Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM032894 "'-- ~ .;- 101 /lIj MINUTES WEEK OF MARCH 28, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioners Glen Huntingford and Richard Wojt were both present. Application for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commissioner Hunt- ingford moved to approve the application from the Veterans Relief Fund in the amount of $321.49 as submitted by the American Legion Post #26. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: Chairman Hinton explained that comments and proposals submitted last Friday are not listed on the agenda because they were received after the agenda deadline. They will be reviewed next week. Steve Ladd reported that at the hearing held on the Forest Land proposals, comments were made that a middle ground approach is needed for designation. He then reviewed a draft ordinance which is an attempt at middle ground for designation of forest lands. He noted that this would be an interim ordinance. He also presented a draft ordinance for designation of mineral lands. He reported that these ordinances need to be adopted as soon as possible. Gary Rowe reported that work has begun on the Capital Facilities plan. The consultant selection for the rural, land use and Tri Area elements is just about complete. Chairman Hinton asked if the State funding for GMA is being held up until all three ordinance are adopted? Steve Ladd answered that is correct. Chairman Hinton asked about the contract amendment with Shockey Brent that is on the consent agenda? David Goldsmith reported that this amendment is needed to allow the consultant time to work on the appeal cases that he handled previously. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: There was discussion of whether the community planning committees face any potential liability for their work; a request was made that written rationale be prepared for the proposed draft forest land ordinance before the Wednesday workshop; and a request was made that Steve Ladd attend the hearing Tuesday evening on the Critical Areas Ordinance. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Huntingford moved to adopt and approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 'VDl ('Jj !l:t")~ ,".., (re~,G~~~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 1. CONTRACT, Amendment re;Personal Services for Subdivision Application Processing; Shockey Brent, Inc. 2. Final Meyer Long Plat #LPOl-93; 4 Lot Long Subdivision located off Windsor Lane, Woodland Hills; Dennis Meyer 3. RESOLUTION NO. 32-94 re: The Statutory Vacation of Certain Streets in the Plat of Irving Park; G.E. Development, Inc. 4. CALL FOR BIDS re: One (1) New Wheel Tractor with Front Loader and Backhoe 5. HEARING NOTICE re: Community Development and Housing Needs in Relationship to a Community Development Block Grant Planning Only Application; Setting hearing for April 11, 1994 at 2:30 p.m. 6. Request for Waiver of Quilcene Community Center Rental Fee; Charge for the Street Light Benefit Breakfast; Quilcene Community Club BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Final McCarv Short Plat #SPA 94-0001; Four (4) Lot Subdivision; Mike McCary: Permit Technician Michelle Wood asked if the Board would consider granting summary approval for the McCary Short Plat which is in the area served by the PUD's Glen Cove water system? Chairman Hinton noted that another project has been placed on hold because of questions about that water system and the availability of water for it. Michelle Wood reported that Mr. McCary can use two wells for water instead of hooking up to the Glen Cove Water system. Commissioner Huntingford moved that summary approval for the McCary Short Plat proceed on the condition that water availability be resolved before final approval is considered. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Revision of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SSDP88-0013: Shellfish Hatchery; Taylor United: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that this request from Taylor United is to revise their shoreline permit for their shellfish hatchery activities on Broad Spit. The staff recommends that this revised shoreline permit be approved. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the revised Shoreline Permit #SSDP88-0013 as recom- mended. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Petition to Establish County Roads: Boardwalk Place and St. James Place: Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon reported that the County received a petition to have two roads built as part of the Bishop Gardens plat accepted as County roads. The County Engineer has inspected the roads and reports that they are necessary to provide access for property, emergency ingress and for orderly development of the area. The following conditions are recommended: · The width of the right-of-way be 60 feet with a 100 foot cul-de-sac. Deeds for the right-of-way need to be secured prior to final approval. The roads need to be regraded and reshaped due to construction impacts. Any utilities not yet installed should be installed prior to regrading. . The Chairman opened the public testimony portion of the hearing: : V{}l 20 t~&~ 539 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Swallow stated that when the plat was done originally, the roads were to be dedicated to the County, but the transfer was never made. The roads were graded out at that time, but trucks have used them and that is why the work is necessary. He reported that the rest of the houses in the plat should be done shortly and then the roads can be improved. Sunny Vandervorst, a neighboring property owner, asked if the road will be any wider than what is already there? Public Works Director Gary Rowe answered that the road was approved to be 20 feet wide with 14 feet of gravel surfacing. Mr. Swallow stated that the road is graveled for a width of 23 feet and is almost 26 feet wide. Gary Rowe added that the County would do no more than maintain what is there now after it is repaired. If traffic in the future warrants it, a chip seal cover may be placed on the road. Bud Vandervorst asked if St. James Place is being expanded through to Kala Point? Bob Hender- son, Public Works Department, reported that the PUD water line will be extended in the future from the St. James Place cul-de-sac to Kala Point. Bud Vandervorst added that St. James Place doesn't follow the centerline of the right-of-way. Mr. Swallow explained that the road is in the boundary lines of the roadway, but the project proponent did not want to make a perfectly straight road so he built curves in it. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to accept these roads as County roads when the conditions recom- mended by the County Engineer have been met. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Amendment of Resolution No. 26-94; Changing a Public Hearin2 Date; Application for Franchise on South Point Road: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLU- TION NO. 33-94 to change the public hearing from April 4, 1994 to April 11, 1994 at 11:15 a.m. on the application for franchise submitted by AI Schoenfeld. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request to Establish a Name for a Private Road; Cottonwood Camp Road: Traffic Engineering Technician, Bob Henderson, reported that a request has been submitted to establish a name for a private road in the West End as Price Road. The road has been known informally as Cottonwood Camp Road for a number of years. He recommended that the request be denied and that the road be named Cottonwood Camp Road. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 34-94 establishing the name of Cottonwood Camp Road. