Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM082895 MINUTES Week of August 28, 1995 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order at the ap- pointed time in the presence of Commissioners Robert Hinton and Richard W ojt. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Gary Rowe, Director of Public Services re: Organizational Structure: Gary Rowe reported that he is recommending that the County hire a Community Development Director to oversee the Permit Center and Long Range Planning at a salary of$3,750 per month. He would like to see if this position could be filled internally before it is advertised in the newspaper in an attempt to keep staffing levels in line with budget goals. Commissioner Hinton stated that he has some concerns about the overall manage- ment structure of County departments which seems to be overrun with managers. He has a concern about hiring another management position in the County right now, especially in light of the County's budget goals. He questioned how much long range planing there will be once the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He doesn't feel he can support a new position at this time. Chairman Huntingford asked if Commissioner Hinton can at least agree to a determination being made if there a person "in house" that could handle this posi- tion? Commissioner Hinton answered that he agrees that Gary Rowe should see if there is anyone on staff right now to take over the management of the Permit Center. Chairman Huntingford directed that Gary Rowe and David Goldsmith review the options for filling the management position proposed. GMA Update: Senior Planner Roger Blaylock reported on the progress being made on the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan will be in four volumes. Volume 4, the Community Plans, will be sent to the printer this week. Once this formal draft is issued there will be a 45 day review period. The Planning Commission directed that issues that are still not resolved be identified in the document by being printed in italics. Commissioner Hinton asked what it will cost to print? Gary Rowe reported that there will be about 200 copies printed to cover the distribution list that has been VOL 21 rÞ(;~ 01049 Page: 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~..M~~~~~..~~!~~:...~~~~..?f.A~.~~~.~~.~..!~??................................................... prepared, as well as additional copies for the public to purchase. The total cost for printing will depend on how fancy the document is. The recommendation is that the draft be done in a glue binding. Gary Rowe added that there is $25,000 in the budget for this item. Some of the costs will be recovered for copies that are requested by persons not on the distribution list. Gary Rowe then presented a copy of one of the mail outs being prepared to send. The discussion turned to whether the County should send a bill for the costs associated with GMA planning to the State or just track all of the costs. The discussion then turned to the cost of appeals to the Hearings Board. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following issues/concerns were discussed: The land grade 4 property being designated forest lands in Jeffer- son County; the discussion draft of an MOU with PUD # 1 regarding water in the Tri Area and how it impacts the petition for incorporation being circulated; and a program of the City Parks and Recreation Committee to place information kiosks at sites around Port Townsend and if the County would like a kiosk at the Port Townsend Community Center (this was referred to the Port Townsend Community Center Advisory Committee). APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Hinton moved to delete item 6 and approve and adopt the balance of the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote 1. Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation; Variance Request, Reduce Side Yard Set Back; Plat ofBayview Village, Division 2; Anneliesa Larkin, Applicant 2. Appoint Jefferson County Fire Commissioners and Secretaries Association Representative to Serve on Fire Code Advisory Board; Frank Linley 3. Accept Resignation Jefferson-Port Townsend Ferry Advisory Committee; Peter Badame 4. RESOLUTION NO. 73-95 re: In the Matter of Establishing A Special Revenue Fund; For the Sheriff Department's Boating Safety Program 5. RESOLUTION NO. 74-95 re: In the Matter of a Policy For Consideration of Fee Waiver Requests Associated With County Ordinances 6. DELETE Resolution No._ re: In the Matter of Jefferson County Risk Management Policy 7. RESOLUTION NO.75-95 re: Amending Section IV of Resolution No. 82- 91 Jefferson County Open Space Tax Program to more effectively provide for retaining productive shellfish areas and associated habitat 8. Final Long Plat Approval #SUB95-0069; 2 Lot Long Plat; Located off of W oodlan Drive, Port Townsend; Al Otis, Applicant 9. CONTRACT #96-369-014 re: Funding for Health & Human Services Department Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse; State Department of Commerce, Trade and Economic Development VOL 21 f'AG~ 0 1050 Page: 2 £~~~~~9.~~~.~..M~~!~g..~~!~~:...~~~~..~f.A~.~~.!..?~.~..~.