Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062794 MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 27,1994 The meeting was caUed to order by Chairman Robert Hinton. Commissioner Huntingford and Commissioner Wojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION Letters of Support for Point No Point Treaty Council lAC Grant Applica- tion for Acquisition of Tamanamus Rock: The Board reviewed the request from the Point No Point Treaty Council and the Port Gamble S'KlaUam Tribe for letters of support of their lAC grant applications to acquire Tamanamus Rock and lower Tarboo Creek in order to protect these significant cultural and natural resources. Commissioner Wojt moved to sign a letter of support for these two grant applications. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The Chairman caUed for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Huntingford voted for the motion. Chairman Hinton voted against the motion. The motion carried. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance re: Exemptin2 J efTerson County from the Prohibition of Subsection (4) of RCW 9.41.050 as Permitted Under Subsection (6): Commissioner Wojt moved to set a public hearing on this proposed ordinance to exempt Jefferson County from the prohibition of subsection 4 of RCW 9.41.050 for 2:00 p.m. on July 18, 1994. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: Rick Sepler, Consultant working on the Zoning Code, reported that draft 2A of the Zoning Code has been forwarded to the Board. He reported that this draft included changes made due to comments received at the public hearing, corrections, findings, and the previously lost page 65. He noted that the clean copy of the ordinance will be available for the Board's consideration next week with a suggested effective date of September 1, 1994. Public Works GMA Project Coordinator Suzanne Drum reported that the concurrency workshop is set for August 11, 1994 and aU of the capital facilities inventories have been completed except for the School District. Their inventory wiJl be submitted later this week. , VOi~ t'I\ 0, , . ~r: Jw r,H;. n 1098 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GMA Planner Roger Bla ock introduced Sheila Weinz, John Morgan, and Kevin DeRousen, interns who wiU be wor ing on the Comprehensive Plan update. GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd noted that th Board has a memo from him regarding the sole source aquifer designation for Marrowst ne Island. Senior Planner James Ho land reported that the issue of staff responsibilities has come up during the development f implementation plans for the Critical Areas Ordinance. A draft administrative handbook n the CAO is ready and wiU be distributed to staff shortly. The draft Critical area maps re being produced. He added that the final ordinances for resource lands (forest an mineral lands) are being prepared and it is hoped they can be adopted next week. Thi wilJ be discussed further at 11:30 a.m. today. Steve Ladd reported that the State OFM has submitted their annual population estimate for the County's review. Th Planning Department wilJ be checking with OFM about their projection. He then repo ed on a meeting last Thursday with the City of Port Townsend on population projections The City's consultant predicts a County population of 38,373 in the year 2037. The Cou ty's prediction is lower by about 1,900 people. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss t e distribution of that growth in the County. He reminded the Board that there is a wo shop scheduled for 9:00 a.m. tomorrow on the Zoning Code maps. Steve Ladd concl ded by noting that the GMA Steering Committee is scheduled to meet this Thursday, but t ere isn't anything new to discuss. The Board concurred that this meeting be postponed to uly 21, 1994. PUBLIC CO ME NT PERIOD: The Board was urged to acknowledge, in some way, the sole sourc aquifer designation of Marrowstone Island. APPROVAL F THE MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of June 20, 199. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL ND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Wojt moved to ad pt and approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Approve Reco mendation to Reject Claim #C-11-94; Vehicle Damage $509.21; Dave ohnson Approve Reco mendation to Reject Claim #C-12-94; Stolen Personal Property $20,00 .00; Scott Brown Approve Reco mend at ion to Reject Claim #C-13-94; Damage to Property Locate at 221 Montgomery Lane, Port Ludlow, $125,000.00; Dean and Glori Eckmann Approve Reco mendation to Reject Claim #C-14-94; Injury above eye caused by Cou y truck $71.50; John Shold Accept Recom endation to Award Contract; Bridge Rail Retrofit 1994 Hazard Elimina ·on Program, Project #CSI097 and CSI098; $169,753.05; Pe erson Brothers, Sumner, WA AGREEMENT re: Temporary Help; From June 15, 1994 through December 31, 1 94; Planning Intern; Sheila Weinz AGREEMENT re: Temporary Help; From June 27, 1994 through April 30, 1995 n the Planning Department; Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA); No hwest Services Council Letter of Suppo t for Boeing Junior Mariner Athletic Field Grant Application; Po Townsend Little League 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. / VOL 20 fAG£ 0 1099 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 9. PROCLAMATION re: Encouraging Citizens to Remember Thomas Jefferson on each Fourth of July in Conjunction with Independence Day 10. Request for Payment; Second Quarter AIlocation, $18,650; Clallam/Jefferson Community Action Council BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Preliminary Subdivision of a 20 Acre Parcel into a 3 Lot Residential Sub- division: LPA94-0002: Stephen Swanson and P. Jay and Debi Strickland: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this subdivision is a long plat because the lots were created under the Interim Subdivision rules which prohibit short subdivision of lots created for five years. There are three lots proposed from this 20 acre parcel and the provisions of the ordinance have been met. The Planning Department recommends that preliminary plat approval be given. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the preliminary plat as recommended. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Chairman Hinton questioned the terminology listed in the second item of the Findings, Conclusions and Decision page ("reject the recommendations of the Planning Department and find that a change to the Department's recommendation is necessary.") Jerry Smith noted that this wording is right out of the County's ordinance. Chairman Hinton then questioned number 7, page 5 regarding schools. He asked if the new school mitigation should be applied to this subdivision, as it has been to others in the Chima cum School District (#49)? This report says that the project is exempt from this requirement. Jerry Smith reported that he believes that this subdivision is just barely within the Chima cum School District. He reported that he wi]] have to check with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding this exemption because of the number of lots and he will check to see what school district boundaries the project is in. Chairman Hinton also noted that he feels the open space requirement on large lot sub- divisions is too much. The requirement is that 30% of the 10% open space must be dedicated for active recreation. On large lots of five acres or more, he feels there is enough room for any type of recreation. He feels it would be more advantageous to dedicate the total 10% open space to natural settings. The Board has the option to reduce the amount of active recreation open space required on any subdivision. Jerry Smith reported that the Planning Department's recommendation is to reduce that amount as Chairman Hinton has suggested. The Chairman then pointed out that there is confusion regarding the provision of urban services and the interpretation of what that means with regard to water. He explained that it is his understanding that a community we]] is not an urban service. Jerry Smith wi]] check with the Prosecuting Attorney about the exemption from the provision for schools and verify what school district this subdivision is located within. VOL 20 rAG~ o 1100 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SDP94-0003: Expand Existin2 Shellfish Hatchery: Dabob Bay Shoreline of the Bolton Peninsula: Taylor United Inc.. Applicant: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Commission held a public hearing on this project to expand the existing shellfish hatchery and the Commission recommends approval of the Shoreline Permit with the conditions as presented. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the shoreline permit as recommended. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Chairman Hinton asked if the expansion would be any closer to Hood Canal than the existing facility? Jim Pearson reported that it doesn't go any closer to Hood Canal than the current project. After discussion and explanation of some of the conditions, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Mana2ement Commission Recommendation re: Shoreline Substan- tial Development Permit Application SDP94-0005: To Construct a 17 Foot Wide by 16 Foot Hi2h Platform for Observin2 Wildlife: Dosewallips State Park in Brinnon: Washin2ton State Parks and Recreation Commission. Applicant: Jim Pearson reported that he wrote to State Parks and they responded on June 9, 1994 that they are required to provide disabled access to public facilities such as bathrooms, water fountains and parking facilities, but there are no provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act for the observation platform. Commissioner Huntingford reported that he has talked with a person who is familiar with the trail and he feels it would be impossible to make it ADA accessible. Chairman Hinton said that he is stiU concerned that there is not a requirement for a stormwater plan for this project which is in an EnvironmentaJIy Sensitive Area. Jim Pearson reported that there will only be nine pilings driven for this project which he feels wi]] not have a significant impact. It is his understanding that materials wiU be brought in by water and then taken overland to the project site. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve shoreline permit SDP94-0005. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Jefferson County's Six Year Transportation Improvement Pro2ram 1995 to 2000: Public Works Transportation Planner Scott Kilmer reported that next year the transportation plan wiU look different due to the changes required by the Growth Management Act and the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan. They hope to have the projects on the first three years of this plan on next year's plan also. Chair- man Hinton asked if the State Department of Transportation will be able to meet concur- rency on the Transportation plan within five years? Scott Kilmer reported that he has no idea. Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing. Glen Gustavson. East QuiJcene Bav Road: Glen Gustavson reported that he has contacted the 106 property owners along this road and has heard back from 60 of them. This road has been graded three times since a petition was submitted last April and gravel has been placed on a portion of it. The road was not oiled in 1993. He asked if, when oiling is done, they could oil one half of the road at a time so people won't have to drive over the oil. Two major problems sti]] exist on this road: 1) The stretch of road at the end of the blacktop has very poor visibility, and 2) the hiU at milepost four has no visibility for VOL. 20 UG~ o 1-1.01 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . traffic going up the hill. Mr. Gustavson explained about the type of traffic on this road. He noted that there are other roads in the County which are paved and serve very little population. In 1993 the Assessor shows over $6 million in assessed valuation in this area. He asked that the Board come through by approving some improvements to this road. Ray Rogers: Mr. Rogers reported that his wife has about one third lung capacity and the dust is a problem for her. Their lot is just before the blacktop ends. He noted that the East Quilcene Road is 11th on the priority list. Scott Kilmer reported that there is $30,000 scheduled for a design report to cover from Lindsay Hill to the end of the road. This design report will provide information for determining how to proceed with improve- ment projects on the road. Mr. Rogers asked if any chip seal will be done on this road? Scott Kilmer answered that some oiling will probably be done. Mr. Rogers reported on the history of the maintenance done on this road from 1983 when he moved there. He urged that the County do some oiling and maintenance work on this road even while the engineering study is done. Hearing no further public comments the Chairman dosed the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 75-94 adopting the six year transportation plan as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Steve Ladd and James Holland re: Discussion of Remainin2 Issue from Forest and Mineral Lands Workshop: GMA Project Manager Steve Ladd presented an updated draft of the Mineral Land Ordinance as requested by the Board after their review. Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Board's questions (from the last workshop) have been forwarded to the Prosecuting Attorney, but he has not provided any answers yet. Commissioner Huntingford asked the status of the environmental review on this ordinance? James HoHand reported that a threshold determination will be issued on Wednesday. Marrowstone Island Sole Source Aquifer Desi2nation: The Board members concurred that they recognize that Marrowstone Island has been designated a sole source aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened after lunch. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford were both present. Commis- sioner Wojt was not present. HEARING re: 1994 Bud2et Appropriations/Extensions: Various County Departments: Chairman Hinton opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments for or against the requested appropriations/extensions, the Chairman dosed the hearing. Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 76-94 ordering the budget appropriation/extensions as requested. Chairman Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application SDP92-0011: To Construct a 40 Foot Lon2 by Six Foot Wide Dock Teein2 into a 105 Foot Lon2 Ramp and Float: Westerly Shore of Mats Mats Bay: Leonard Palmer. Applicant (Continued from June 13. 1994): The Chairman opened the hearing, read the hearing procedures, and asked the following questions. VOL 20 rAG~ 01102 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q) Q) Q) Q) 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. Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) Both Board members answered no. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) Both Board members answered no. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) Both Board members answered yes. Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) Both Board members answered no. Associate Planner Jim Pearson noted that the Board has the staff report that was submitted to the Shoreline Commission for their public hearing (held July 21, 1993), a brief compila- tion of their review, the minutes from that Shoreline Commission hearing, the application, additional information from Mr. Palmer, and a site plan. He noted that a variance is required for this project to a]]ow the dock to exceed 60 feet in length (Master Program Section 5.60 - Performance Standard 13b.) In order to grant a variance the proposal needs to meet the criteria outlined in Section 7.10 General variances in the Master Program (listed on page 5 of the staff report.) He explained that a Variance may be allowed only if strict application of the standards set forth precJude a reasonable permitted use of the property (criteria number 1.) The Shoreline Commission looked at this language and at the project in the context of the neighborhood the proposal site is located in. There are five docks in the immediate proximity of this proposal that are between 100 and 120 feet long. The Shoreline Commission felt that this project would be a reasonable permitted use in that area. He then reviewed the variance criteria: Variance criteria #1: Due to recent court cases (including Mercer Island and the State of Washington v Hoschek and the