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT. Inter20vernmental Cooperation; Purchase from Yakima County Bid: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with Yakima County to allow the purchase of a road grader off of their bid. Commissioner Hun- tingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Appeal; Zone Chane:e #ZCP7-93; General Use to General Com- mercial; Property Located 800 Feet West of the Intersection of Oak Bay Road and Paradise Bay Road; Thomas and Yvonne Hansen: Chairman Hinton read the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. : VOL 20 rAG£54û Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Hiller West outlined the information submitted to the Commissioners in their packet. He noted that a letter was received from Stanley Kadesh, Greater Port Ludlow Community Council, today. Mr. Hansen was provided a copy of the letter. Tom Hansen, 2510 BOth Avenue NE Bellevue, W A 98005, explained that he and his wife are the owners of the subject property. He submitted a packet of supporting information for his presenta- tion regarding the appeal of the Commissioners February 14, 1994 decision denying his request for rezone. He then presented the issues he wants the Board to give more consideration: · Undue and incorrect consideration of restrictive covenants currently on the property. A great share of the Planning Commission deliberation revolved around the restrictive covenants. There was also discussion of the covenants by the Commissioners. The covenants are private and should not be considered in the deliberations for this rezone request. He then referred to Page 13, third paragraph of the information he presented (see attached) which indicates that the restrictive covenants do not apply to Lots 12, 13 and 14 because it was assumed that these lots would be developed for commercial uses and they were never seen as residential sites. He pointed out that the master developer of Port Ludlow (Pope Resources) has always viewed these lots as commercial. Commissioner Wojt asked Mr. Hansen to explain his testimony (as presented on page 13) on the Loomis rezone request? Mr. Hansen reported that he testified against the Loomis request because Lot 13 did not include the corner lot (Lot 14). He stated he was unaware at the time he pur- chased his property that Pope Resources had a lot line adjustment application in for Lot 14 to create a larger lot. They also had an individual ready to purchase the property for commercial purposes. He was against that rezone because he understood these lots would be used for residential purposes. He explained further that when he purchased his property lots 2 through 11 were all covered under one set of restrictive covenants. He was told that lots 12 and 13 would be included in those covenants. When he purchased the property he was provided with restrictive covenants that covered his lot only. He was told that when Lot 13 was sold there would be re- strictive covenants on it. He submitted an appeal to the Hearing Examiner asking that the lot line adjustment be revoked and was told that he filed his appeal too late. Chairman Hinton asked what the covenants (CC & R's) were on his property when he purchase it? Mr. Hansen reported that they were the same as those on the lot next to his that has been rezoned commercial. The lot was restricted to residential use, the property could be subdivided once, but it would still be restricted to single family residential use. He then referred to pages 23, 24, and 25 (of his presentation information) which shows the letter requesting the release from the restrictive covenants and page 26 which is a letter from Jefferson Title stating that they would accept the release. A letter has been sent to the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (pages 27 and 28) requesting that the restrictive covenants be removed. Mr. Hansen added that he feels the restrictive covenants improperly influenced the decision on his rezone. . The Planning Commission felt that this request was spot zoning. Mr. Hansen then reviewed the plans of the Morningside Covenant Church which, he says currently has a conditional use permit application submitted to the County. The development plan for their property includes the use of four buildings on the property. In addition to church and Sunday School services in these buildings there will also be a day care center, pre-school and use of the facilities by outside organizations (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.) and if there is demand, a kindergarten through sixth grade school. Under the definition of the General Commercial zone are the words -- retail delivery of goods or services. He feels that this church development falls under the definition of commercial use because they will be delivering services and receiving fees for them. He added that if his lot, if left residential, it will create spot zoning because his would be the only residential lot in the area. There are natural geographical constraints to development on his lot (to the : VOL 20 r~E541 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . west.) The major easement road into the area is controlled by Pope Resour- ces. All other easements are private. Commissioner Wojt asked what the physical constraint is to the development of Mr. Hansen's lot? Mr. Hansen reported there is a ravine and then cliffs on the north side of Oak Bay Road. · Avoidance of strip development. The Planning Commission stated that this rezone of his property could lead to strip development. He doesn't feel this applies because of the topography of the area to the west of the property. To the east there is a ravine. To the south there is property that Pope Resources has scheduled for a town house development. The only potential for strip development is the area that has already been rezoned commercial. · Commercial development should be in a blocklike fashion. (reference is page 35 of presentation - see attached.) Mr. Hansen stated that he fails to see how the areas currently rezoned commercial were done in a "blocklike fashion." He reported that blocklike fashion to him means that the area of commercial development is in a square configuration essentially centered on the major intersection of Paradise Bay Road and Oak Bay Road. This would include lots 12, 13, 14, the Hora property, the MoriarityIHilbert property, and the Ludlow Village property (just the five plus acres over to Breaker Lane.) · Minority report from the Planning Commission: Mr. Hansen asked that the Board consider the Planning Commission's minority report in this review. · The Planning Department staff report (pages 14 through 18 of presentation material.) The Planning Department staff report to the Planning Com- mission was in support of approving this rezone request. · Comprehensive Plan (pages 6 through 11 of the presentation materials.) Mr. Hansen reported that the Comprehensive Plan considers Port Ludlow a focused area of growth. Mr. Hansen noted that he has talked with people in the area about his plans to build a retirement facility on that property and he feels there is demand for such a project (see page 30) because there is significant need for this type of housing in the community. Mr. Hansen then requested that the Board consider reversing their initial decision based on the arguments presented. Commissionèr Wojt asked about the issues raised by the Port Ludlow Planning Committee that Mr. Hansen's project could be done through a request for a conditional use permit and that would provide review of the issues such as sewage, water and access? Mr. Hansen reported on his meeting with the Ludlow Maintenance Commission and a discussion with a member of the Planning Committee regarding his project. He will be attending the next meeting of the Planning Committee to discuss his project. Hiller West reported that a conditional use permit is required for multi-family projects in both the general use and general commercial zones. Chairman Hinton asked the designation of the property to the west of Mr. Hansen's? Hiller West answered that it is General Use under the Zoning Code. Commissioner Wojt asked where the UGA boundary is located? James Holland, Senior Planner, reported that the project is located within the boundaries of the Interim Urban Growth Area. The discussion turned to the Comprehensive Plan maps and the dots on them that indicate commercial areas and how those areas are defined. Mark Huth reported that the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan are what limit the size of commercial centers. These policies deal with trying to control strip development and commercial development being in a blocklike fashion. Chairman Hinton asked for a good definition of strip development? Mark Huth answered that commercial development that is located strictly along a major highway and doesn't extend inland along either side of the highway and creates traffic hazards and congestion by a profusion of accesses onto the highway from various commercial developments. Hiller West added that it t VOL 20 fAG~ 542 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . would also include a profusion of signs due to small parcels being developed independently without a plan. Chairman Hinton asked about the church proposal on the adjacent property? Hiller West reported that there has not been a site plan submitted for the County's review for Lot 13 and there has not been a request for a rezone of that lot. He noted that any discussion related to development on that parcel at this time is speculative. Mark Huth added that churches have been considered as "unclassified" uses rather than a "commercial" use previously under the Interim Zoning Ordinance. If a church were to be regarded as a commercial use it would be non-conforming. This is not a very strong argument that there will be an adjacent commercial use. If contiguous properties are not afforded the same treatment as this property, then there is a possibility of spot zoning. The