Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM062292 U:~ ~ ~ò?: Q MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 22, 1992 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt. The following items were discussed at the Commissioners' Briefing Session with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth and Community Services Director David Goldsmith. 1. South Point Boundary Line Adiustment: Mark Huth reported that the Trails End Plat indicates a beach access to public property at the South Point Ferry dock. The people that own property in that area have asked that this be clarified. He has been working with Harry Holloway, Attorney, for property owners in the area to define the legal description of the eastern border of the Trail's End Plat. Mark Huth recommended that this boundary line be approved by the Board. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the new boundary line of the Trail's End Plat as defined by the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 2. Domestic Violence Planning Grant: Mark Huth asked the Board for direction regarding the goals for domestic violence so that they can be used in the development of the plan. Chairman Dennison stated that since the Domestic Violence program receives funds from the County and since the County's budget is getting tighter, he would like to see this plan include alternative funding sources for these services. Pat Teal, Director of the Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program, reported that researching other funding sources was included in the grant proposal. Mark Huth will prepare a sub-contract with the Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Program for this planning grant. 3. Proposed Enhanced 911 Ordinance Mark Huth explained that this proposed ordinance will place an additional tax on telephone services to help pay for the cost of implementing the Enhanced 911 system. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the hearing notice and set the hearing on the proposed Enhanced 911 Ordinance for July 13, 1992 at 11:30 a.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 4. CONTRACT re: Use of Van to Transport Students to the Kitsap Skill Center: Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council: Mark Huth reported that this contract is for Juvenile Services to rent a van to transport children to the Kitsap Skill Center during the summer. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract with the Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 5. Coastal Counties Resource Policies: David Goldsmith reported that the Coastal Counties (Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, and Pacific) came together several years ago to respond - ~ ..... rift/)¡ ';.'0[_ L -..l8·'fA~ã~ W 71"1\""'· . ,.c.;.,. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 2 to proposals for off shore oil drilling along the Washington coast. Their efforts have resulted in a bill before Congress to prohibit off shore oil drilling along the coast. The Coastal Counties have drafted this Ocean Resource Policy to deal with the unique character and resources of the Washington coast. Later in the meeting: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 49-92 adopting the Coastal Counties Ocean Resource Policies. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Risk Mana2ement Coordinator Bob Minty re: Special Events Permit; Olympic Music Festival in Quilcene: Risk Management Coordinator Bob Minty reported that the Olympic Music Festival has met all the County's requirements for this special events permit. The parking will be moved from along Center Road, as it was last year, to a field on the site. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the special events permit as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Public comments were received on the need for a copier at the Quilcene Community Center, and adding the County to the insurance for a bicycle program in the City of Port Townsend. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Items 8 and 9 from the consent agenda and to approve and adopt the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. LOAN AGREEMENT NO. 92-002-15; Water Quality Improvement Fund; Exhibit "A" Rehabilitation Measures; Exhibit "B" Premises; Exhibit "C" Promissory Note; Gordon and Dorothy J. Byrne 2. CONTRACT NO. 2490-084305, Amendment #3; Funding Changes in Developmental Disabilities Services provided by Jefferson County Human Services; State Department of Social and Health Services 3. CONTRACT NO. 91-10-20, Amendment #3; Funding Changes for Human Services Program; Bayshore Enterprises 4. CONTRACT No. 92-10-02, Amendment #1; Funding Changes for Human Services Program; Skookum Jump Rope Company 5. Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Duane F. Goetz $250.00 and Harry Ferbrache $150.00 6. Letter of Appreciation for Services; Member of the Olympic Private Industry; Charles Adams 7. CONTRACT #1-92-265015, Amendment A re: Provide Reimbursement to Jefferson County Juvenile Services for Y outh-at-Risk Petitions and Hearings; Agreement Period June 30, 1992 to June 30, 1993; State Department of Community Development 8. ITEM DELETED CONTRACT; Professional Services for SAFE Program of the Jefferson County Health Department; Dr. Sydney Schneidman 9. ITEM DELETED Approve and Adopt Policy for Rental of Health Department Conference Room 10. Notice of Hearing; Changing Name of Certain County Road; Joan Road to Joan Street, Shine Area; Setting Hearing for July 6, 1992 at 10:30 a.m. . VOL "1,8..