Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM051093 c:..t~ "V ~ö~ MINUTES WEEK OF MAY 10, 1993 Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commissioner Glen Huntingford were both present when Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the May 3, 1993 Minutes as corrected. Chairman Wojt seconded the motion in the temporary absence of Commissioner Hinton. The motion carried. Prosecutine Attorney Mark Huth re: Approval of the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 42-93 recognizing the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center as the dispute resolution center for Jefferson County, and directed that a public hearing on the District Court and marriage license surcharge ordinance be advertised as soon as possible. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following topics were brought up by interested County residents: the maintenance of the Courthouse, other County facilities and the grounds around County buildings; the status of the rezone requested for properties at the Airport Cutoff/SR20 Intersection; why a preliminary plat review was not scheduled on the agenda; and the status of the critical area maps. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commis- sioner Huntingford moved to delete item 6 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Final Short Plat Approval SP6-92 Gillette Short Plat; 2 Lot Short Plat off of No. Jacob Miller Road; Daryl H. Gillette 2. CONTRACT re: Purchase One (1) Used 1977 Lynwood Two Axle, 10 Yard Pup Trailer; Kruse Tractor and Equipment Company (As awarded April 26, 1993) 3. Approval with Conditions; Application to Open Right-of-Way; 100 feet of Meader Avenue to Private Road standards; Daniel Rinner, Applicant 4. CONTRACT NO. C9300204; Participation (Funding to $1,500.00) in the Water Resources Regional Pilot Planning Project in the Dungeness-Quilcene Pilot Planning Area; State Department of Ecology 5. Request for Payment of Second Quarter Allocation $3,125.00; Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program VOL 19 rAŒ 432 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 2 THE CONSENT AGENDA - Continued: 6. DELETE Request for Payment of First and Second Quarter Allocation $6,100.00 from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund; North Olympic Peninsula Visitor and Convention Bureau 7. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; $500.00 submitted by American Legion Post #26 8. Special Event Permit Application; Port Hadlock Days Festival; Hadlock Lions BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Preliminary Bindine Site Plan BSP-01-92 (Peninsula Pines Mobile Home Park): Development of 6.2 acre parcel into a 23 lot mobile home park: Located adjacent to the west side of Airport Cutoff Road and south of the Jefferson County Airport: Stan F. Little: Jerry Smith, Associate Planner, reported that the Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the binding site plan for this mobile home park subject to 19 conditions. Resolved issues are outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the buffer along SR19 will be adequate if the State does a road widening project in this area? Jerry Smith reported that the developer has allowed an additional 20 feet to address this concern. Commissioner Huntingford asked about the issue of capacity at the school. Jerry Smith reported that the project proponent is working with the School District to address that issue. Commissioner Hinton expressed concern about the Public Works recommendation on the width of the streets in the development. He noted that the width of the paved surface of SR19 is 20 feet, while the streets within the development are 50 feet. Jerry Smith explained that the width of the right-of-way required was reduced from 60 to 50 feet by the Public Works Department, which will also decrease the width of the actual roadway. Harold Anderson explained that the roadways are designed at 32 feet wide to allow parking on the streets in the subdivision. Commissioner Hinton moved to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and grant approval of the preliminary binding site plan, subject to the conditions as outlined in the report dated May 3, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Preliminary Lone Plat LP-01-93 Woodland Hills Addition No.1: Residential Subdivision of Five Acre tract into four (4) lots: Dennis and Constance Meyer: Jerry Smith reported that the Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of this preliminary long plat to divide a five acre tract into four lots subject to 23 conditions. The issue of noise from the airport was brought up at the hearing and the Hearing Examiner determined that project is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Commissioner Hinton noted that he does not agree that the width of the streets need to be as wide as recommended by the Public Works Department. Jerry Smith pointed out that the width referred to is the width of the right-of-way, not the paved roadway. Commissioner Hinton moved to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and grant approval of the preliminary long subdivision subject to the conditions as outlined in the Hearing Examiner's written report dated May 3, 1993. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Private Road Easement Width Reduction Great Scott Short Plat #SP-03-93: Four (4) lot short subdivision: Located adjacent to the. south side of Oak Bay Road: VOL 19 rAG~ 433 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 3 Louis and Phyllis Scott: Commissioner Hinton pointed out a typographical error in the paper work for this short plat. Jerry Smith noted that the paperwork will be corrected to note that the parcel size is 0.96 acres. This short plat fronts on Oak Bay Road and shares a common access with the Oak Bay Short Plat (See below). This is a loop access road and the Public Works Department recommends approval of the road width reduction as requested. Commissioner Hinton moved to adopt the findings and recommendation of the Public Works Department to allow a reduction in the road easement width as requested. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Private Road Easement Width Reduction Oak Bay Short. Plat #SP-07 -93: Three (3) lot short subdivision: Located adjacent to the south side of Oak Bay Road: Pope Resources: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve and adopt the Public Works Department recommendation for a reduction in road width on the Oak Bay Short Plat as requested. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Frank Gifford re: Customer Parkine: Capital Projects Program Manager Frank Gifford reviewed a drawing of the parking around the Courthouse done in 1985. He explained that there are about 38 parking spaces in the back of the Courthouse. The drawing indicates a different configuration along Walker and Jefferson Streets. This new configuration would provide 19 parking spaces (there are currently 9 spaces). He also presented an alternative configuration for the back of the Courthouse, but it would still allow only 38 spaces. A City street improvement permit is required for any work the County does along any of the streets around the Courthouse. The total estimate for improving all three areas (Walker Street, Jefferson Street and in the back of the Courthouse) would be between $30,500 (grading, chip sealing, striping, drainage, curb stops) and $68,500 (asphalt instead of chip seal, sidewalk curb and gutter, and storm sewer). The Walker Street improvement would not include opening up street access to the side entrance of the Courthouse. There is no money set aside in the six year capital improvement plan for parking improvements. No cost versus cost solutions need to be reviewed. The Customer Service Committee has been reviewing the parking problems around the Courthouse and circulated a request to employees to only park in certain areas. This request could be expanded to provide more parking for the public. Chairman Wojt asked if there is any information on how many customers are inconvenienced by no parking around the Courthouse? Frank Gifford reported that there has not been a customer survey. Commissioner Hinton asked what the County can do with Jefferson Street? Gary Rowe explained that when the street was vacated it was done with the condition that it remain open as a street. Gary Rowe suggested there are options such as placing signs on certain parking spaces around the Courthouse which say "Visitor Parking" with a time limit, which should be reviewed. He added that the visitor parking should not be to the detriment of the employees. If visitor parking is designated then an alternative area should be identified for employee parking. Chairman Wojt pointed out that in the capital facilities plan, the Commissioners Office space remodel has been postponed indefinitely. The funds designated for that ($15,000) can be used for the improvements to Jefferson Street. The Board concurred that the funds set aside for the Commissioners Office remodel be used to improve the parking around the Courthouse. The Public Works Department will review the options for improving parking and report back to the Board. VOL 19 rAC~ 434 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 4 Gary Rowe re: Solid Waste: Gary Rowe submitted a report of the options for privatization of solid waste services. He then reviewed the items that must be considered in order to make a determination on privatization of these services. He recommended that the Board, staff and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee have a workshop to discuss the issues and come up with a recommendation on the configuration that is most suitable to maintain the services provided. Commissioner Hinton agreed that a workshop be set up as soon as possible. PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Recommendation to amend the Shoreline Permit review of recreational docks that are in common with sinele family residences: Associate Planner Jim Pearson asked the Board to consider making Shoreline permit applications for recreational docks in common with single family residences, a primary use in the Shoreline Program. If this change is made there would be a recommendation from staff to the Commissioners on these applications. The Commissioners have final approval of these applications. A hearing and recommendation by the Shoreline Commission would not be required. Commissioner Hinton moved to direct the Planning Department to proceed with drafting an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program to make shoreline permit applications for recreational docks that are in common with single family residences a primary use. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion of Administration of the Shoreline Manaeement Master Proeram: There was discussion of the way that the Shoreline Master Program is administered for the City and the County. Commissioner Hinton suggested that a separate Shoreline Commis- sion be established for the City. Jim Pearson was directed to discuss the changes necessary in the Shoreline Master Program to separate the administration of the Shoreline Master Program for the City and the County. Discussion of workshop for Board and Plannine staff at conclusion of public workshops on the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance: Craig Ward came before the Board to discuss the next step for the critical areas ordinance since the workshops have been completed. He asked if the Board would like a workshop with planning staff to review what was heard at the workshops? Commissioner Hinton asked that the staff present a report on what they heard at the workshops. The Board directed that a work- shop be held sometime next week, after the Board visits Clallam County to review how they classify wetlands. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SDP91-017 re: Inn at Port Ludlow: Pope Resources: Jim Pearson explained that the purpose of this meeting is to bring the Shoreline Commission recommendation to the Board for consideration. The Shoreline Commission was given a set of recommended conditions from the programmatic and project EIS. They modified a few of the conditions and recommend approval of the permit by the Board. Commissioner Hinton stated that in order to be consistent, he feels that condition #46 should be changed to say that the County would be informed immediately if there is a water quality problem, instead of on March 15 each year. David Cunningham, Pope Resources, stated that they are required to immediately notify the State Department of Ecology. He suggested that wording be added to the condition that the County be simultaneously notified when the State is notified. Commissioner Huntingford asked if condition #49 (general public access) is something that Pope has always done? David Cunningham reported that Open Space is a main element of VOL 19 r~cr 43~ Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 5 this project and they don't have a problem with that. There is an issue with the required time that the Open Space would be dedicated. After discussion of whether the easement should have a 50 year time limit, or if there should be a reversionary clause in the easement, Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth explained how a reversionary clause would work and suggested that he write a condition to address that. Commissioner Hinton said that the Fire District wanted the Inn Manager to be an EMT and condition #44 says that the Inn Manager and all other on-site staff be trained in basic first aid and CPR. Tony Puma, Project Manager for Pope Resources, explained that not every person has the temperament or desire to be an EMT. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled agenda items for Monday and reconvened on Tuesday morning. Commissioner Robert Hinton and Commis- sioner Glen Huntingford were present. Chairman Richard Wojt was not present for the morning session. He was present for the afternoon meeting. Bonita Flaee. Animal Services re: Animal Control Services at Cape Georee and Kala Point: Bonita Flagg, Animal Services Supervisor reported that she has discussed the matter of providing animal services in Cape George subdivision with the Prosecuting Attorney, because Cape George is a private development with private roads. He advised her that the County cannot enforce ordinances adopted by private develop- ments. She further reported that she has been working with Kala Point on what the County can do to provide animal services within that private development. The Animal Services Department does not have the manpower to regularly patrol specific areas. Commissioner Hinton asked if Kala Point and Cape George could contract with the County for animal services? Mark Huth reported that the County can only contract with another governmental entity. Since these are private developments, they need to submit a letter asking that the County provide the services outlined in the County ordinance within their private developments. Bonita Flagg added that the Animal Services staff has no authority to go on to private property to pick up an animal. The County's ordinance addresses picking up animals on public property. Bonita Flagg will contact the people from Cape George to get a letter of permission from them to enforce the County ordinances on the private roads within the Cape George Subdivision and let them know that the County cannot enforce their ordinances. She is currently working with representatives of Kala Point on the same arrangements. Preliminary Lon!! Subdivision (#LP02-91) and Shoreline Substantial Develop- ment Permit (#SDP91-017) re: Inn at Port Ludlow: Pope Resources: David Cun- ningham, representing Pope Resources, presented slides on the history of the property where this plat will be located and the history of how the development has been recon- figured. Associate Planner Jerry Smith advised that the Board has been provided a copy of the findings, conclusions and recommendation from the Hearing Examiner on the Inn at Port Ludlow preliminary long subdivision. The Hearing Examiner is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. A letter has been received from Peter Eglick, Attorney for the Chimacum School District, asking the Board to consider holding a public hearing on this plat. Commissioner Hinton asked the Prosecuting Attorney to clarify the Hearing Examiner's finding (#6) with regard to the School District and Fire District mitigation. Mark Huth answered that with the letter from Peter Eglick, it appears there is an interested party ready to appeal if necessary. He suggested that the Board not make a decision today, but that the County staff sit down with the Chimacum School District and their attorney within the next week and try to determine their concerns and what they would be willing to agree to VOL 19 rAG~ 436 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 6 in this matter. If action is taken and an appeal is filed, it will take at least a year to go through the process in the Courts. He feels that Mr. Eglick's letter is an offer to negotiate this matter. David Cunningham stated that: 1) The Chimacum School District had an opportunity and did testify at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner took into account their testimony in making his recommendation to the Board. 2) The Chimacum School District and their attorney, Peter Eglick, sent a letter to the Board several weeks ago which articulated essentially the same concerns in the letter received today. Since the County knew the School District's position, the County shouldn't have waited until now when it will delay this plat. 3) The County may have already set a precedent by approving other plats in the Chimacum School District and were they subject to the same kind of conditions that are proposed on this plat? He added that he feels that Pope Resources is being held to a higher or different standard and when there is talk of delay, it is always with their projects. Mark Huth explained that the prior letter from the School District's Attorney was generic in nature, while the letter received today refers specifically to this plat and a condition on it. The condition says that the County and in particular Pope Resources will attempt to negotiate with the school district. The question is should the County approve the preli- minary plat with this condition and possibly face a challenge of that approval, which would cause a great deal of work in compiling the record for a court case, or should the County wait and see if an agreement can't be reached, foregoing a potential court action? If a decision is appealed the appeal is filed with the Superior Court. Commissioner Huntingford asked the School Board Chairman, Quentin Goodrich, where the School District is with the development of a capital facilities plan? Quentin Goodrich reported that the School Board will be working on this at their meeting tonight. They are in the final stages of finishing this