property across Oak Bay Road however, owned by Pope Resources, has been recently designated as commercial. In response to a question from Commissioner Wojt regarding the possible development of the site, Mark Huth explained that the Board is only considering a rezone request today. Commissioner Wojt asked what right the change in zoning would give Mr. Hansen, that he doesn't already have? Mark Huth answered that he would have no additional rights if his proposal is for a multi-family project. He would be required to apply for a conditional use permit in either the General Use or the General Commercial zone. If the property is designated commercial, Mr. Hansen would have the right to apply for any type of permitted commercial use on the site. Hiller West added that permitted commercial uses would include retail and wholesale buying and selling, distribution of goods, and warehousing. With regard to the issue about covenants (CC & R's), Mark Huth explained that the Board is to decide whether or not it has been clearly demonstrated that the proper zoning designation for this property is commercial. Whether or not the CC&R's, which are a private agreement, indicate that there won't be commercial development on the site is only a piece of evidence and cannot be the sole grounds for denying the rezone. Mr. Hansen's statement that Pope Resources, as the master planner for Port Ludlow, intended that this lot be commercial, can only be considered as evidence also, Mark Huth noted. There is no community development plan in Port Ludlow that is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Pope Resources has a master plan, but it is not the County's master plan. It is strictly a private developers view of how the property should be developed. The Chairman opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Bill Wooten, President of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, reported that Mr. Hansen has submitted a request to the Commission asking that his lot be released from the provisions of the c.c. & R's. This request has been forwarded to their attorney who will provide them with a legal opinion regarding whether they have the right to act on that request. The Commission will also consider the input from adjacent property owners. Stanley Kadesh, Co-Chairman of the Port Ludlow Community Planning Committee, stated that they are concerned about water supply. (See attached letter.) They would like to know if Mr. Hansen has received agreement from Pope Resources to place his project on the water and sewer system? He asked that the Board not take any action on this matter until their committee has had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Hansen about his project. Janet Welch, Planning Commission member, reported on the Planning Commission deliberations over this rezone request and the reasons for their recommendation. Mr. Hansen then responded to her comments. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman Hinton closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to reject the appeal and uphold the Board's previous decision to deny this request for a rezone. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Prosecuting Attorney reported that findings and conclusions will be prepared for the Board to sign at a later meeting. : VOL 20 rAG~ 543 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business, and reconvened on Tuesday morning. All three Board members were present for consultant interviews and then a workshop on the Planning Commission report on the Zoning Ordinance. HEARING re: Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (at the Chimacum High School Auditorium): Chairman Bob Hinton opened the hearing at Chimacum High School and ex- plained the hearing procedure. Commissioner Glen Huntingford and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present. There were approximately 150 residents in attendance. Al Boucher, Port Hadlock, said the statement of purpose for each critical area section was made subordinate to the overall purpose of Section 1.20. The central purpose of Section 1.20 is to provide a framework for the ordinance "to protect designated critical areas," but, he questioned the meaning of the words "to protect." The definition of "Protection" is not good enough and it should be bounded by both what it includes and what it excludes. Mr. Boucher expanded on his reasons for a bounded definition, citing sections within the Ordinance. He made several specific suggestions for changes within the Ordinance. Those specific suggestions were contained in a written comment he submitted for the record (copy attached). Robert Greenway, Port Townsend, said he will submit a more technical written critique of the ordinance in addition to his oral comments. He does not believe the current draft meets the GMA or minimum guidelines. He worked on all of the previous drafts of the Critical Areas Ordinance. He thinks the environmental health of the county is on the line. There have been distortions of the motives of the people who advocate compliance with the law. It is not true that people who advocate compliance also advocate regulation. The various groups need to stop debating and start talking with each other to work out solutions. Some of us are little guys and are hit just as hard by the GMA as others with different viewpoints. It's said that we want to use the GMA to stop growth, but that is absurd; there's no way to stop the growth. Minimum compliance is not about stopping growth, but managing the growth so it doesn't damage the environment in the long run. Another distortion is that some are willing to trade environmental protection for economic development. There is no long term economic growth if the environment is destroyed. He thinks the majority of the distortions come from a minority of large land owners, who have a lot to gain from the lack of regulations. The less regulation, the more money you can make from developing your land. They are using alarmist tactics to engender fear in many of us about any regulations whatsoever. This doesn't give a chance to work out reasonable regulations. He challenged those people to state what it is they expect to get from no regulation and also to see what it is they will lose in economic necessity of a healthy environment. Dick Steele, an oyster farmer in Dabob Bay, said that in 1895 the legislature passed laws to rejuvenate the shellfish industry in the State. There was no mention in the entire draft ordinance about salt water beaches, shellfish, tidelands, or anything from a recreational or commercial aspect. There is recognition of wetlands of all sorts as well as other areas, with the exception of our beaches and areas that might be sensitive to the shoreline. He said that the protection for steep slopes and streams did help in protecting the beaches, but our shores should be mentioned specifically also. It's an area that is quite free of pollution now and it should remain that way. Hargrave Garrison, Sequim, owns property along Discovery Bay, said he thought the Board was dominated by two conservative Commissioners, but that Larry (former Commissioner Larry Dennison) would be proud of this document. We're talking about a political process, not a scientific or moral process. Most people are environmentalists. He and others were very bewildered by the document because it is very repressive. Somehow the middle ground has been lost in this County, and it's gotten so we can't even talk to each other. That's what happens when this kind of regulation is put in. Every house in the County that could not be built under this document would be a legal non-conforming use. It would be necessary to have a consultant make a determination under this ordinance, before you could sell your house or even build an addition. He said he feels the County should go into this seriously. Joshua Sage, Port Townsend, said that we need to look at the difference between being short sighted and far sighted, and what would be lost and what would be gained. They [the Board] are doing what they are required to do. It's a no win situation. The people's rights are not what they used to be. Expectations are not met and cannot be met. There is a desire to have [ VOL 20 rAGE 544 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . ,e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . everything, and yet we can't have everything. We can't afford it. Reality has to be faced. The Board is doing the best they can. At least, let them do what they have to do. Tom Jay, Chimacum, said it's time to stop and look at what we're doing to our community. We can all agree that we want salmon, clean water, and wildlife. He asked the Commissioners to provide some leadership. Rules need to be made based on the needs of the ecology, but to also make the rules fair. The people who's land contains critical areas