Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121492 <:h~ 'V" ~ò~ MINUTES WEEK OF DECEMBER 14, 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison at the appointed time. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard E. Wojt were both present. Commissioners' Brietin2 Session: Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth came before the Board to discuss the Special Investigator contract that is proposed in the 1993 budget. He noted that he feels the County should have the most trained and able person in this capacity. This Investigator does not need to have arrest powers. There are other Prosecu- ting Attorney Offices in the State that have special investigators. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney John Adcock added that the Special Investigator will also be involved in the post charging investigation which is a critical part of being able to proceed with child abuse cases. Steve Morell re: Request for Waiver: Requirement to Provide an Adiacent Property Owner List: Steve Morell explained that he submitted a short plat application to split his property into two parcels. The Planning Department advised him that part of this procedure is to have an adjacent property owner list from a title company. In his case there are three adjacent property owners and he doesn't see why he should have to have a title company develop the list. The Planning Department could verify the information. Commissioner Brown noted that this policy assures that all of the property owners are notified. Commissioner Wojt asked if the title companies have a set fee for this work? Mr. Morell said that he hasn't checked with a title company yet. He noted that the Plann- ing Department requires the submission of an Assessor's map and he would be willing to identify the adjacent properties on that map. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to check with the Planning Director and review the ordinance to see if the Board can grant a waiver to this policy. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The current status of the Olympic Discovery Trail ISTEA Grant, the Joint Resolution of the City and County to update the Growth Management Strategy, and the mapping done by the County for Growth Management were all discussed. .. fa r.,~ 0 1.6'02 . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 2 BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Settin~ the Public Works Department Fee Schedule: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reviewed the proposed fees for the Board. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Brown moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 12-1214-92 setting the Public Works Department fee schedule as proposed. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Brown moved to make the fees effective date January 1, 1993. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Determination re: Acceptance of Late Bids: Closure of Landfill and Septa2e La2oon: Gary Rowe reported that bids were received last Monday on the closure of the landfill from Little Chief Construction (Port Townsend) and IMCO General Construction (Bellingham) at 10:47 a.m. (as noted on the envelopes) after the time set for the bid opening. These bids were given to the Clerk of the Board as bids were being opened. Because they were late, the bids were not opened and have been kept in a safe in the Public Works Department since that time. Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth reported that the laws in the State of Washington regarding bidding are to protect the general public and to provide a fair forum for bidders. The County's bid call states that the Board can waive any irregularities or informalities that aren't material. An informality is material if the bidder was given a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The issue in this case is if the bidders were granted any advantage over that two minute period. If the Board finds that the bidders weren't granted any advantage, they can waive that irregularity and open the bid. Chairman Dennison stated that these bidders could not have changed their bids in that period of time. Mark Huth reported that it appears that these bidders, for whatever reason, could not get here exactly on time. Commissioner Brown noted that there is no advantage that could be given. Mark Huth explained that the person that brought the bid, handed it to the Secretary in the outer office and couldn't have possibly heard what was going on in the Chambers at that time. Commissioner Brown moved that since there was no advantage given to the two late bidders and because it is in the best interest of the County to consider all bids, that the ir- regularities in the bidding be waived and the two late bids be opened at this time. Com- missioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Gary Rowe then opened and read the two bids as follows: IMCO General Construction, Bellingham Little Chief Construction, Port Townsend $1,220,102.08 1,535,210.75 Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department review these two bids with the other bids and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best ad- vantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . Determination re: Acceptance of Late Bid: One (1) New or Used Aerial Man Lift: Gary Rowe reported that a bid was received last Monday at 2:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Office from Seattle Crane and Equipment Company for the 10:40 a.m. bid opening. The bid was sent through UPS. The envelope was then inadvertently sent to the . 