Shorelines Hearing Board) the test of the first variance criteria is if the restrictions placed on the property preclude the applicant from making any reasonable use of the property. He noted that there is an appeal before the State Supreme Court on a similar case. That ruling is expected this summer. Mr. Palmer has a residence on the site. · Variance criteria #2: The public rights of navigation and the use of shorelines must not be adversely affected. If it is found that there is a hardship, the hardship has to be related to the property and the unique conditions of the property and not to the applicants actions. The applicant has applied for a longer dock because the beach is so sha]]ow. At 60 feet the applicant would have a dock that is dry for a good bit of the tidal cycJe. There are many shoreline properties like that in the County. · Variance criteria #4 and #5: These requirements provide that the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse affects to adjacent properties in the shoreline environment and that the variance will not grant a special privilege. There are longer docks in this area this proposal is compatible with and thus is not a special privilege. · Variance criteria #8: Consideration should be given to the cumulative impacts of additional requests for similar actions in the area. A number of properties along Mats Mats Bay would require that a longer dock be built to accommodate low tides. There is also shoreline with no docks in Mats Mats Bay. · With regard to reasonable use, Commissioner Huntingford asked if the reasonable use is of just the shoreline or of the whole property? Jim Pearson explained the court case used to VOL 20 rACf o :1:103 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . interpret this criteria. He noted there was reasonable use of the property in this case, but because of regulation, there was not a reasonable use of the shoreline. Chairman Hinton reported that during the Shoreline Commission hearing the issue of impacts to eel grass beds was raised. The State Department of Fisheries has issued a hydraulics permit for this project and found that the eel grass bed is seaward of the ordinary high water mark approximately 112 feet. The proposed 105 foot dock and pier would not impact these eel grass beds. This is a non-issue. The Chairman then opened the hearing for public testimony. Leonard Palmer, 333 Mats View Road, was sworn in and introduced Malcom Harris, Attorney, who is representing him. Malcom Harris reported that in July 1992 an eel grass survey was ordered by the County. In February of 1993 the survey was completed and the State Department of Fisheries issued a determination of non-significance. AIso in July of 1993 the Shoreline Commission held its hearing. Approval was recommended by the Shoreline Commission subject to five conditions. Those conditions are: 1. Both properties (Mr. Palmer's,Tax Lot 32, and the property to the north) are to be served by this dock. Mr. Harris submitted pictures (pictures are numbered) for the Board to review. 2. No sewage or waste dumped on the site. 3. No commercial use of the property. The Shoreline Commission considered the issue of Mr. Palmer using the dock for recreational and research activities. 4. Eelgrass not be disturbed. 5. There will be limited use by vessels with holding tanks without the tanks being pumped (three consecutive days). No overnight use by vessels without holding tanks. If the vessel occupies the dock for more than seven days it would be considered residential use which is prohibited. AIl of these conditions are acceptable to Mr. Palmer. In December of 1993 Mr. Palmer was asked to apply to the Department of Fisheries and they gave their approval in March of 1994. In May of 1994 the Army Corps of Engineers, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service aJI approved of this project. Mr. Harris then reviewed photographs number 1 and 2 of the area which shows the docks along Mats Mats Bay. Mr. Palmer owns the tidelands in front of his property which is different than the Court case (Mercer Island) referred to by Mr. Pearson. The property is surrounded by docks which average 120 feet in length. AImost every property owner in this vicinity of the bay, has a dock larger than the one Mr. Palmer wants to build. The variance is necessary to aJIow the dock to be a usable dock. A dock that is 105 feet wi]] aJIow use of the dock, but it will predude large boats from mooring at it. The fact that he will be required to share the dock with a neighbor wi]] also predude him from putting more than one boat, or a large boat there. If this petition is granted it will not serve as a precedent for other people around the bay to build more docks. To build a dock on the south side of the Bay would require that it be 300 or 400 feet long to be usable. They believe this is the last location in the Bay where a dock of this size is economicaJIy buildable. The purpose of any variance, Mr. Harris continued, is to avoid an unreasonable result or hardship situation due to strict application of the regulations. He noted that they take issue with Mr. Pearson regarding the interpretation of the reasonable use of the property (criteria 1.) VOL 20 rAGf 0.1104 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With regard to Criteria 2, navigation impact, Mr. Harris reported that there is nothing on the record that the rights of navigation wi]] be interfered with by this dock. Other docks are already there and putting a short dock in at this site wi]] not interfere with anyone's