· '.·f·,.....rr..)·.1". nn'7"'IIn ,~,.~ uu A:,;u ;:' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 3 CONSENT AGENDA - Continued I1.RESOLUTION NO. 50-92 re: Establishing the Name for a Private Road; Bluff Lane (As approved - see Minutes of June 15, 1992). 12.RESOLUTION NO. 51-92 re: Changing the Name of Springwood Drive to Creekside Drive; Port Ludlow Area 13. RESOLUTION NO. 52-92 re: Changing the Name of Summer Tree Drive to Springwood Drive; Port Ludlow Area 14.Approve Publication of Solicitation for Small Works Roster; Per Ordinance No. 05-0601- 92 15.AGREEMENT re: Removal of Jefferson County Community Counselling Services as a County Agency and Providing all Current Mental Health Assets to the Non Profit Jefferson Community Counselling Center BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Application for Franchise; Construct. Operate and Maintain a Cable Television System above County Road Ri2hts-of- W ay in the Gardiner and Sauamish Harbor Vicinities; Western Cable Service. Applicant: Public Works Administrative Assistant Eileen Simon reported that this request for franchise is for the construction, operation and maintenance of cable television system lines above the ground along County road rights-of-way in the Gardiner and Squamish Harbor areas. She then reviewed the responses from public agencies. The Public Works Department recommends that the performance bond requirement be waived. The proposal is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Plan and the staff recommends that the request be approved. The County issues non-exclusive franchises. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. Fred Tuso stated that the Prosecuting Attorney has expressed concern during previously held franchise hearings that a franchise should be for the public good. He feels that this franchise would encourage growth in an area that is trying to keep its rural character. Commissioner Wojt asked about the services this cable company will provide, such as a public access channel. Eileen Simon explained that there are no provisions of service requirements in the County franchise ordinance because the County isn't given the authority in the State law to regulate cable television services. The City can tax and control services for their franchises. The discussion continued regarding the public access channel on cable television and how that may be provided to County residents that are served by cable television. Fred Tuso asked how long this franchise will run? Eileen Simon answered that all County franchises are for a period of 25 years. Hearing no further public comment, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the franchise as recommended by the Public Works Department. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~ VGL 18 'r~T;:r ß0729 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 4 Hearin2 Examiner Recommendation; Application for Street Vacation; To Vacate a Portion of Holman Road between Patison Street and Rhody Drive; William Irwin: Eileen Simon reported that this proposal is to vacate approximately 350 feet of Holman Road between Patison Street and Rhody Drive in Irondale. She then reviewed the Hearing Examiners recommendation to approve the application with five conditions. Commissioner Wojt asked if the area where this vacation is being requested is designated as commercial? The area to the west of Holman Boulevard is designated as General Commercial and the area to the east is designated as General Use, Eileen Simon reported. Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that an application for re-zone of property in the area east of Holman Road has been made by Bill Irwin and a hearing will be held on that request. Leonard Heim stated that he and his sister both have residences next to Patison Street which have access from Holman Road. He said that if the re-zone to add an additional 100 feet to the commercial designation is approved, it will mean that he would have an intersection in his front yard. It would change the whole atmosphere of the area and he feels this would devalue his property. The Hearing Examiner never came out for the site inspection that he said he would make. Mr. Heim added that he feels the new access from Patison Street to Rhody Drive would not be as safe as the one that is there now. Gary Rowe reported that right-of-way has been acquired at the Patison StreetlRhody Drive intersection so that it can be properly built to County standards, which would include provision for proper sight distance. Right-of-way along Holman Road was also acquired, in case it would be needed for intersection improvements in the future. He reported that there are several problems with making improvements to an access to Rhody Drive from Holman Road. William Irwin. project proponent. stated that he had to make a preliminary request for