18 NIl Ó 1603 ..: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 3 County Shop in their daily mail. The unopened bid was held at the Shop until it was sent to the Public Works office and held in the safe, until today. The UPS label on the front of the bid envelope does not indicate what time UPS picked up the document. Mark Huth explained that it is his recommendation that the time the bid was received by UPS be in- vestigated before a determination is made on whether or not to open this bid. Gary Rowe will check with UPS and report back to the Board. Later: Gary Rowe reported that UPS was called and the bid was shipped on December 4, 1992, and it wasn't received until 2:30 p.m. on Monday, December 7, 1992. Commis- sioner Brown moved to waive the informalities in the bidding and open the bid. Commis- sioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Seattle Crane and Equipment Company $72,969.82 including sales tax Commissioner Brown moved to have the Public Works Department check the bid for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEALTH DEPARTMENT HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Settin2 the Health Department Fee Schedule: Environmental Health Director Larry Fay reviewed the Health Department fees suggested for adoption. He explained that the Department has reviewed their programs and these fees are an attempt to have the people that use the programs pay. These fees represent a 15% to 20% increase over the previous fees. Health Department Administrator David Specter reported that the fees for Nursing services are set at the level of State medical reimbursement. The fees are offered on a sliding scale for people who are not on Medicaid. No one is turned away for inability to pay. Chairman Dennison asked if the State fees actually cover the costs? David Specter answered that he has not done that analysis, but will do it in the future. He then explained that immunization fees are subsidized by the State Department of Health. For any immunizations that are not subsidized, the fee will be the cost of the vaccine plus a visit fee. Larry Fay reported that there is a $25.00 fee for Section 63 Reviews for water systems since this program takes a considerable amount of time. Under the On-site sewage program the fee for wet season evaluations has been increased to $100.00 to better reflect the cost of this service. The Clerk of the Board reported that there is a correction to Section II Food Service Item M. This Item should read "Late renewals of Items A through Labove - Additional 50% of Fee." The Food Handler Permit will then become item N, Plan Reviews Item 0 and Reinspection Item P. David Specter then submitted alternative language for Section VI which makes the actual services and fees clearer. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comments the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 13-1214-92 setting the fees for the Health Department with the suggested wording for Section VI, and the change to Section II as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board then interviewed four applicants for appointment to the vacant position on the Planning Commission. .-;t IS;,.. 0 1604 - Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 4 PLANNING AND BUILDING HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Settin2 the Plannin2 and Buildin2 Department Fee Schedule: Planning Director Craig Ward reviewed the suggested fee increases. He noted that many of the fees in the proposed ordinance are fees that the Department has been charging and do not represent changes. The plan check fee and the evaluation on a per square foot basis have been changed under the building, mobile home and wood stove permit section. The changes in the plan check fee are proposed to help recover more of the costs incurred by this service. He then reviewed the increases in the fees for subdivisions. Chairman Dennison opened the public hearing on the proposed fee ordinance for the Planning Department. David Cunningham. Pope Resources. stated that it is important to get service for the fees paid. In the course of the last three years Pope has paid $65,000 in fees to the Planning and Building Department. They have projects that have gone as long as four months without ever receiving acknowledgement of the application. There are projects submitted which should have had SEPA actions as long as six months ago that haven't been made. They feel that the level of services should be raised as the County raises fees. The Plann- ing Department is in a difficult situation with their staffing level and he suggested that the department be given more staff, so the public can get the services they are paying for. He doesn't feel that these increases are negligible. Bob Dalev stated that he had to pay $75.00 for a zone check on a recent application he submitted for a small greenhouse. He feels this fee is high. Craig Ward explained that if the Planning Department feels that an application may require an interim zoning review, they require an interim zoning application and fee be submitted. If the project is found to be exempt, then the fee is refunded. Craig Ward explained that when the Interim Zoning Ordinance was first passed a $500 fee was included for re-zone applications. Re-zone applications require a large amount of work because they involve a judgment of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and a lengthy review process. The re-zone application was also applied at that time to properties that need to have their zone designation clarified. This happened when there was a Comprehensive Plan map that indicated a specific use for an area. This type of clarifica- tion was done for the Port Hadlock Commercial District and the Tri Area Highway Business District. The Board removed the $500 fee for this map clarification. Craig Ward recommended that the $500 fee for a rezone be added, but that this fee not be applied to a clarification of an existing map. He also suggested that a fee for plat amendments and vacations be added with a $50.00 application fee and the standard $75.00 public hearing fee if it is necessary. Under the Subdivision Section, Item 3. Binding Site Plan there is a $50 fee for exemptions. This is vague and misleading because there are exemptions that apply to more than Binding Site Plans. He suggested that an Item 4 be established in this Section for Exemptions with a $50.00 fee. Bob Hinton asked Craig Ward how Jefferson County fees compare with the City of Port Townsend and surrounding counties? Craig Ward reported that these suggested fees are comparable or below the fees charged by the City and surrounding counties. Chairman Dennison advised that the Planning Department did an extensive spreadsheet on the fees charged by neighboring counties. David Cunningham stated that he feels it is a contradiction to charge a fee when an application is exempt from an. ordinance, . Craig Ward responded that one type of exemption is a boundary line adjustment. These requests require staff work. He added that he agrees with Mr. Cunningham to some .. 