should not be made to sacrifice. The whole community should share the expense of that sacrifice by the individual land owner. The market has never proved itself very good at managing natural resources; it's either boom or bust. We can't go backwards on resource issues, but we can go ahead by paying people a fair price for something they're giving up. When we pay people for resource production areas, we should pay for the function of that area and not the speculative value of that area. People would be surprised how much natural areas are worth. He urged a discriminate approach to compensation for land owners for their resource production areas and leadership to try to bring the community back together to get off the confrontational mode and back onto a cooperative mode. Mari Phillips, Quilcene, said that she could re-submitted her comments from the December, 1992, hearing with only minor changes. That hearing reflected democracy in action. There are similar shortcomings in this ordinance. She said that she was concerned that single family residences and septic permits are included as triggering permits. These must be removed because they are in conflict with GMA Goals #2, #5, and most importantly #4. Under Definitions, the words "Clearing", "Excavation", "Grading", and "High Intensity (a) and (c)" need to be re-worked. It is inconceivable that a 750 square foot building could be considered high intensity. "Reasonable Use" should also be re-worked. The word "Significant" in the purpose statement was removed and must be reinstated for clarity. Concerning Section 1.30, the Field Guide, she questioned Where it is? Who wrote it? Who critiques it? and Where is it now? People are unaware that if you have three critical areas on your land, all critical area standards apply, which means substan- tial expense. The important thing is to write an ordinance that is legal and defensible and will impact the citizens the least, but still offer protection to our environment. Clark County also took six or seven drafts for their Critical Areas Ordinance and it has withstood Growth Hearings Board scrutiny. She advised the Board to go slow, careful, and to be very conservative. She reminded Commissioners Huntingford and Hinton of GMA Goals #5 and #6, Economic Development and Property Rights. Pete Brady, Port Townsend, said the current draft is complete and that the building permit trigger is vital. This draft is not ideal and has somewhat less than the recommendations for minimum protection. This is an interim ordinance. The time that will be taken in the Comprehensive Plan revision will allow time to determine affects of the ordinance in terms of takings, compensation, etc. There has been nothing yet on the actual affects of the regulations. There needs to be information on what it actually means on the ground. Restrictions on rights have been in existence for a long time, such as zoning restrictions. He urged a change to Finding #32, which talks about the acreage in the County that is under Federal, State, and other government regula- tion, with only 11 % left over. The conclusion seems to be that the 11 % doesn't need to be regulated. He urged the Commissioners to pass the ordinance as is as an interim regulation to meet the State requirements. Lorna Ward, Quilcene, said she was very concerned about the power given to the Administrator through the Ordinance. It seems that the only ones with a say over properties are government agencies and the Administrator. She is concerned that these could open the door to corruption. She cited several sections of the Ordinance where she thought the Administrator had too much power: 4.10(b) the Administrator determining exemptions; 4.10(g) and 4.10(2) the Administrator making rules; 5.101 the Administrator having power over triggering applications; 6.402 and 6.403 waivers are completely in the hands of the Administrator; 6.504 and 6.505 regarding buffers and vegetation, and 6.506, 6.507, and 6.508 regarding reduction, increasing and averaging of wetland buffer widths, any group or individual could influence the Administrator through bribery; 7.60 Mitigating Conditions could be influenced in the same way. She said that Sections 9.507 and 9.508 referred to 9.507.6 above, but there is no Section 9.507.6. Section 6.509 and 9.601 were open to corruption and dishonesty. 10.506, 10.508, and 11.10 were likewise open for corruption and dishonesty. There isn't anyone who should have this much power. She doesn't think the first paragraph in #33 would be upheld. t VOL 2 0 rAG~ 545 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donald Swanson, Chimacum, said that through Section 10.509 the buffer widths can be increased to any limits. The property owner should have some recourse if the buffer width was increased excessively. Jerry Ficklin, Gig Harbor, representing the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, said the PSWQA has the Water Quality Management Plan for the Puget Sound. County ordinances are reviewed for consistency with the Plan. The P$WQ>SWQA feels the interim ordinance draft is a substantive initial step towards adopting the controls needed in Jefferson County to protect water quality. They encourage adoption of the regulations as soon as possible. He said that written comments have been submitted. The Purposes section should be amended to include references to environmental impacts which cause damage to critical areas. The Ordinance is lacking in protection for shoreline areas, in shellfish protection particularly. Shellfish growing areas should be included as critical areas and protected from incompatible upland land uses. The Ordinance should clearly state a goal for no net loss of wetlands. The wetlands definition should be expanded to include ponds of less than 20 acres in size. The Shoreline Management Act currently protects ponds greater than 20 acres, and if this ordinance does not protect the smaller ponds, there would be a gap that those would fall through. They particularly support Section 3.112 which prohibits actions which would violate the Ordinance. However, PSWQA feels that you should consider adding "regulated activities" to the list of prohibited activities, such as excavation, grading, etc. Section 3.30 is a bit confusing in that it includes additions, and Section 3.40 exempts alterations. It may be helpful to include definitions of those terms. We feel the adoption of the Ordinance, particularly if amended as suggested, would provide an important step towards protection of natural resources of Jefferson County. Barbara Getz, Quilcene, with a farm in Tarboo Valley, read from a prepared statement which she also submitted (copy attached). She said she doesn't understand all the wording and wondered what has happened to common sense. She said that Section 3, requiring that all critical area standards apply if your property falls under more than one critical area, which would create severe financial hardship for many property owners. In our case, our farm is in wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and geological hazardous areas according to County maps. The buffers required taken together would gobble up a substantial acreage. Each of these critical areas calls for different professional engineers or consultants which would be extremely expensive. In addition, the Administrator called for in various sections of the Ordinance has too much power over the final outcome of the ordinance. Why can't the Planning Commission make the final decision? She objected to the fees in Appendix A because the tax payers are already paying their salary. She said they have worked hard for their farm and it is to be their security for retire- ment. They do not plan to divide the farm up and sell a parcel at a time. It would be sold as an entire package. All the rules and regulations forced on us reduces the farm's value. If we cannot open existing drainage ditches or allow for new ditches, then the State and County have condemned our farm. She said she and her husband protest this infringement on their property rights. Jerry Getz, Quilcene, explained why he is against the so-called experts the County has hired in the past trying to tell you how to run your farm. He said he doesn't do anything on the farm that would hurt the land or anyone else. Ed Manary, Assistant to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the Department would want the cities and counties to pass ordinances which provides adequate protection for fish and wildlife habitat. Fisheries has limited ability to provide that protection. It's limited to the hydraulic code, which deals with work taking place in State waters. The Department is interested in being a constructive participant in the growth management process. He said the Department had completed an inventory of salmon and steel head stocks, in conjunc- tion with the treaty tribes, which identified 435 separate stocks. 