right of navigation. Criteria 3, regarding the hardship not being from the applicants own actions, there is nothing Mr. Palmer has done to the shoreline to make this problem. The problem is caused by the shalJow bed of the Bay. With regard to Criteria 4, Mr. Harris noted that they feel that this project is compatible with the surrounding area and there has not been any issue, other than eelgrass, regarding damage to the environment of the area. The dock wi]] be shared with a neighbor to the north, so that he wi]] not have to come in later and apply for a dock. Everyone else in this area has a dock and if this permit is denied (Criteria 5) then everyone else will have a special privilege and Mr. Palmer will be singled out as the only person who cannot enjoy that privilege. The size of the dock was cut back by the Shoreline's Commission from 120 feet to 105 feet and the requirement to share the dock was placed on the project which reduces the size of the dock available to Mr. Palmer. With regard to Criteria 6, that the public interest suffer no substantial detrimental effect, there has not been any testimony in the public record that the public interest will be detrimentally affected by this dock being longer than 60 feet. The variance, according to Criteria 7, must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. Mr. Harris stated that he feels that an issue that hasn't been discussed, is that the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act is to shut down alJ construction on the waterfront. He doesn't feel this is true. What the Shoreline Program requires is that construction on the waterfront be sited at appropriate locations. If docks cannot be built at this location, then where can they be built? He feels that Mr. Palmer's right to navigation is denied to him if he can't have a dock at his premises that he can use to get to and from his property by water. In RCW 90.58.020 there is a statement that in considering alterations to the natural condition of the shorelines, priority shalJ be given for single family residences and their appurtenant structures. Mr. Harris stated that he feels this dock is an appurtenant structure to this single family home. Mr. Palmer then discussed the Mercer Island case referred to by Jim Pearson. He explained that this case was regarding a lake, not salt water, so the issue of tides is not considered. Mr. Hoschek's property is described as being "Oklahoma" shaped and is only 10 feet wide where it hits the water and the dock would extend over the State owned lake bed. The boats that he would moor at the dock would interfere with the swimming and other uses of the lake. The variance applied for by Mr. Hoschek was regarding the setback requirements of the City of Mercer Island, not the length of the dock. The decision that this project did not meet the criteria regarding reasonable uses of the property was made by King County Superior Court and is in no way binding in Jefferson County. That case has been appealed, and he feels it may be overruled because it indicates that people wiJl only be granted a variance (for the construction of a dock) if they can show that their upland property has no other use. If people have useless upland property, they are probably never going to need to construct a dock because docks usualJy only serve an upland property that either has a residence, or a commercial use. The discussion continued regarding the Court case and how it would be interpreted to be applied to other cases. Mr. Palmer then reviewed pictures 7 and 8 showing the shoreline in the area of his property. He added that there is a third hardship created by the shorter dock because it VOL 20 rACE n 1105 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . would require greater navigation. Another concern is that a shorter dock will cause the bottom to be stirred up more due to propeller action. This dock is proposed for a very special place which is not duplicated other places in Puget Sound. It is located in a protected bay with deep enough water to get access to a dock. He asked that the Board act on the same precedent other docks in the Bay were approved under. Chairman Hinton asked about Mr. Palmer's indication in his application that the dock would be used by three other individuals beside himself for docking research vessels. Are these other people property owners on Mats Mats Bay? Mr. Palmer answered that they are not. The Chairman then asked if Mr. Palmer will use the pier and float for moorage of boats as wen as the dock? Mr. Palmer stated that he plans to use the "T" dock on the end as the primary mooring facility. Mr. Lawhead may use other areas for mooring. The hardship the Shoreline Commission identified, Chairman Hinton noted, is the joint use of the dock. Mr. Palmer indicated that he believes there are four hardships: 1) joint use (sharing the outside dock), 2) the water depth, 3) the navigation and, 4) the longer dock won't stir up the bottom as much as a shorter dock. He feels these four things speak toward the longer dock being a better solution. Chairman Hinton asked if the commercial nature of the work Mr. Palmer does would increase the amount of impervious surface on the upland portion of the site? Mr. Palmer reported that there would be no increase in impervious surface. He works with one, or at most, a couple of other people on projects. Parking and traffic would be no different than for a residence. They do small research projects. Chairman Hinton asked about Mr. Palmer's contract research work? Mr. Palmer