18,. 0:1:605 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 5 degree and suggested that rather than listing a fee for an exemption it could be listed as a Boundary Line Adjustment. Before the ordinance was amended there were more exemp- tions allowed, so this was more of a problem in the past. Commissioner Wojt asked Craig Ward about the applications that Pope Resources say aren't being processed? Craig Ward explained that he would need to know specifically what projects are being referred to. David Cunningham answered that none of the projects he is referring to have anything to do with Port Ludlow. Two projects took over 120 days before the first SEP A notice was published. Another project went 90 days before Pope was advised that they needed more information. He feels that as fees continue to increase, service should increase. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is a mechanism for tracking the progress of projects? Craig Ward reported that plats are not tracked on a computerized data base. but they are tracked manually. The Department has been trying to rearrange the staff workload to accommodate faster service, but there are many plats in the process right now. Katherine Jenks stated that if an impact fee schedule had been addressed and adopted along with the GMA process, then some of these fees could be mitigated to the citizens of the entire County and would be focused on those who actually stand to gain from the development. David Cunningham noted that impact fees are not meant to be processing fees, they are for legitimate capital expenditures. Hearing no further comments Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brown asked Craig Ward about the $500 fee for zone clarification on the Comprehensive Plan maps? Craig Ward explained that the fee would be charged for applications for re-zone. An interpretation of an existing map is not the same thing as a re-zone. A great deal of expense goes into applications for re-zone. Commissioner Brown noted that the original intent was that no one lost what they had under the old Comprehensive Plan Land Use map and that property owners would not be charged to investigate instances where there was a question and clarification of the Op- timum Land Use map was required. Craig Ward added that no fee has been charged for rezones. Commissioner Brown added that he feels that people who are requesting zone change beyond a clarification of the Optimum Land Use maps should be charged a fee. He questioned whether this fee can be added to the proposed Ordinance since it was not included in the advertised ordinance. Commissioner Brown advised that he would like to ask the Prosecuting Attorney about adding a fee for re-zone before action is taken to adopt this proposed ordinance. Plannin2 Commission Findin2s. Conclusions. and Recommendations: Petition for Zone Chan2e under the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: 44 Acres of Land Located at the Intersection of State Routes 19 and 20: Zoned as General Use to General Commercial: Richard Wiley. Joseph Daley. John & Terri Hem. John Nesset. and Tom and Ellen Beavers: Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on this petition for a zone change and has for- warded a recommendation to the Board for a commercial designation that is in a different configuration than that requested. This recommendation was made because there is not a clear policy about how much land around an inter~ection should be designated commer- cial. The Fred Hill Materials parcel is not included in this request. The recommended commercial zone does not extend as far north and south as petitioned. Mr. Daley's property (Tax 12) and Mr. Wiley's property are cut in half by the area recommended to be designated commercial. Æ 18,. o 1606 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 6 Commissioner Brown asked if designation of this area was indicated on the Comprehensive Plan maps before the Interim Zoning Ordinance was adopted? James Holland reported that the Optimum Land Use map identified the commercial zone in this area as a large dot. There is no precisely detailed map for this area. Commissioner Brown asked if there was a site plan on all these parcels prior to the interim ordinance? James Holland reported that the Planning Department has on file a record of correspondence with Mr. Daley identifying commercial development on the northern part of Tax 12 (the Olympic Greenhouse) and the plat of the TEC Commercial Center is on file. Commissioner Brown then asked the difference in the distance from the intersection for the commercial area to be designated per the applicants proposal and the area proposed by the Planning Commission? James Holland answered that the area recommended by the Planning Commission is about 660 feet from the intersection. The application included all of Mr. Wiley's property which is approximately 1,100 feet from the intersection and all of Mr. Daley's property. James Holland noted that the findings and conclusions on this recommendation include consideration of the policies on the size of a commercial zone and concern for impacts on the highway. Richard Wiley stated that he owns the 21.95 acres