the road into the area is a private road? Mr.
Greenburg reported that the existing road gives access to the Handly property. It is a non-exclusive
easement. Leslie Ross reported that the road is maintained by a property owner association. Four of the
property owners, in that association, have voted that they do not want the tower anywhere within the
Association's boundaries. The only property owner that wants the tower on the site will benefit
monetarily rrom the tower being there. Chairman Huntingford asked if the Planning Department has
researched information on the access easement? Jerry Smith reported they have not.
Commissioner W ojt noted that the applications for these cellular sites in the past have been located in
areas that are away rrom population and therefore the neighboring properties haven't had problems with
the facilities.
Rick Sepler reported that he had asked his previous question about whether this is the only site in the area
because, if it is the sole site where the tower could be constructed, then it would be in the public interest
to construct it. His understanding is that is not case because there are alternative sites on and perhaps off
the Handly property that could be explored. This site is not the only answer.
Chairman Huntingford noted that a letter was received rrom the Quilcene Fire District. This type of
service is becoming more and more important to emergency service operations in Jefferson County. The
Fire District requested that the County be looking for sites to provide these services. Leslie Ross stated
that she called the Fire Chief in Quilcene and discussed this type of service. She is interested in finding a
reasonable alternative for cellular service in this area.
Page: 6
~VOL
21 '..r:662
r ",,_ . .
.ç~~~~~~~~!.~..~~~!~~..~~!.~.~.:....~~.~.~..~.~.!~~..??...!.2.??...................................................................................................
Chairman Huntingford stated that he is in support of a cellular tower somewhere in the Quilcene area, but
there seem to be problems with this particular site which may not make it the appropriate place for such a
tower.
Chairman Huntingford closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.
Commissioner W ojt stated that it seems to him that this particular spot was located because they found a
willing seller rather than for some particular technical reason. It's hard to say to an adjacent property
owner that a 175 foot tower will be erected to see if they'll like it. It's obvious that they are going to see
it. The discussion turned to the balloon test and what was visible rrom the Ross' house, and the visibility
of the tower rrom the alternative sites.
Commissioner Wojt asked if US West would be willing to put up a balloon that is approximately 12 feet
in diameter and 175 feet off the ground and the neighbors can see how much of a view of the tower they
would have rrom their properties? Mr. Hendrickson stated that they would be willing to consider that.
Rick Sepler explained that the property owners did their test with the weather balloon for their own
information. Commissioner W ojt explained how his school classes did experiments with such balloons.
Commissioner W ojt noted that the basis for the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny this project
is that the site is in a residential area. People in a residential area should be able to expect some
protection rrom a commercial development. Mr. Hendrickson pointed out that this is a utility facility, not
a commercial facility. Utilities, by their nature, are placed in areas they are intended to serve. This is a
relatively remote site, with very low density.
Chairman Huntingford stated that he isn't convinced that this is the only site for such a facility in the
Quilcene area. Commissioner Wojt moved to support the Hearing Examiner recommendation for
denial of the conditional use permit.
Chairman Huntingford asked if site C and D are visible rrom Camelot Road or the County Road? Leslie
Ross answered that these sites are visible rrom Camelot Road, but she doesn't know about the County
road. She reported that both alternative sites C and D would be visible rrom Mr. Lovewell's house.
Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. He asked if Commissioner Wojt has any
recommendation for site C or D? Mr. Hendrickson noted that Sites C and D are not visible rrom any
residence except the Handly residence.
Chairman Huntingford asked Jerry Smith what the process would be for consideration of the two
alternative sites, if the project is denied as the Hearing Examiner recommended? Jerry Smith answered
that the project application only considers sites A and B. The Hearing Examiner suggested the
possibility of sites C and D. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he believes the Board has the discretion to
remand this back to the Hearing Examiner for review of any alternative location on the Handly property.
After a short recess Commissioner W ojt reported that he discussed this with the Prosecuting Attorney
who advised that if the Board would postpone making a decision on this appeal for a week, they could
coordinate a meeting between US West and the adjacent property owners to review the alternate sites. If
the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is upheld, US West would have to reapply for an alternative
site.
Commissioner W ojt asked what the time rrame would be for review if this is remanded back to the
Hearing Examiner? Jerry Smith reported that the first meeting date on which the Hearing Examiner has
an open time is in July. If a re-application is necessary, the project will have to go through SEP A review
and it would take a longer period of time (at least approximately 60 days.)
Commissioner Wojt withdrew his first motion and Chairman Huntingford withdrew his second.
Commissioner Wojt then moved to table this matter for one week, to allow time for legal review to
determine if consideration of the alternative site would require a new application, placing it on the
Commissioner's Meeting Agenda under Planning Department business at 10:35 a.m. on June 12,
1995. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Rick Sepler asked that if there are any meetings between the project proponents and the property owners,
that County Planning Department staff be there to report back to the Board. The Board advised that no
meeting should be held until after next week.
Page: 7
~VOL
21 Ì'~k663
.ç~~.~~~~~~~~!.~..~~~~~..~~!.~.~.:....~~~~..~.~.!.~~..??...!.?~?....................................................................................................
Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt
moved approve the application for assistance rrom the Veterans Relief Fund in the amount of$346.55
submitted by American Legion Post #26. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on
Tuesday morning. Chairman Huntingford and Commissioner Hinton were both present. Commissioner
W ojt was not present.