a road vacation in order to make a portion of his property more suitable for commercial development. A second portion of the request is to extend the commercial designation to the east by 100 feet. A drainfield area and a buffer of trees would be placed in that area. The last forty feet of this area would be designated as an access easement to the two lots that will be landlocked with the vacation of Holman Boulevard. Mr. Irwin then presented the site plan for his proposed project. Gary Rowe noted that one of the conditions of this road vacation is that "the applicant shall develop the property in a manner generally consistent with the site plan submitted by the applicant. . ." Mark Huth advised that the Board should review the site plan. The Board members asked if two accesses off the Highway (one from Holman and one from Patison) are necessary? Gary Rowe stated that the need for two accesses will be reviewed by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Brown stated that he doesn't feel it is proper to have the Board act on this road vacation before the re-zone request is heard. Mark Huth reported that the road vacation could be made contingent upon approval of the commercial project. Mr. Irwin noted that a site plan cannot be drawn until the boundaries of the property are known. They are requesting this road vacation so that they can place a building in the vacated portion of Holman Boulevard. Gary Rowe reported that currently the lots owned by Mr. Irwin as well as the one he is seeking to have redesignated commercial can be accessed off Patison Street. A commercial access that meets County and Department of Transportation standards will be developed as part of this project. Mr. Shortley's current business is accessed off the Highway to Holman Boulevard because of the road configuration in the area. Mark Huth reported that if this vacation request is granted it only means that Holman Boulevard is not needed for public right-of-way purposes. Bill Irwin stated that they are going to develop the triangle (created by Holman, Patison and Rhody Drive) commercially whether or not the vacation of Holman Boulevard is granted. ,VOL 18f~fJd!J-- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 5 Commissioner Brown stated that the only way this makes sense is to approve the vacation contingent on the approval of the rezone. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the vacation of a portion of Holman Boulevard as recommended, with the conditions proposed by the Hearing Examiner, and contingent on the approval of the commercial project proposed by William Irwin. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown then amended his motion to include a one year time limit on this vacation approval. Commissioner Wojt seconded the amended motion. The amended motion and the motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Application for Franchise: Construct. Operate and Maintain a Water System in County Road Rights-of-wav in the Triton Cove Area; PUD #1 Jefferson County. Applicant: Eileen Simon reported that this request is to install, operate and maintain a water system in County road rights-of-way in the Triton Cove area. There is an existing water system in this area which has never been franchised. The PUD will be extending and expanding the current water system. She then reviewed the comments received from agencies. · The Public Works Department recommends that the bonding requirement be waived because the PUD is a licensed public utility. Some of the rights-of-way are usage only (outside the Plats of Williams Addition and Marshall Addition) and the County does not have the authority to grant a franchise in those areas. The Public Works Department recommends approval of this franchise. The Planning and Building Department stated that the franchise is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Fire Protection District #4 stated that since the area is entirely residential, both existing and proposed lines meet all fire flow requirements. . . Commissioner Wojt noted that there are many lots being supplied water by two inch lines and he asked if that is a problem? Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing. Bob Leach. Manager PUD #1 of Jefferson County: Bob Leach responded to Commissioner Wojt's question by explaining that the areas with two inch water lines were part of the system before the PUD took it over in 1984. All two inch lines that exist will remain, but new water lines will be constructed in accordance with current regulations. Commissioner Brown reiterated that the adequacy of the system is not in the County's purview on this franchise application. This franchise is to allow the utilization of County rights-of-way. Mark Huth asked how this franchise will fit into the Coordinated Water System Plan? Bob Leach reported that because this is an existing facility it is allowed under that plan. The existing system is being brought into compliance with franchise regulations. The extensions being made to the system are in compliance with the new standards. The whole project is consistent with the Water Utility Coordinating Plan. The discussion continued regarding the potential build out in this area and how that will impact the water services in the area. Fred Tuso asked if the franchise includes the existing water lines in the case where a water line exists without a franchise? Gary Rowe answered that the water system located within the geographic area defined in the franchise is covered. Mark Huth added that the franchise, is only for public rights-of-way. Hearing no further comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve the franchise as recommended by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Brown then moved to waive the bonding requirements because the PUD is a licensed public utility. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. , VaL 1"8·'···~ 00· '. ?~..., ...' :.. .r~,r~ ." '.... !,...~;,- ., ~.... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 6 HEARING re: Six Year Transportation Improvement Pr02ram for 1993-1998: Public Works Transportation Planner Scott Kilmer reported that this plan is essentially the same as last year's plan. He added that of the five projects at the end of the list, two (numbers 18 and 19) are included because federal funding has been applied for but construction will not be started unless the funding is approved. The remaining three projects are roads that have been taken over by the State. The County will remain involved with these projects until they are complete. Commissioner Wojt asked where Downs Creek Road is on this program? Scott Kilmer reported that it is not on this list, but is being handled as a maintenance project. Chairman Dennison opened the hearing for public comment. Hearing no comments the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 53-92 adopting the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Bud2et Extensions; Jefferson County Health Department: Health Department Administrator David Specter reviewed the Health Department's request for budget extensions for four programs. He reported that Mark Huth is reviewing the professional services contract with Dr. Sydney Schneidman for the SAFE program. The County needs to be included as an additional insured on Dr. Schneidman's malpractice insurance which may cost more than is reflected in the budget extension request. David Specter will check with Dr. Schneidman regarding this and make a report back to the Board. The Chairman opened the hearing for public comment. Hearing no comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve and sign RESOLUTION NO. 54-92 ordering the 1992 budget extensions as requested by the Health Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Appeal re: Administrative Decision; Denial of Road Approach Permit; Oak Bay Road. Port Ludlow; Mark Moriaritv: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that Mark Moriarity was advised in writing, through his attorney, that his request would be heard today. Since the appellant and his attorney are not present, it appears they are abandoning their appeal. PLANNING AND BUILDING Continuation of Comment Review on Miti2ated Determination of Non- Si2niticance Issued; Lar2e Lot Subdivision LL08-91 Quilcene Hei2hts; Six (6) Lot Subdivision of a 36.25 Acre Parcel; Padraic Burke: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that last August Padraic Burke submitted an application for a large lot subdivision. A mitigated determination of non significance (MDNS) was issued in the latter part of September. At the end of November the comments on the MDNS were reviewed by the Board. There were several issues identified in the comments: 1) clarification of the existing conservation easement in relation to the proposed project, 2) encroachment of the lots on the east side of McInnis Road into the conservation easement, 3) a traffic study be performed to evaluate potential traffic impacts, 4) does the existing County Subdivision Ordinance allow lots to be divided by an existing County road, 5) implications of any further divisions of the proposed open space, and 6) clarification of the tax status of the property from the County Assessor. At that time the Board indicated that the comments from the MDNS be put on hold until these issues are resolved. Since that time Mark Huth, the Prosecuting Attorney, has been working with the project proponent and the Planning staff to resolve these issues. The Planning staff has summarized the comments received on this project in their staff report. > VOL 18 fAE 00 r~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 7 With regard to the clarification of the conservation easement, Mark Huth reported that Patrick McGreevy, Mr. Burke's Attorney, submitted a letter on May 15, 1992 with a drawing and legal description which purports to identify the existing Conservation Easement. At the time the Conservation Easement was entered into between Northwest Historic Preservation Institute (Padraic Burke is an officer of record), and Mr. Shaw, the document recorded to identify the conservation easement was a map with a line drawn on it. Mr. Burke's proposed subdivision identifies Lots 5 and 6 as being south of the bridge that crosses Donovan Creek. The conservation easement map shows that it extends just south of that bridge which means that portions of Lots 5 and 6 encroach on the