~??................................................... THE CONSENT AGENDA- Continued: 10. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Jefferson County Fire Investigation Task Force; City of Port Townsend 11. AGREEMENT, Interlocalre: Reimbursable Work Performed by Jefferson County Public Works and/or Rent of County Equipment; City of Port Townsend 12. RESOLUTION NO. 76-95 re: Establishing a County Project CR1236; Prepare and Resurface with Bituminous Surface Treatment; Portion of 10th Avenue, E. Kinkaid Street and W. Montgomery Street 13. Application for Assistance ITom the Veteran's Relief Fund; VFW Post #4607 for $300.00 14. Application for Assistance ITom the Veteran's Relief Fund; VFW #3213 for $300.00 15. CONTRACT re: Juvenile Services Department; Juvenile Rehabilitation & Alcohol Grant; State Department of Social and Health Services BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; Plat Amendment; Petition to move an undeveloped right-of-way known as Water- way Place to the East of Boundary of Lot 9 within the Plat of Olele Point; Eric Harrier, Applicant: Permit Technician Michelle Grewell reported that the Hearing Examiner, after his hearing on this request, recommends that it be denied, but he did suggest an alternative. Chairman Huntingford then asked if the notification issue that was raised by the Attorney for a plat property owner has been adequately addressed? Community Services Director David Goldsmith then reviewed the RCW, which is the same as the County's ordinance, on notification. "When any person that is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or alteration of any portion thereof, that person shall submit an application to request the alteration to the legislative authority of the City, town, or County where the subdivision is located. The application shall contain signatures of a majority of persons having an ownership interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, divisions, in the subdivision or the subdivi- sions to be altered" The question is if there were an adequate number of signatures of persons who have ownership in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions within the subdivision or portion thereof to be altered. The proposed alteration is to relocate a portion of the road dedicated to the lot owners of the tracts. You could interpret the RCW to require a majority of everyone who owns in the tract must sign the application. Or this could be interpreted to mean those people who are adjoining the road because they are ultimately affected, which is fewer people. The applicant was the only signatory to the request in this case. If the Board follows the Hearing Examiner's recommendation this point is moot, because he recommends denial of the request. He then reported on changes in the c VOL 21 rAG~ 0 :1051 Page: 3 ç~~~~!~~.~~~..M~~~~~..~~!~.~:...'!!..~~.~..gf.!.\~.~~~..?~~..~??.?................................................... platting act that made it less clear regarding who must sign this type of application. All of the property owners in the plat were notified that this application was submitted. Commissioner Hinton reviewed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation which included an alternative with three provisions: 1) retain the well easement within the right-of-way of the dedicated easement, 2) retain the trail to the beach, and 3) alter the dedicated right-of-way to allow reconfiguration of the property. Commissioner Hinton stated that he doesn't see how any reconfiguration of the lots will provide a gain on the two pieces of property. Chairman Huntingford asked where the well is located? Michelle Grewell reported and Mr. Harrier confirmed that the well is located in the dedicated right of way. Mr. Harrier then explained what he felt the Hearing Examiner was suggesting as an alternative. Commissioner Hinton clarified that the Board's charge today is to make a determination on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Harry Holloway, Attorney for a plat property owner stated that the application that Mr. Harrier submitted was to relocate Waterway Place and Lot 9 which would make a public right-of-way abut his clients property. He feels that because this applica- tion is for part of a public right-of-way in a public plat that a majority of the prop- erty owners of the plat must sign on the application. This application also involves his clients and should at least include their signatures, which it doesn't. He also noted that the Hearing Examiner can only make a recommendation of approval or disapproval of the application. He has no authority in the County's Ordinance to make an alternative solution to what was asked for in the application. Commissioner Hinton moved to deny the plat amendment petition as recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board members met in EXECUTIVE SESSION with Director of Public Services regarding a personnel matter under RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) Letter to Michael Sbahda re: Intent to Purchase Property: Commissioner W ojt moved to have the Prosecuting Attorney review the letter to Mr. Shahda for acquisition of his property before the Board signs it. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion and called for a vote on it. Commissioner W ojt and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. Appeal of Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board Compliance Hearing Order re: Jefferson County Interim Forest Lands Ordinance No. 07-0524-95: Senior Planner James Holland reported that this resolution directs the Prosecuting Attorney to file an appeal in Superior Court of the Hearings Board Order on the County's Forest Land Ordinance (Case No. 94-2- VOL 21 rAGf 01.052 Page: 4 f:~~~~~~~~~~..M~~~~~..~~!~~:...~~~.~..Ç?f.A~.~~~.~~.~..~.~?.~.................................................. 0017.) The resolution also directs that a policy statement be drafted to guide the County with administration of the current forest land ordinance during the appeal process. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 77-95 directing that the County Prosecuting Attorney appeal the Western Washington Growth Manage- ment Hearings Board Compliance Hearing Order. Commissioner W ojt questioned some of the wording in the resolution and asked that the words "and may restrict the County's planning options under the GMA;" in the second to last whereas clause, be deleted. After discussion of the request ITom Commissioner W ojt and his concerns, Commissioner Hinton advised that he would not change his motion. Chairman Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Chairman Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner W ojt voted against the motion. The motion carried. Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund; VFW 3213: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the application for assistance ITom the Veterans Relief Fund submitted by VFW #3213 in the amount of$500.00. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Lou Haff and Warren Steurer: Facilities Budget Status Work- shop: The workshop was cancelled. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. at the Tri Area Community Center for the following. All three Board members were present. Management and Development of Plans for Water Service Deliv- ery and Discussion of Two (2) Draft Memorandum of Understanding between Jefferson County and Public Utility District No.1 of Jeff~rson County: Roughly 60 citizens were present when the Board met with the Board of Commis- sioners of Jefferson County PUD # 1 to discuss development of plans for water resource management. Chairman Huntingford explained that this meeting was set up at the request of citizens, especially ITom the Tri Area, and because the PUD had offered at a previous meeting that the role of the PUD should be to handle water Issues. Bob Kruetenat, PUD Commissioner, then explained that the PUD 's of the State of Washington have decided to provide leadership on issues relating to water. The Snohomish, Kitsap and Clark County PUD's have programs using PUD funds to do water resource assessments by basin to gather the scientific and technical data that the State Department of Ecology needs to intelligently issue water rights. This leadership and the scientific information that goes with it forms a basis to issue water rights. The Jefferson County PUD is willing to take the lead in water re- source issues in and for the County regarding basin assessments, technical data VOL 21rAG~ 0 :1053 Page: 5 · ~ ~ ç~~~~~9.~~~.~..M~~~~~..~~!~.~:...'!'!.~~.~..~~.!.\~.~~!..?~~...~?.?..?.................................................. gathering, and data gathering coordination, to form a basis where this information will be available when an agency or group goes to the DOE for a water right. The POO is here tonight to consider the Memorandums of Understanding that have been prepared in draft form, to come to an understanding with the County on the relationship between the County and the POO on issues relating to the POOlS chartered goal of providing utility service to the people of the County. Dick Shipman, POO Commissioner, stated that the POO is focused on any unincorporated area of the County, not just the Hadlock area. Jim Parker, POO Manager, then explained the programs in Kitsap, Clark and Snohomish Counties where the POO's have a contract with the State Department of Ecology to do basin studies which provide specific information that the DOE needs, and in return they are issued provisional water rights. They are proposing that the POO be the lead for the studies and technical information coordination. The discussion continued between the Board members and the residents regarding the following issues and concerns: · If the POO has the funding and resources to be the lead in this effort. · How much a basin study would cost. · How this work would fit with what the Water Utility Coordinator Committee and the Water Resource Council. · The draft MOD's and why they mayor may not be necessary. · Water resources in the Tri Area and the City's water service area. · The POO's responsibilities under the RCW. After considerable discussion of the draft MOU's and the POOlS offer to be the agency that takes the lead on water issues in the County, no action taken on the draft MOU's. The County and the POO will meet again to discuss these issues. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO VOL 21 rAf,tO :1054 Page: 6