plan. Commissioner Huntingford noted that there is no way to know what the school district needs until the capital improvement plan is com- pleted. David Cunningham stated that the School District's Capital Improvement Plan is subject to public review and must go through SEP A before it is adopted. He feels that negotiations with the School District on this project will possibly be held up during the review of that plan. Chairman Wojt asked what progress Pope Resource has made in their negotiations with the School District and the Fire District? David Cunningham reported that the negotiations with both entities were progressing, but the School Superintendent said that she wanted to go to the School Board and ask for direction on how to address all development projects, not just this one. The negotiations are moving along well with the Fire District. He clarified that it was Pope Resources assumption that this condition was to allow the time for the School District to finish their Capital Improvement Plan and for Pope to negotiate with them on this specific project when that is done. Quentin Goodrich explained that he came today to observe and he cannot speak of the School Board. He said that it is their understanding under the SEP A and Subdivision regulations, that the District does not have to have a Capital Facilities Plan in place. That plan is a requirement under GMA. It is a 10 year plan and does not specifically relate to the issue today. The School District had a number of meetings with Pope Resources. It is the District's intent to treat all developers equally and they have been trying to develop a standard approach based on actual school costs and the ratio of households to students in the District. They have given Pope Resources a lot of their data. The School District has not received any proposed mitigation from Pope Resources. Chairman Wojt said that he thought the EIS detailed a mechanism by which the solution can come. Why hasn't this been negotiated along that line? Jim Pearson explained that there are two mitigations proposed in the EIS: VOL 19 rAGE 437 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 7 1) that Pope Resource and the School District need to negotiate based on the student generation figure in the EIS, and 2) that there will be on-going monitoring to assure that the student generation figure in the EIS is correct. If the monitoring shows that the figure is not correct, then the agreement would be modified to indicate the figure determined by the monitoring. The negotiations are to include that the student generation figure in the EIS is accepted, the cost per year for operations for each student, and the capital cost related to additional students. Tony Puma, Project Manager for the plat, stated that an EIS provides a great deal of detail. This plat might generate as many as three new students for the School District. What is really being discussed is an assertion that there is no capacity for an additional three students. That assertion has no basis in fact and there is some question of whether or not the District has additional capacity for transfer students. The more important question here is that the School District is placing the burden on Pope Resources to make them an offer. The cost of one additional child is unknown. No one knows what that cost figure is for the Chimacum School District or what they'll do with the money from this mitigation. Mark Huth noted that Mr. Puma has illustrated the problem, which is that the Board must make a finding that adequate provision is made for schools. How is the Board going to know what is adequate if the costs aren't known? Chairman Wojt asked if a requirement can be made that a specific amount of money be placed in escrow until an agreement can be reached between Pope and the School District, because holding up this project is costing Pope Resources money? Mark Huth agreed that setting up this type of escrow account would be an affirmative step toward mitigation. It would offer a good faith basis to negotiate rather than appeal. David Cunningham clarified that the programmatic EIS, which analyzed school impacts, viewed them in a very large context over a 10 year period. The School District's capital improvement plan is done for a 10 year period. The only issue before the Board today is this plat, and it's only this plat that adequate school facilities must be provided for. The question becomes can the Chimacum School District accommodate three more students? The Chimacum School District claims that it takes $15,000 per student for new capital facilities. The discussion continued regarding Pope Resources placing $50,000 in escrow until the negotiations can be completed with the school district. Commissioner Huntingford noted that the information the School District has provided indicates that they are still accepting transfer students and they do have capacity for another 100 to 200 students in portable classrooms. David Cunningham added that if the County imposes an escrow account condition on this plat, then it should have been imposing the same requirement on all plats approved since the School District advised the County (last October) that they have inadequate capacity. The County should be imposing this requirement on every preliminary plat from now on until the issue is resolved. Mark Huth responded that once these issues are resolved, then the County will have to act on all plats in a standardized fashion. The discussion continued regarding the needs of the School District, and the cost of facilities to accommodate new students; the possibility of setting up an escrow account; and the impact to the school district in the next few years. David Douglas related the experience of the Bellevue School District in trying to accom- modate growth. Chairman Wojt asked about the negotiations between Pope and the Fire District? James DeWitt of Fire District #3 explained that the negotiations are going well. Tony Puma VOL 19 rAr,' 438 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 8 added that the Fire District has a fairly clear idea of their staffing and facilities needs. The School District doesn't really know what their staffing and facilities needs are. David Cunningham pointed out that in the record of the Hearing Examiner's hearing the testimony of School Superintendent Marcia