Conservation Easement. Mr. McGreevy claims that these two lots do not encroach on the Conservation Easement, because the boundary is the fence line. The Conservation Easement forbids development that effects water quality in any negative way, and identifies a number of environmental values of the area. There is a legal question about whether or not a subdivision can be approved that cuts the Conservation Easement into lots and with the Northwest Historic Preservation Institute signing off on the application. Padraic Burke, the project proponent, introduced his Environmental Engineer, Dennis Burke. Dennis Burke stated that he responded to the Prosecuting Attorney's request for information on the Conservation Easement. There were cattle roaming on the area of the original Conservation Easement. These cattle were contributing to the fecal coliform level in the creek. The conservation easement was established to get the cattle out of this area. The original easement was constructed from County maps which were found to be somewhat inaccurate. The distance between the section line and the fence line, which he feels is a monument defining the easement, is almost exactly the same as the distance on Exhibit B, the map with the existing easement. The fence line was installed to define the Conservation Easement. The original Conservation Easement was to improve the water quality in Donovan Creek and this proposal will accomplish the same thing, Dennis Burke concluded and noted that another conservation easement is proposed to cover more area. Mark Huth said that in comparing the drawing that Mr. Burke provided, with Exhibit B, it appears that the shape of the conservation easement was changed. If Mr. Burke is stating that the fence line changed the recorded document, then the easement should be modified on the public record (Exhibit B). It can't be changed by placing a fence line or interpretation of surveyors notes. The recorded document must be changed. Chairman Dennison noted that it appears there are two issues surrounding the conservation easement which need to be clarified: 1) the precise boundaries of the conservation easement, and 2) the intent of the conservation easement. Mark Huth explained that the original easement says that the property can not be developed in any way that would have a negative impact on water quality and the quality of wetland. He then read from Page 1 of the Purchase Agreement for the Conservation Easement "No development of any type that would adversely effect water quality shall take place, The land has substantial and important environmental, aesthetic, scenic and cultural character and incorporates important habitat and ecological values including a source of water for Quilcene Bay and the shellfish and other animal species and a source of habitat for migratory water fowl along Donovan Creek which empties into Quilcene Bay." He added that there are questions around the original conservation easement being enveloped or surrounded by another conservation easement. Also, if the suggested conservation easement is to be held by Northwest Institute for Historic Preservation, which is totally controlled by Mr. Burke, it would mean that Mr. Burke would be granting himself a conservation easement. Mark Huth noted that he is not sure of the efficacy of that type of arrangement when environmental protection is involved. The conservation easement in place is loosely worded and it doesn't offer the general protection that is needed for environmental value. He noted that the new conservation easement in the format suggested by Mr. McGreevy and Mr. Burke doesn't go far enough to protect what has been identified as a unique and very important environmental value. The values identified by the original conservation easement, which Mr. Burke signed off on, are not reflected in the environmental checklist submitted by Mr. Burke. He stated in the checklist that there are no migratory waterfowl on the project site. VOL .118·· 00··· .,,,,'" .i ..fAr,E ··l· . . Ù-.Þ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 8 Dennis Burke asked Mark Huth how he would improve the definition of the conservation easement? Mark Huth answered that he would include a legal description (metes and bounds) that shows the same area as indicated on Exhibit B. Chairman Dennison stated that he sees the issue as how the protection detailed in the easement will be accomplished. Padraic Burke reported that he is willing tApple LaserWriter Plus/lINT/lINTXAPLASPLU.PRS proposed easement smitted by Mr. Burke for the properties which states "No development of any type that would adversely effect water quality shall take place within the wetland portion of the property as depicted in Exhibit B of the Conservation Easement from James Shaw." This wording refers to the original easement that doesn't define the boundaries adequately. The proposed easement also states "notwithstanding the above, the grantors specifically retain the right to develop drinking water by drilling one or more wells on the property. Any development associated with developing these well, such as but not limited to, power sources to and from the wells, well houses, water pipes as permitted. . ." Mark