187 were healthy, 122 were depressed (10 of which originate in Jefferson County), and 12 were critical (3 of which originate in Jefferson County). Endangered species petitions have been filed on the three critical stocks in Jefferson County. Next week the Pacific Fishery Management Council will adopt regulatory salmon fisheries packages for the ocean that will be the most severe in the State's history. In addition, we can expect to see curtailments in the Straits of Juan DeFuca, Admiralty Inlet, and as far south as the north end of Vashon Island. He said he appreciates the problems the County is addressing and the fortitude shown in the draft presented. Section 2.40 now includes building permits and on-site sewage disposal as triggering applications. Section 6.3 adds Class III and IV wetlands as being subject to the Ordinance. Section 8 addresses flood plains. Section 9 more accurately describes geologically hazardous areas. Section 10 now includes Type 4 and 5 waters l VOL 20 U,{;: 546 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in fish and wildlife conservation areas and provides increased buffers. While those were not easy decisions, they were decisions that needed to be made. Section 1.02 should include language to the effect that the purpose of the Ordinance is to provide protection of critical areas against development proposals that poses environmental impacts, but at the same time provide protection for public health, safety and welfare. Section 6.05 should be revisited and the comments provided when we were here last, should be considered. Section 7 could be improved by including protection of water quantity and well as water quality. Marine fish and shellfish needs to be talked about in Section 3. High density development needs to be kept away from priority fish and wildlife habitats and to integrate fish and wildlife management guidelines in all land use planning decisions. With further work, the Ordinance can be a cornerstone for the Comprehensive Plan and other growth management planning. Commissioner Huntingford asked for clarification of the statement about water quantity? Ed Manary answered that it goes back to Section 10.303 and Section 7. Julie Jaman said that the water issue was laced through the Ordinance and all the way through this County. Many water problems have come to light recently in the County. Property rights of residents are severely impacted for lack of protection of water resources. Clean, adequate well water is not protected in this Ordinance. Section 7.401 has no reference to review of building permits in reference to critical aquifer recharge and water withdrawal. Section 7.302 will allow pollution of rural aquifers similar to what is already happening in Quilcene. If we cannot assure potable water supply now, what will we all be paying? She asked that her testimony of Novem- ber 23 be considered in reference to this proposed draft ordinance. Chairman Hinton said that written testimony would be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on April 4, 1994. Cliff Larrance, Discovery Bay, said that he was encouraged to hear that people were willing to pay for protection. We need to protect the lots that are already there for the people that have bought them. He is not really worried about the developers that move in; when they divide up their property, they can deal with it then. We need to take care of the people that are already here. It doesn't do much good to pass this and try to amend it later. It would be better to try and straighten it out now. Of the 11% of the County covered by the Ordinance, a lot of the land is timber land covered by DNR regulations. According to the way this reads, you could build a logging road in the middle of winter, but you couldn't dig a foundation for a house. That doesn't make sense. You need to make sure that the younger and older people in the County can do something with their land. Harold Moe, Port Ludlow, said that building permits and septic permits should be removed from the Ordinance as triggering applications. He talked about the current regulations governing septic permits and well protection. This Ordinance would require more reports which would add more expense. These reports would be added to the cost of the house. This will affect affordable housing. Jerrv Gorsline commended the Board for improvements in this draft, particularly the inclusion of Type 4 and 5 streams and Class III and IV wetlands. He urged the Board to make a decision. We're two years out of compliance with the requirements of GMA. This drawn out process is draining the human and financial resources of this County. It's the Board's responsibility to make these kinds of tough decisions. Judith Fesam spoke about watersheds. (Judith Fesam spoke so softly, the tape did not pick up well and was not very understandable,) She advocated working together rather than at cross purposes. Dick Broders, Discovery Bay, said that one of the biggest problems is that the County had never identified which regulations were for public health and safety and which were for public benefit, as recommended by DCD. The regulations in this Ordinance are for both of those. The DCD recognized that public benefits should be paid for by the public. He hopes this can be worked on in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the biggest problems with this Ordinance now is that building and septic permits are triggering permits. The people [individuals] who apply for these permits don't know how the process works or what they're getting involved in. People who do develop- ment are not hurt too bad by this Ordinance. He believes the Commissioners are sincere in wanting building and septic permits to be simple and easy for individuals to get, but the wording in this Ordinance makes it a complicated process. If outside consultants are used to satisfy the tVDl 20tAŒ547 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . County, the applicant may even have to pay for that. He cited an example of a one acre lot with a wetland and the resulting buffer making the lot unbuildable. He said the remedy process for "Reasonable Economic Use" through the Hearing Examiner is expensive and probably would still result in denial of a building permit. Individual building permits should not be triggering permits, but if they are, there could be an optional permitting application instead of the normal critical areas review. There should be some written performance standards and statements like "econom- ically viable use" for the property instead of "reasonable economic use". There should be things like "minimize intrusion in the buffer areas" to allow an individual to put their house in the buffer area if that's what they have to have to fit it on a lot. Dan Thompson, Quilcene, said that it is interesting that agents of the government entities come to the hearings to promote their interests and the interests of their employers. Many of us are here to protect our property. Some people are here to take away the property rights of others. He suggested that those who want to protect property should buy as much property as they can afford in order to do so. Government regulations for permits are the initiation of coercion and an attempt to commit robbery. He spoke about the Fourth Amendment. He said we are besieged by do-gooders who say we must be forced for the good of ourselves to conduct our activities on our property according the superior wisdom of alleged experts who know nothing of the details of our properties. These experts will not bear the results of their actions as do the property owners. He said that the experts were interested in perpetuating their own interests. Ashley Sorenson (9 years old) asked the Commissioners not to take her dreams of living on her grandma's property away. Hugh Locke, Port Ludlow, said the Administrative authority under the Ordinance gives too much power to the County staff. He described a situation of an individual wanting to build on a one acre parcel with wetland and well setbacks. He said it would be impossible to build on that parcel and it would be very expensive. It would kill the little man. He said the Ordinance should be revised to enhance the property owners and property rights. If the State or the County wants these large buffers, they should pay for them. This is a property rights problem. If buffers are not reasonable, they should buy it. Bob French, Brinnon, said he was concerned about the Administrator's power. Another concern was the buffer zone requirements. He's never seen a buffer zone that works. Stopping siltation at its source is a solution, but trying to stop siltation with a buffer zone will not work. He said that taking individual's property is stealing. The triggering applications under the Ordinance will take the young people out of