Harris mentioned: 1) Pope Resources effort to change the condition on negotiations to put a time limit on them, and 2) there be safe walkways and paths to bus stops within this project. By the Hearing Examiner adding conditions to take care of the School District concerns about pedestrian circulation, he has satisfied the School District's issues. Chairman Wojt asked about the variance request for private roads and road design standards? David Cunningham explained that the variances requested are for private roads, road design standards (less than County standards), and construction requirements. Jerry Smith reported that the Public Works Department reviewed the requests and recommends private roads, a reduction in the right-of-way within the development, a deviation from the cul-de-sac standards. and a variance from the engineering design standards for road construction. Chairman Wojt asked if imposing a condition for an escrow account would constitute a major change in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation? Mark Huth responded that this would be an amendment that wouldn't require a public hearing. He added that the condition change suggested for the Shoreline Permit with regard to the Open Space being dedicated for the life of the plat, is not an amendment that will require a public hearing either. Commissioner Huntingford asked Mr. DeWitt if he feels that the negotiations are going such that agreement will be reached between the Fire District and Pope Resources? Mr. DeWitt stated that the negotiations are going in that direction. Tony Puma added that Pope did not have any issue with the technical comments of the Fire District and they are willing to have them incorporated in the agreement. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the plat can be approved if the requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance that there be a finding that adequate provision is made for schools, cannot be made? Mark Huth answered that the plat cannot be approved until that finding is made. The Board must either delay taking action, make a finding that adequate provision has been made, or deny the plat. David Cunningham stated that if the County imposes the escrow requirement, if would take away Pope's ability to negotiate with the school district on an even basis. If such a condition is imposed, the escrow instructions must be very clear. Tony Puma suggested that the County help with finding equitable long term solutions to the School District's problem. Commissioner Huntingford noted that it appears that the figures suggested by the two parties are a long way apart. The information on impact fees for schools indicates that the high end is $2,100 (nationwide) and an average impact fee is $600. The discussion continued regarding impact fees for the school district, how they will be handled, and the amount of the fee. Chairman Wojt asked if the action today is preliminary approval and the negotiations must be completed before final approval is given? Mark Huth reported that is correct, but if an agreement isn't reached before final plat approval the County will determine the ap- propriate mitigation. Mark Huth asked if Pope Resources would like the Board to delay action on this for one week so that they can work on a resolution. After a short recess requested by Pope Resources representatives, David Cunningham reported that their position is that the School District, as well as the Fire District, may have long term growth difficulties. The School District says that they don't oppose this VOL 19 rAC 439 Commissioner's Meeting Minutes: Week of May 10, 1993 Page: 9 project and don't want to stop it and Pope Resources would like the Board to make a decision today. Commissioner Hinton stated that he is opposed to putting $15,000 per student into any fund which he feels would set a precedent for future development in the County. Commissioner Hinton moved to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner; that the Board finds that there is adequate capacity in the Chimacum School District; and to grant preliminary plat approval for this long subdivision (#LP02-91), subject to the Hearing Examiner's conditions. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. Mter discussion of the wording of Condition #5 on the dedication of open space, Commis- sioner Hinton amended his motion to change the wording in Condition 5 that says "The open space dedication shall be in perpetuity" to say "shall run the life of the project." Commissioner Huntingford agreed with the amended motion and upheld his second of the motion as amended. The Chairman called for the vote on the amended motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Mark Huth reported that the Board must also act on the variances requested. He pointed out the Public Works Department recommends in their letter to Jerry Smith (dated April 16, 1993) that the variances be approved with certain conditions. Those conditions have all been included within the conditions recommended by the Hearings Examiner or in the EIS documents. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the variances requested. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. After discussion of how the conditions of the shoreline permit will be enforced, Commis- sioner Hinton asked about the condition (#44) that employees of the Inn be required, as a condition of employment, to have CPR and first aid training. Jim Pearson reported that this condition was developed through the EIS process to mitigate the impact to the Fire District in their capacity to provide fire and emergency services. Commissioner Hinton further explained that he doesn't feel that this should be a condition of employment. If the Board is not comfortable with it they can delete it. James DeWitt explained that the State Department of Labor and Industries requires that a certain number of employees of any company have first aid training. Commissioner Hinton suggested that Condition #44 be change to delete the words "as a condition of employment" and to read "all other site staff should be trained in basic first aid. " Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve the shoreline substantial development permit with the change as suggested to Condition #44. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. SEAL: YOL 19 I'M; 44'1