bordered by Highway 20 and the Airport Cutoff Road. He reported he received a letter about the Planning Commission recommendation on Friday December 11th and has not had time to get advice from anyone knowledgeable about land use matters. He added that he hopes that more time will be allowed before a decision is made on this request. Mr. Wiley then reviewed the information in the Planning Commission's recommendation. · The only property owner at the August 5th meeting of the Planning Commission was Tom Beavers. Mr. Wiley's property on the Airport Cutoff Road side measures 1,530 feet and on the Highway 20 side it is 1,337 feet, and approximately 270 feet across the northern end (the boundary between his property and that owned by Tom Beavers. ) The Planning Commission's summary doesn't make any mention that a Drive In theater has been located on this property for the last 40 years. The total southern half of his property has been a commercial zone and was when he pur- chased it. Mr. Wiley agrees with Pat Thompson's testimony that it doesn't make sense to divide an existing property such as the Drive In Theater. Mr. Wiley added that the theater is on one parcel of commercial property. The trees between the Drive In theater and the cleared area by Courtesy Ford are there to stop the impact of car lights, and act as a natural sound barrier. The Drive In is located on the southern portion of his property which the Planning Commission has excluded from their recommendation for the Commer- cial designation. Fred Hill Materials used the three phase power and other utilities that were originally brought in to this area for the Drive In theater. The Planning Commission recommendation states that the zone change as peti- tioned would violate part of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan which says that strip development along highways leads to traffic problems, and the diminishment of adjoining property values. Mr. Wiley reported that there is only one person that lives next to his property and she has lived there for a long time. The Drive In has a capacity of 150 vehicles., In the time the Drive Inn has been in existence there hasn't been a major acçident on either of the intersections coming off of Theater Róad~ The Drive In can not be seen from the Highway. . The policies say that commercial development should be located adjacent to existing commercial development. Mr. Wiley stated that his existing develop- ment is a Drive In Theater, and the northern half of his property would be commercial developmen't which is located next to the existing development. · · · · · · · ... 18 ~Mi 0 :1.60'1 . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 7 · Mr. Wiley then reviewed the map of the area and pointed out for the Board where the commercial designation, as recommended by the Planning Commission, would be located. Joseph (Bob) Daley. owner of Olympic Greenhouse, reported that he attended and testified at the Planning Commission hearing even though it is not reported in the staff summary. He explained that the northern portion of his property is not in the commercial zone, but that is where his greenhouse has been located for the last 12 years. In the application for this rezone he submitted a statement that this property was purchased as a commercial property and approved for a commercial operation known as the Olympic Greenhouse in 1980. He noted that he assumed that his submission would be read by someone, but apparently the Planning Commission didn't read it. His property fits all of their recommendations in the Planning Department staff report. Mr. Daley read from letters he had previously sent to the Commissioners and reported that he reviewed his files and found the following items as hard proof of his property being considered commercial: A letter dated November 14, 1979, from the Planning Department to the State Department of Transportation (with maps attached), and Assessor's land code designation for tax assessment. With regard to traffic, Mr. Daley reported that he has already sold property to the State which will put a center turn lane in front of his greenhouse business access. Richard Wiley added that the State has plans to move that intersection three hundred feet south, making it even closer to his Drive In Theater. James Holland reported that the Planning Commission did discuss that possibility. They decided to review the zone change application on the location of the intersection as it currently is because that was the con- figuration of the intersection when the application was submitted. He further reported that the Planning Commission was taken on a site inspection of the properties listed in the application. Pat Thompson. representing John Hem and the TEC Commercial Center, (also known as the Courtesy Ford property) reported that she just found out today that this issue was going to be on the Board's agenda. She questioned the agency response from the Public Works Department (page 5) which recommends that mitigation be required if the rezone petition is approved: 1) A small parcel erosion control plan be developed. She asked what this is, when it would have to be done, and why it would be required? She asked if this means that when any of the properties are developed further, these mitigations would be imposed? 