answered that in general he tries to get support for the cost of the research. Very rarely is it something he makes money on. Jack Morris was sworn in and explained that owns the property to the south of Mr. Palmer. He asked Mr. Palmer what he will do when he has other people coming in to work on a project? Mr. Palmer reported that he will never have more than one or two cars at the most any more than he would have for dinner guests. The driveway will serve for parking. Mr. Robert Lawhead. stated that his main concern is that this dock will be used to serve his lot and Mr. Palmer's lot. He added that the other lots with docks in this area are all double lots. His lot and Mr. Palmer's are about 75 feet wide at the waterfront. The other lots are no less than 150 feet wide at the waterfront with a single dock. He stated that it was his understanding that the State Department of Fisheries won't be out to do the eelgrass survey until August. He stated that he agrees that both lots need access to the water, but he doesn't see the need for such a long dock, especially for him. A seventy foot dock would be well inside the eelgrass and the low water problem would be about the same as at 105 foot dock. There is only 13 inches difference in depth between 70 feet and 115 feet. Boats will be in the muck at minus tides for a dock of either length. He also expressed concern because it is his understanding that the tideland property lines project from the shoreline to the point of a pie shaped wedge. As the dock is moved out into the Bay, the "T" portion could be dose or over the property line where it narrows. Robert Backstein. Attornev representing Jack Morris. explained where the properties are located from picture number 2. This dock will be out in a very narrow area. The proposed use is for marine type boats in conjunction with his business. This is a commer- cial use. Mr. Lawhead stated that there is only a 13 inch difference in the depth of the water from 70 feet to 120 feet out. There is no need for such a long dock. This commercial use does not fit in this area. He then read from page 6, lines 12 through 21 of the Hoschek case, which he feels states that the applicant must show that strict application of the performance standards predudes a reasonable use of the property in comparison to the other uses available to the owner. They have no objection to the joint VOL 20 rMl o 11.06 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . use of the dock. They also feel that no commercial use should be allowed and they don't feel such a long dock is needed. Malcom Harris responded that he doesn't feel that the pie shaped portion of the property will be intruded upon by the dock. He noted that the tidelands are stiU 60 to 70 feet wide at the point where the dock wiU "T." The statement was made that the dock should be shorter because there is not a great difference in the depth. He noted that this would be half of the depth that is available. To make the dock that much shorter would be a real hardship for Mr. Palmer. Another thing to remember is that if the length of the dock is reduced, it wiU create a hardship because there wiU be two people sharing it. Mr. Palmer explained that Mr. Lawhead did not realize that the State Department of Fisheries has been to the site and examined it for eelgrass. With regard to the slope of the ground, there is a little less than a foot of depth for every 10 feet, and if the dock was shortened by 45 feet, he would lose roughly four feet of depth which is about the entire moorage depth for a smaH boat. Four feet makes aH the difference for this dock. He added that he has never said that he wants to make a salary from his research work. He is retired and has a retirement income. He does not hope to make a business grow. In response to a question from Commissioner Huntingford, Mr. Palmer reported that he has a 24 foot sailboat, with a fixed keel, moored in the Bay currently. He would like to moor this boat at the dock, but he knows he wi]] sti]] have to pull the boat out to the mooring buoy at times. Mr. Lawhead may not be the only owner of the adjoining lot that wiH share this dock. He feels it's more appropriate to serve those properties with something that will be adequate for current and future owners. Mr. Lawhead reported that a boat sitting in the mud is not a problem. There aren't rocks in the Bay. Hearing no further public testimony, the Chairman dosed the public hearing. Jim Pearson stated that Mr. Palmer has raised the point of difference between the tideland and upland ownership. The Board could deny the variance, allow Mr. Palmer to build a dock that meets the 60 foot criteria in the Master Program or he can use a mooring buoy. The joint use of the dock is required by two sections of the Master Program, if it is feasible. The joint use dock requires a long "T" float on the end of the dock. The struc- ture extending further out into the bay is not necessarily a requirement of the joint use dock. Regarding the question of the commercial use of the dock, there is no prohibition in the Master Program regarding commercial use of a dock. The Shoreline Commission made a finding that the use of the dock requested by Mr. Palmer is not a commercial use, it is a scientific use, and they put on a prohibition for future commercial uses of the dock. Mr. Palmer responded to a point raised earlier by saying that the difference in use of a short versus longer dock is the amount of time that boats wiU have to be moored on a mooring buoy. The extra footage makes the