the County; they can't afford all the fees. He blamed the decline in salmon on the Boldt decision and the Marine Mammal Act. Dave Clevenger, Chimacum, referred to Section 3.30 which listed the triggering permits, including additions and remodeling, and then Section 3.40 which listed exemptions, including alterations, and said there needs to be clarification of what constitutes "remodeling" or "alteration". He said another conflict in the wording is in Subsection 3 which allows repair or maintenance of a legally existing structure without a permit. Subsection 4 indicates that a legal structure that is destroyed could be replaced without a building permit or going through a triggering application. There are wording conflicts that need to be re-worked. He said that Section 4.10 gives the Administrator executive powers that should be revisited. As a builder, he said he has over 100 hours of his unpaid time in permit processes for each project. He described a situation where State Fisheries caused a year's delay on a project after all State and County permits were obtained and that the project was not even within their jurisdiction. It's costing more and more money every day to do business. He questioned how builders could compete for affordable housing projects if they are not exempt from some of the permitting processes. Barbara Fisk, Quilcene, said that about 35 acres of their 110 acres would fall under three different critical areas in the proposed Ordinance. She said that under this ordinance and the proposed Forest Lands Ordinance, their property would decrease in value from approximately $500,000 to about $50,000. She asked if the County taxpayers would compensate them for the loss? She said she could not understand a requirement for a 300 foot buffer along Donovan Creek on their property, but only a 75 foot buffer along Donovan Creek for a proposed logging area just to the north of their property. The siltation from the logging will cause more damage than any home building or livestock. Beaver activity in the creek makes changes to the creek and wetlands. She also objected to the power given to the Administrator. She said that Section 6.510 gives the i VOL 20 f,r,f 548 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Administrator power to change buffer widths without due process. She asked who would pay for the documentation to find out if the buffer is maintaining a visible, viable population of existing species? She said that the buffers will not stop the degradation of wildlife when hunting season opens in September and runs through December and because of the year-round poaching. The buffers will not protect the salmon when there are nets strung from the Pacific, through the Straits, into the bays and up the rivers. She said that the fees in Appendix A would add about $10,000 to the cost of building a new home. The need for affordable housing will be adversely affected by all the required permits. She said that if regulations are to be in place, they should be for all and not exempt a select few. There are problems with Sections 1.20, 2.40, 3.30, 3.40, 3.50, 4.10, 4.20, 4.40, 5.302, 6.504, and 6.505. The Commissioners must amend and correct it so it will not be so devastating. Everyone in Jefferson County will be affected by this ordinance and the requirements of GMA. Paula Mackrow, Port Townsend, addressed the aquifer recharge area portion of the Ordinance. She said that it was unclear what the intention is concerning updating the census information. She said that the Ordinance requires an expensive aquifer recharge report and only gives staff ten days to review the report. It also requires staff to come up with data which the County does not have as yet. It's a ridiculous mitigation that cannot be met. It will not protect water quality and quantity as required by GMA. She said that the recent water issues the County has faced should point out the need to protect water available for users that are here now. She said the monitoring suggested in 7.40 was not a protection of water quantity. The County needs to protect existing water rights. Dick Toepper, Port Ludlow, said the County should go back to square one with the ordinance and come up with something more sensible. The Ordinance says it's to protect the public benefit, so the costs should be borne by the public. He talked about property rights under the Constitution and regulations undermining those rights. Dave Phinizy, Snow Creek near Discovery Bay, said he doesn't understand why some things are looped in the way they are. He said he found no data to support building permits as a triggering mechanism under the GMA. He said that most of the major land use issues that came from the State have categorical exemptions for single family residences building permits. He cited the Shorelines Management Act as one such example of the Legislature understanding that you can't take those values from people. It's getting very difficult to create affordable housing with all of the permitting and associated costs that keep being added. Steve Moddemeyer, representing the Port Gamble S'KJallam Tribe, thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of the comments submitted by the Tribe on the previous draft. He spoke about treaty rights and the resulting concern for habitat management. The tribes have tried to get the needed expertise for that purpose in recent years. The recommendations the tribe makes on the Ordinance reflects the scientific understanding of the need to protect treaty rights. The wetland and stream buffers fall below what is recommended by the science. There is a concern that the salmon stock report, to identify salmon stocks that are in trouble, does not have a way to benefit itself in this proposal. Part of the economic development that Jefferson County has for the future is in shellfish. Orville Fisk, Quilcene, said that the impact fees, building permits, critical area reports, etc., etc., just add costs to building a home, about $10,000 to $15,000. You can't build affordable housing with those costs. He blamed the decrease in salmon on the Indian fishery. Buffering won't help the salmon if the Indian fishery takes them all. Peter Bahls, Point No Point Treaty Council, said they appreciate the amendments that have been made to the Ordinance including protection for streams and wetlands and the addition of building permits as triggering permits. Shellfish habitat is not designated or protected. Cultural and archeological resources are not designated or protected. Streams and wetlands are protected but with biologically inadequate buffers. Drainage and erosion control provisions in each section do not cover potential impacts adjacent to the buffer. Drainage and erosion control provisions address only sedimentation and do not protect fish, shellfish, wildlife and downstream property from stormwater runoff, and changes in water quality, such as toxics, and quantity. Geologically hazardous areas are protected with inadequate buffers. No buffers are provided for marine shorelines or lake shores unless it's covered under unstable slopes. Wetland delineation should be based on the 1989 Manual. Natural areas of local significance are protected under the Ordinance ~Vßl 20 Ut~ 5~9 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but they are not designated. Pollution of aquifers in low density rural areas is allowed. Aquifers are not protected from over withdrawal. The Critical Areas Ordinance uses the County's Flood Plain Ordinance, which is now inadequate to address the protection of the flood plain. There are no provisions for review by outside parties, especially to the Waiver conditions. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. Bahls what more the County could do to protect shellfish beds? Commissioner Huntingford said that currently single family homes would be exempt within 200 feet of the shoreline, so we're looking at building permits. We're looking at clearing' and grading things. If we get into uses on the beaches, do you want us to restrict travel on the beaches? Or mechanical harvest? What else can we do to protect the shorelines? Peter Bahls answered that the Puget Sound Shellfish Coalition submitted a letter listing specific recommenda- tions. Adequate buffers on streams are one. The water quantity and quality and toxics issues should be addressed further. Commissioner Huntingford pointed out that the County had pretty much adopted the State Fish and Wildlife recommendations for buffers. Bruce Lindquist, Discovery Bay, read from a section of the Ordinance having to do with the Administrator interpreting the Ordinance or formulating rules. Can you imagine the Greenway- Gorsline, et aI, proposal being administered? There is a potential for corruption just based on the section giving that much power to the Administrator and it should be rejected just for that reason alone. The program can't be administered fairly the way it is written. The property owners are not prepared to pay the price of the sacrifice expected. The same people who want to control individuals' lands are the same ones who complain about low wages and high prices in this County. We need to be thinking about keeping people here instead of driving people out, which is what we're doing. Mark Stevenson, Port Townsend near the SR19/20 intersection, said that at the previous Resource Lands hearing some people said that we're all going to have to give up something. To preserve things is important to make Jefferson County a good place to live. He noted he is considering turning over half of my land to the Land Trust, even though it means some loss of profit. There may also be some tax advantage to doing that. We should see if we can arrange for compensa- tion through the tax process for people who set aside parts of their property. There is some allusion to this in the Ordinance where it mentions voluntary conservation easements and deed restrictions. I think it's still important that we put building and septic permits into this Ordinance as triggering permits. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect critical areas, and you have to look at those kinds of permits if you're going to do that. But, I would like to see some way to protect the "little guy" from having to put out a lot of money for consultants. The person who talked about having a creek running through their place being the one to best manage that creek doesn't consider that what they do on their part of the creek affects other property downstream. Takings and compensation run both ways. If that person does something on their property that affects downstream property, is that person going to compensate those other property owners for the damage to their property? Someone talked about the "Have Nots" trying to take from the "Haves", but if we don't take care of our land there won't be anything for anyone. The environ- mentalists aren't making these things happen. He urged the Commissioners to approve the Ordinance and quit fighting over the details and get on with the process. Robert Krutenat, Port Ludlow, said that the Ordinance was strengthened from previous drafts by adopting the Uniform Building Code definition and the 1987 Wetlands Manual. He addressed the drinking water issue saying that there isn't a bigger threat to public health than no drinking water. He asked that the County include in the definition for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, the quantity of recharge as well as the quality. In addition the same should be included in Section 7 (7.402 and 7.403). These sections do address both quantity and quality and are, therefore, inconsistent with other sections of the Ordinance. The Ordinance should be uniformly consistent and talk about both water quantity and quality. He suggested that an additional section offering a direct, low cost avenue of appeal to the County Commissioners for individuals who feel aggrieved for specific situations. This might alleviate some of the problems people see with the high costs associated with the Ordinance. Wendy Wrinkle, Shine, said she was only addressing the aquifer recharge section. As a result of only minor and insignificant changes, she answered that she wants to make sure that her com- ments on the previous draft be made a part of this record, because they still apply. The only urban growth area that relies totally on aquifers for of drinking water is totally unprotected by this ordinance. The problem with that is that Port Ludlow has no other source of water. If you're ~ VOL 20 u.iG£550 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . not willing to protect that source, then you're offering us nothing. In addition, two of the three forest proposals again do not protect these areas and, in fact, promote development over the top of the aquifer recharge area in densities far in excess of what is safe. There is no responsibility on behalf of development interests to protect the water resource. As a result, this Ordinance is critical because if you don't force them to protect it, they won't protect it. Then all the taxpayers would pay the price to bring in water resources from other areas through the negligence of the developers. Currently Pope Resources is looking at sources of water from elsewhere just to meet the needs for what they have over-exploited for just the EIS development. There is nothing stopping this from occurring County-wide without rewriting the Ordinance. It's in your hands [the Board]. Doug Milholland, Port Townsend, spoke about the difficulties he faced in developing some property in the city. The legislature passed the GMA, but the County Commissioners have to do something honorable with it. The Commissioners are in a tough place trying to satisfy all factions. I agree with the person who said that it is unfair to require a 300 foot buffer along a stream on their property, but only a 75 foot buffer was required on a logging operation near that same stream. There needs to be clear regulations in this County. I don't want our environment to be lost. There is still something special here on the Peninsula, compared to the Seattle metro area. I want the Board to make a fair, strong resolution to this matter and to quit bickering, and to get down to the hard business of forcing people to do the best thing. I want something to be left for our children and grandchildren. Ryan Tillman, Nordland, said that in the Definitions having to do with single-family residential there is no difference between high intensity and low intensity based on the density of the site. If residential is detrimental to a wetland or stream, it ought to be kept at a certain buffer regardless of the density. Section 5.10 talks about "probable" critical areas but the word probable is deleted later. In Section 5.301 the proponent is required to make the determinations themselves. It seems like there's a joint responsibility there between the County and the proponent. In Section 5.303 it appears that any triggering application will require a biologist review of the critical area. In 6.303 it makes a statement that it does not identify a soil as hydric. As I testified at the last hearing, the SCS has very limited documents. Section 7.401, golf courses, I think it's necessary that they're required to do aquifer recharge reports. In Paragraph 5, subdivisions less than one acre, the triggering size despite the stated size of one unit per ten acres in Section 7.302 seems like a great discrepancy. The critical recharge reports in Section 10 are too extensive. The County does not have the data to dispute what a consultant would turn in. It needs to be rewritten. The drainage and erosion control belongs in its own ordinance. Clearing and grading can be done the same way. There is a conflict between 9.504 and 10.505. The Ordinance will affect the transfer of real property because all sales will now require most of these reports as contingencies. This will make delays in sales of up to four to five months. The Ordinance seems to favor the big developments over small developments because the costs are not proportional to the size of the development. Jeneen Havden, Port Townsend, asked whether property rights give you the right to damage your neighbor or all of your neighbors collectively or generations to come? Do property rights protect anyone but just you? If so, we really need to look at this ordinance. It pretends to protect some values that were required by State law. But actually it's so vague and unspecific that I doubt that it really will protect those values. It's hard to tell what this Ordinance means. There are no provisions to appeal decisions by an arbitrary Administrator. There is no such person on staff at this time who is knowledgeable. The goal of GMA is to protect critical areas. All of us, in our hearts, would do that if we could. How we're going to do that is what we've been arguing about. We have a very vital shellfish industry in this County and it is not mentioned anywhere in the Ordinance. The Ordinance should be integrated with economic realities and the shellfish industry is an economic reality we have here now. The same with the salmon. To not adequate- ly buffer the wetlands will destroy the salmon industry because wetlands are essential to the salmon. It's not an issue of someone trying to take from someone else; it's an issue of someth- ing for all of us. We need an ordinance that will take the long view and this ordinance doesn't do that. This ordinance will allow the pollution and depletion of aquifers. She asked that her statements from November be included in this record also. Paul Palmer, Chimacum, said that he deeded five acres of property to each of his children when they graduated from high school. All