CONTINUATION OF HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mith:ated Determination of
Non-Shmificance: Knutson Short Plat. #SP-12-93: Located at Tala Point. Port Ludlow: Robert
and Marilvn Knutson. Appellant (Continued from October 10.1994): Associate Planner Jerry Smith
reported that he heard yesterday that Mr. Knutson and the State Department of Wildlife had reached
agreement on the Eagle Management Plan, and then later heard that they had not reached agreement.
After calling Mr. Knutson on the phone rrom the Chambers, Jerry Smith reported that Mr. Knutson has
faxed a request for a continuation of the hearing.
Commissioner Hinton moved to continue the hearing to June 26, 1995 at 10:35 a.m. Chairman
Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
PROCLAMATION re: June 10 as "Marvin Shields Dav": Commissioner Hinton
moved to approve proclaiming June 10, 1995 as "Marvin Shields Day" in Jefferson County. Marvin
Shields was the only US Navy CB (Construction Battalion) to ever receive the Congressional Medal of
Honor. He grew up at Discovery Bay and graduated rrom Port Townsend High School. Chairman
Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote.
Cv Heffernan. Chairman. Water Utilitv Coordinatin2 Committee re: Proposed Fire
Flow Standards Review Committee: Cy Heffernan, Chairman of the Water Utility Coordinating
Committee (WUCC), reported that fire flow has been an issue in the WUCC meetings over the past few
months. Determinations of fire flow needs for projects out in the County have sometimes been made
rrom interpretation of the fire flow standards in the Health Department regulations for water systems.
There has been an ad hoc committee of volunteers meeting in an attempt to resolve these fire flow issues.
There are no hard and fast fire protection guidelines, rules or procedures developed for application in the
County, and no means for dispute resolution other than the Court system. There is also a need for
consistency and fairness in the application of fire protection requirements. The Uniform Fire Code, which
takes effect in July, requires the creation of a Board of Appeals. He asked that the Board charge the ad
hoc Fire Flow committee with the responsibility to develop an ordinance detailing fire flow standards and
allow them to be the appeal body for resolution of any disputes between a project proponent and the Fire
Marshall. He feels this group is qualified to be the group to provide these services because they have
been intensively involved in this for the past seven months and are very well versed on where the voids
and pitfalls are.
Chairman Huntingford asked if the people present are all involved in the WUCC or the ad hoc
committee? Cy Heffernan reported that some members ofWUCC are involved in the ad hoc committee
(Cy, Gary Winberg, Dick Broders, Tom McNerney) and others have been part of the ad hoc committee.
Those not present who have helped on the ad hoc committee are Dave Clevenger rrom the Jefferson
County Homebuilders Association, Roy Rodebaugh, Fire District #3, Gary Phillips, Fire District #2, and
Bob Larson, Fire Chief of District #6. Chairman Huntingford asked how the ad hoc committee will fit in
with the WUCC committee?
Marc Horton, Economic and Engineering Services (EES), explained that the Board is being asked to
create a group to flush out the details of how to interface between the requirements of the Water System
Coordination Act and those of the Uniform Fire Code. There are three functions that a group might
perform:
1) To advise and help the Fire Marshall in making decisions.
2) Under the new Fire Code an Appeals Board is required to be appointed.
Page: 8
~VOL
21 r~G~664
·ç~~~~~~~~~~..~~~!~~..~~!.~.~.:....~~~.~..~.!..!~~..??...!.~.~?...................................................................................................
3) Under the Water Coordination Act the WUCC is the only formal committee created. In the
County's Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) there is a recognition that an appeal body is
necessary to deal with appeals on provision of water service in any given area. There is provision
in the Plan for an appeals sub-committee of the WUCC.
Marc Horton noted that this sub-committee would be appointed by the Board and could serve to provide
advice, guidance, and hear appeals of issues related to individual permitting and fire flows. Over time,
the water system planning issues will be minimal.
Tom McNerney explained that he became involved with the WUCC through the Brinnon Planning
Committee's interest in the possible requirements ofWUCC for fire flow. He explained that he was in the
Seattle Fire Department for over 26 years. He is retired now and has an interest in providing volunteer
help. He then explained the need for fire flow standards. The discussion continued regarding the need
for an appeal committee as required by the Uniform Fire Code and an advisory committee for the fire
flow standards and how one committee could serve both functions.
Chairman Huntingford stated that he is supportive of the formation of an advisory/appeal committee for
fire flow and Uniform Fire Code issues.
The Board directed that the WUCC develop a proposal for how an advisory/appeals committee should be
structured and the process to be used for appointments to such a committee. Cy Heffernan asked if the
County would approve such a committee using the services of Marc Horton, EES, in this process? David
Goldsmith suggested that the consultant could be used through funding provided to the WUCC.
The Board members concurred that EES work with the WUCC to prepare a proposal on the
Advisory/Appeal committee to be presented to the Board at a later date.
MEETING ADJOUIPÆD--
," . 'I 'Q.. -, ."
/" . .... ~ ".~
t. / ,,". .".. 1.1'\
. ().. ,
SEAL ....., .~ . I. \
.. . ~
I ~: ~ . d'
ATTEST: \... \.:~,...'~ .})
'. \1" ;it" ., .. . ~. ¡.l
\~
Q¿.~ q ltt:Ž~1'
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board \....
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Page: 9
lVOL
21 r~,G£ 665