Huth indicated that it is his opinion that this wording is wide open to various interpretations by attorneys. Padraic Burke responded that he only intends to place a well and a well house in this area and is willing to tighten the wording of the easement. Chairman Dennison asked if wording can be worked out that will accomplish what Mr. Burke has said he intends to place in this area and the protection required by the County. Mark Huth answered that wording could be worked out. Chairman Dennison asked how the Board will know that the placement of one or more wells in this area will not impact the aquifer and the wetland area? Mark Huth reported that if this is identified as a potential adverse environmental impact, the Board can ask that Mr. Burke provide proof in the form of a study, that wells in this area will not have a negative impact on water quality. Commissioner Brown reported that a community water system would be reviewed by the State Department of Ecology. He asked how a well could have a negative environmental impact? Mark Huth stated that the comments received have indicated there is a salt water intrusion problem in the wells in this area. Padraic Burke stated that he submitted a letter from one of the largest well drilling companies in the area that indicates there is no problem with salt water intrusion in that area. The well logs from the Roeder's well indicate 10 gallons of water per minute, and Jim Shaw's indicates 30 gallons per minute. He would rather put in a community water system than drill six individual wells. Dennis Burke reported that the State Department of Ecology through the water right permitting process will require that a study be done, if there is evidence through existing well logs, that salt water intrusion is suspected. Mark Huth added that if individual wells are drilled a water right permit will not be required. Padraic Burke said that the lots are worth more if there is water available to them, and his plan is to put one well in to develop into a community water system for the lots. Mark Huth reported that regardless of what happens with the conservation easement, it is the County's responsibility under SEP A to insure that the environmental values are identified and that any potential, significant adverse environmental impacts be mitigated. If the conservation easement is part of that mitigation, then the County must assure that it is written to provide protection in the future. Another question was the tax status of the property, Mark Huth reported. He explained that he has talked with the Assessor's Office and they show that the property is currently in the Open Space Agriculture program. If the subdivision is approved it will have to be taken out of that program, however, if it is put back into the Open Space, Open Space program no compensating tax liability will be required. The property northwest of McInnis Road (1 1/3 acres) is in the current use tax program and it will have to be taken out of that program and a compensating tax will be imposed. The traffic study has been performed and it was found that there will be minimal traffic impact on McInnis Road. Whether the County Subdivision Ordinance allows lots to be divided by a County road is an issue that will be addressed in the review of the Large Lot subdivision, Mark Huth continued. VOL 18 :.."m, '~,.,,"". ,"YU (01.* . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 9 Apart from the conservation easement the environmental impacts that need to be addressed include the water quality of Donovan Creek and its associated wetlands, the septic system suitability because of soil limitations and the need for a wet season soil analysis (east of McInnes Road), ground water quality impacts, stormwater management of runoff into Donovan Creek and the need for a drainage plan, and potential impacts to wildlife habitat. The adequacy of the responses in the environmental checklist were then discussed. Mark Huth noted that he doesn't feel the checklist correctly reflects the level of concern expressed in the conservation easement. Jerry Smith reported that the environmental checklist doesn't identify the unique qualities of the wetland area. It only refers to the preservation of that area through the Open Space designation. Mark Huth noted that without a conservation easement in place the County has no way to insure that the area east of the road is being protected adequately. Dennis Burke reviewed the process that the applicant has gone through to date on this project. The discussion continued regarding the adequacy of the information on the environmental checklist and the appropriate agency or group to hold the Conservation Easement. Padraic Burke reported that he has contacted the State Department of Fisheries, Department of Wildlife and the Jefferson County Conservation District and none of them are willing to hold the conservation easement. The Jefferson County Land Trust is willing to take the easement, but they want a large fee to accept it. Mr. Burke noted that he is willing to give the easement to Jefferson County. Mark Huth reported that the Land Trust charges a monitoring fee on conservation easements. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels the Board needs to tell the applicant what additional information is needed. Chairman Dennison added that the comments received may be acceptably mitigated if the applicant is willing to: · put the reserve areas for the on-site septic system on the property west of the road · only allow water wells in the area of the Conservation Easement . treat the issue of salt water intrusion, if individual wells are placed on the lots, as the State would treat the same issue on a community water system re-write the Conservation Easement to meet the intent of protecting the lowland area (particularly the wetland). . Dennis Burke reported that he met with the Health Department and reviewed the soils. He has prepared a design sheet which shows how the homesites will be placed on the lots, the placement of the on-site septic systems and identify areas for adequate ingress and egress. He added that they are willing to do what is necessary to assure that salt water intrusion doesn't occur in the wells. Mark Huth reported that one of the mitigations (condition 4) of the current DNS requires that Mr. Burke enter into a conservation easement with the Jefferson County Land Trust. Chairman Dennison noted that this condition could be modified to say that the conservation easement must be with a party acceptable to the County with the approval of the Prosecuting Attorney. Another condition could be that all on-site septic systems be reviewed and approved by the Jefferson County Health Department prior to building permits being issued. A mitigation could also be added that a storm water management plan must be submitted and approved by the Jefferson County Public Works Department. Commissioner Wojt asked about the placement of the houses on these lots. If the placement is changed it will change where the on-site septic systems are located. He asked if there is anything that notifies potential purchasers that they have to place their house in a specific area on the lot? Dennis Burke stated that they will define where the houses can be placed on each lot on the final plat. Mark Huth reported that the remaining concern is for the draw down of the aquifer. Mr. Burke reported that the study of aquifers is very imprecise. He will check with the State Department of Ecology for any information they may have on the aquifer in the Quilcene area. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to see a condition stating that any existing information on the aquifer be provided to the County. VOL '1·· 8. ·r' ~r,;: 00.·, ~~".... ,,",,- ." ('u..." II tr" Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 22, 1992 Page: 10 Mter further discussion of whether or not additional comments could be taken from people at this meeting, Mark Huth advised that an MDNS can always be withdrawn if there is significant new information that shows there are going to be environmental impacts. John McKinnley stated that the original conservation easement still has not been clarified. Chairman Dennison noted that is why one of the conditions is to have the whole conservation easement re-written. Discussion ensued regarding what a conservation easement allows and does not allow. Barbara Fisk asked who would be included during the re-writing of the conservation easement. Chairman Dennison reported that the Prosecuting Attorney will be re-writing the easement. Commissioner Brown moved to modify the mitigated determination of non-significance and directed the Prosecuting Attorney and Planning Department staff to draft the modified conditions to address the following as discussed: on-site septic systems, approval of the well (community or individual wells), the conservation easement and the stormwater management plan. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Prosecutin2 Attorney Mark Huth re: Reauest to Bifurcate EIS Process; Pope Resources: Planning and Building Department Director Craig Ward reported that a request has been received from Craig Jones and Associates, Attorneys for Pope Resources, asking that Pope Resources be allowed to produce two separate Environmental Impact Statements. They would put the EIS for the Inn project in one document and the programmatic EIS for all of their development in this area in a separate document. Mark Huth reported that they will be doing both EIS documents concurrently. Commissioner Brown moved to grant the request from the Attorney for Pope Resources to place the site specific EIS for the Inn project under a separate cover from the programmatic EIS on the overall development at Port Ludlow. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETI~9~ADJ.QlJRNED /'" " 1" C Q \f if ,"--.. /,'~.,." , "'.--- J ,.i~. ~'~ '........ J>\ :1~ . J"lii ... _". ..'..' (;> \\ 1 c.. ,J '.,,_.. ,. . 'j, , .' .'.. --.........1... I.". i .... .. ~ , _. '._ \.,,' .1.,.,. "'J~\ ,\.·...1 ',; ~l' ·.1 .1 "( ¡ ',.. , ~. . j i _.. .:-./ ,-'. .. '.,' ,~' '. ./i ...... ....:ø' -:-:'$'i~ " I.'" '. ~t.... " ..i.". .. . ,."';' J.. ...... L ~ 'l ',"'" ,.....j¡ ""~''''ÏIi'* ATTEST: .." ,.. . . _ C\)~:l~ 5()'\ \Þ',:~.. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~ Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board : VOL 18 '(1f' 73G