of their properties taken together total 120 acres. His children want to know if they can put a residence on each of their five acre parcels? Under the ~ V¡}L ""0"", ~~'1 ë: Ut:~' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ordinance, we have an aquifer recharge area, a wetland, and a wildlife habitat area. He talked about a man-made two acre pond he constructed several years ago now being called a Class II water. He has a drainage ditch constructed in 1871 that is now being called a Class III stream. Through much time and effort, he succeeded in removing the stream and man-made pond from classification. Now this Ordinance comes along and he wonders where his and his children's property stands now. They are currently farming the properties. In one place in the Ordinance it says you may farm but in another place it says it's illegal, a non-conforming use. His children wonder whether they'll be able to build on their properties. Chairman Hinton suggested that Mr. Palmer check with the Planning Department for answers to his questions. Tim Wilson, Port Townsend, voiced some thoughts from his parents who could not attend the hearing. They urged the adoption of only the absolute minimum regulations possible for two main reasons: Any regulation adopted will not work as intended and will harm both the residents of the County and the environment. With respect to the fact that the regulations will not work as intended, he quoted a statement by Nick Greenfield, a Newsweek columnist, who talked about manipulating the system. The large developers who have the financial wherewithal to work the system will be the only ones who will be able to do something, while the private individual will be unable to compete financially and will be shut out. The damage to individuals who have their life savings tied up in their land which will become less valuable is obvious. Why is it presumed desirable to take away the property rights of the citizens of the County? There is data which shows that there are more trees today than at any time since the turn of the century. If you enact regulations that interfere with the economic incentive, you will find land turned to other, more profitable uses, which is once again counter to the intent of the regulations. Taking private property rights without just compensation is unconstitutional. It is not reasonable that the County should need more timberland than is currently in public ownership since 83% of all County land is owned by the government. The County is one of the nicest places in the country to live. This is because individuals value the environment, water and wildlife. Regulations can make these things undesirable to the individual because they become an unwanted encumbrance. The statement was signed by Ralph J. Wilson. Herb Beck, Quilcene, said that in both 1992 and 1993 he had submitted suggestions on previous drafts of the Critical Areas Ordinance. According to this Ordinance, I have aquifer recharge, frequently flooded, fish and wildlife, and wetland on my property. Some of my children want to build on that property. Much of the QuiJcene area falls under this particular category. Is each individual going to be required to have this engineering study? Or if a study has been done nearby, can that be used, since the land doesn't change that much except for elevation? He talked about the salmon fishing nets and the seal population in Quilcene bay since the Boldt decision and the resulting decline of the salmon. The business of the permit for a single residence being a trigger should be looked at closer. The Administrator's power is a problem. There were comments on that in the 1993 testimony. Steve Hayden, Port Townsend, started with Finding #14. On February 4, 1993, the Board adopted a motion to set aside the prior draft and produce a new draft lito the maximum feasible extent the new draft ordinance shall be limited in coverage to those minimum designations and minimum protection standards permissible under GMA." The County has gone down a lot of blind alleys in pursuit of a minimum, instead of pursuing a regulation that would work. Most practical people know the difference between something that works and something that just fits a name. The current draft demonstrates that the County has come a long way in understanding that this is not a simple matter of drafting a minimum or maximum ordinance, but of drafting an ordinance that works. The administration of this regulation leaves a lot of power to the Administrator, but it's necessary to have someone administer the ordinance. What's lacking is an adequate appeal process and adequate notice to adjacent property owners. Those need to be fixed. He recom- mended the City of Port Townsend's public notice process from their Critical Areas Ordinance. The section following Section 4.10, which talks about the power of the Administrator, provides that the Planning Commission must review the Administrator's interpretation of a rule or proce- dure and provide a recommendation to the Board, which will act on the recommendation. So the Administrator will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board. It's the public notice and appeal process that's lacking. ~V()L .20 ;r~LE 552 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of March 28, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeff Delia, who has a small oyster company in Quilcene, said he feels a tremendous threat to the oyster industry because of the way our government seems to be not protecting our livelihoods. Development has set precedents in this County that overshadow a lot of what our shellfish does for this County. It is a $7 to $10 million industry in Jefferson County alone. I commend the Board for including single family residences as a triggering device. The protection for streams and wetlands need to be beefed up in certain areas. Not in all cases do we need such extreme buffers. As an oyster grower in Quilcene and as a member of the North Canal Shellfish Coali- tion, I request that shellfish beds, commercial and recreational, be given a critical areas designa- tion. We've asked for this since the beginning of this process and it's not been included. I'm afraid it won't be long before the shellfish areas go the way of the salmon. We're looking at long-term cumulative effects. We're all neighbors and if we all start thinking like good neigh- bors, we can work out our problems. The time is past when what you do with your property does not have some effect on someone else's property. I have supported a family since 1976 on five acres of tidelands, although business costs are rising. Development, especially development adjacent to shellfish growing areas, needs to be done carefully to protect our livelihood and water quality. I hope the County comes up with an ordinance that continues to protect what we still have. Laurie Tillman said there should be something in the Ordinance that allows for the review or removal of the Administrator. I have a concern with the mapping. The maps show a certain amount of inaccuracy and it is hoped that they will be corrected before they are implemented. Chairman Hinton said the mapping on the Critical Areas Ordinance is only advisory and not regulatory. Some of them are not very accurate. Ron Marlow, Anderson Lake Road, said he would put most of his questions in writing. Finding #31 says that 61 % of the County is Federal land, 17% State land, 10% private timber land, 0.7% is tribal owned, leaving 11.3% for the private sector. How much land does the County own? It doesn't state how much land is County owned. Of the County land, how much is improved? 88% of this County is already governed by the government. The government doesn't have control over only that small portion and that's our rights as property owners. Compared to what every- one is trying to save, it's still only a very small percentage of this County. The minimum guidelines are just a guideline and the Board has to make the best decision they can given the situation. In order to get a building permit, you have to have potable water, which falls under the GMA anyway. In order to get a septic permit, you have to have the proper soil samples. You have to have the proper setbacks from wells already. The building and septic permits should not be a trigger because they already fall under other areas. If those areas are not sensitive, then at that point the building should not be sensitive. The costs under the Ordinance will affect affordable housing. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Hinton closed the public hearing. Chairman Hinton stated that written testimony will be accepted at the Commissioners' Office until 5:00 p.m. on April 4, 1994. SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY RD OF COMMISSIONERS ATIEST: ¿\YI/vVi" ~ ~~~ Lorna L. Delaney, ~ Clerk of the Board '. V01~ 20 r~t~553