dock more accessible. Commissioner Huntingford noted concern regarding who wi]] enforce the three day limit for boats staying at the dock. Jim Pearson reported that the Shoreline Master Program states that boats that are occupied shaH not be permitted to moor at private docks, piers and floats for more than three days unless there are pumpout facilities available. He added that he doesn't feel that the length of the dock wi]] cause any hardship for the adjacent property owners. Chairman Hinton noted that the variance criteria in the Shoreline Master Program are hard to achieve. He noted that he has concerns about whether this project is commercial in nature. He read the definition of commercial in the Master Program. The performance YOL 2 0 r~G: 07 011 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . standards of the Master Program have not precluded reasonable use of the subject property for residential or recreational purposes. In subsection 5 of the Master Program, under docks, piers and floats, (policy 2) mooring buoys are preferred over docks, piers and floats. Policy 3 under this subsection states that docks, piers and floats should be discouraged where critical physical limitations exist such a shaHow water, shallow sloping bottoms, tidal action, etc. The hardship for this project has been pointed out as the depth of the water. The Master Program standards do not show that. There are no unique or extraor- dinary circumstances or features to the property regarding size, shape or physical limita- tions which would justify further encroachment on the shoreline beyond the standard 60 foot limits. The subject dock, due to its commercial nature, Chairman Hinton feels, is incompatible with the nature of the shoreline around Mats Mats Bay. He feels the approval of this variance would constitute granting a special privilege, set an undesirable precedent with potential for successive cumulative impacts to the shoreline environment, and he recommends denial of it. Commissioner Huntingford asked if Chairman Hinton would be in favor of a 60 foot dock? Chairman Hinton noted that he finds nothing that would prevent the Board from approving the standard 60 foot dock. Commissioner Huntingford asked what would happen if the Board denies the variance? Would Mr. Palmer have to reapply for a 60 foot dock? Jim Pearson explained that he would check with the Prosecuting Attorney and the State Department of Ecology to assure that the sixty foot dock could be approved. Chairman Hinton asked if the 60 foot dock would be subject to the joint use agreement? Jim Pearson explained that the condition stating that a joint use agreement must be entered into was to assure that the adjacent property owners know that the dock is for joint use and that there are issues that need to be agreed upon (sharing of costs, access, etc.) Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the variance. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Hinton then moved to deny the variance. That motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Harris stated that he reserves the right to make a presentation to Commis- sioner Wojt. The Board concurred that this hearing be continued to July 5, 1994 at 1:30 p.m. Mark Huth and Kent Anderson re: Discussion of Boundarv Line Adjust- ment Procedures: Postponed until July 5, 1994 at 10:35 a.m. Mark Huth re: Discussion of Proposal to Use County Property. Upland from DNR Lease on Dabob Bay: Jeffrey Delia. Delia's Broadspit Oyster Co. (Postpon- ed to July 11, 1994 by Jeffrey Delia). Lois Smith. Director re: Discussion of various topics dealin2 with Juvenile and Family Court Services: Lois Smith reported on the foHowing: ClaHam County Juvenile Detention Facility Contract for Bed for Jefferson County Use: Clallam County is completing the construction of a 22 bed detention facility within the next month. The old 12 bed facility is being converted into a semi-secure facility which they will allow other Counties and the State to contract for. The contract rate for the beds is $65.00 per day. A contract for one bed would run approximately $23,000 per year. If the County contracts for a bed, ClaHam County would assure that a bed would be avail- able as need. She further reported that she has expressed concern that if a bed in a secure facility is needed, that the contract would aHow the use of that type of bed. She asked if the Board would agree that this type of contract be developed. She advised that she feels that Jefferson County can use 365 bed days per year. The Board concurred that Lois VOL 20 fAr' n 1:108 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 27, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smith develop this contract for at least 365 bed days per year and try for a bed and a half per day. One Time Only AIlocation from the State for Impacts from ESHB2319: Lois Smith reported that the County can get a $9,365.00 one time only grant from the State to cover impacts from the passage of ESHB2319. She suggested that this money be used for a part time position to oversee truants and do a sixth, seventh and eighth grade outreach and intervention program. This program wiJl be developed and come through as a contract amendment. The meeting was recessed at the end of the scheduled business and reconvened on Tuesday morning. Chairman Hinton and Commissioner Huntingford were present. Commissioner Wojt was not present for the workshop on Zoning Code Maps. '{ .. . "it 1" VOL JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~nnan 20 f'M: " ;' 11'19