2) A temporary erosion control plan for construction, must be submitted for approval, to be employed during site development. She noted that she under- stands this to mean for future development of many of those properties. James Holland reported that he does not know what was meant with regard to the small parcel erosion control plan, but she is correct with regard to erosion control being required during construction or improvement on these properties. He added that the Planning Department is not required legally to notify the property owners of this issue being placed on the Board's agenda. Commissioner Brown asked if all of the properties noted in the petition have been taxed as commercial properties? If they have that would lead the property owner to believe that they have commercial property. Commissioner Wojt moved to set a public hearing on this request for a zone change for December 28, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. '," J8 f..r 0 1608 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 8 Plannin2 Commission Findin2S. Conclusions. and Recommendations: Petition for Zone Chan2e under the Interim Zonin2 Ordinance: 2.5 Acres of Property Located Adjacent to Rhody Drive near Irondale Road: Zoned General Use to General Commercial: Michael and Susie Graves: James Holland reported that this zone change was reviewed by the Planning Commission. They held a hearing on the request and recommend denial. This property is just outside of the Tri Area Highway Business District. Commissioner Wojt asked if the property is currently used for commercial purposes? James Holland reported that the property has no development on it, but it was cleared recently. Mike Graves reported that at one time the property was commercial. There is no logical use for it but commercial. His property is not part of the Tri Area development strip. He is asking to be allowed to have his property placed back in the commercial designation. When he went before the Planning Commission, there were only four members present. They had nothing against the property being commercial except for Article 17 in the Interim Zoning Ordinance which states that every arterial intersection in Jefferson County will be general use, general commercial or general industrial designation except that intersection and two others. There are two accesses, one at each end of the property, approved by the County, as well as water service, and an approved septic system (designed for a commercial building). The Building Department would not issue a building permit because they said it wasn't a commercial property. Mr. Graves continued by reporting that he wants to build a 5,000 square foot building to house an entertainment center with video games, pitching machines, and batting cages. James Holland reported that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Tri Area Community Development Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's Optimum Land Use map identifies this the intersection that Mr. Graves property is adjacent to, as commercial. The Tri Area Community Development Plan (which was adopted at a later date) specifical- ly excludes this intersection from commercial designation. Commissioner Brown noted that if there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Tri Area Community Plan, the Board must sort out what is applicable. In this case, if the Board is going to do something different than what the Planning Commission recom- mends, they must develop finding and conclusions to support that action. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to check with the Prosecuting Attorney regarding the legal issues around the difference between the two documents. Mike Graves stated that there were only four Planning Commission members present during that hearing. Commissioner Brown noted that four is not a quorum of the Commission. James Holland reported that two members excused themselves because of a conflict of interest. Commissioner Brown moved to table action on this request until next week (December 21, 1992) to allow time for consultation with the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Determination re: Appeal of Final Miti2ated Determination of Non-Si2- nificance: Lar2e Lot Subdivision. Fulton Lake Estates (Rearin2 concluded November 23. 1992): Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that the question before the Board at this point is if they have information that is adequate to make a determination on this proposal. If the information isn't adequate the Board must decide how to obtain the needed information. If the Board feels they have adequate information they need to identify any significant adverse impacts that would result from the proposal and determine how those impacts can be avoided. Chairman Dennison asked if the proponent has ~ny riew information? Harry Holloway, Attorney representing Sam Boling, reported that a settlement agreement has been discussed ... lB.. o 1509 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page: 9 but there is no final agreement. Mr. Boling saw a draft of a settlement agreement, but it was not acceptable to him. Jim Pearson reported that no settlement agreement has been submitted to the County. Commissioner Brown reported that the Prosecuting Attorney could not be here today, but reported earlier that there may be a settlement. Stan Betham reported that negotiations were conducted throughout the week in a good faith effort. They learned just this morning that there was no deal. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Holloway if the proposed settlement is acceptable to his client and if it is not acceptable if the issues can be resolved? Mr. Holloway reported that the proposed settlement agreement submitted to his client is not acceptable. Commissioner Wojt asked if more time for negotiations is a possibility? Stan Betham reported that their counsel, Dave Bricklin, is not here. They would like to have a decision on this matter today. Commissioner Brown stated that the Board is at a disadvantage because their legal counsel is not present. Mter further discussion of a possible settlement agreement, Jim Pearson reported that the Board has taken testimony on the proposal before them. Even though there was an attempt for negotiation between the parties, the Board still needs to consider the proposal and the testimony and work at making a decision on this matter. Chairman Dennison clarified that if there is no agreement, there are no suggested mitigation and the Board must make a determination on the appeal and the testimony as presented. Commissioner Brown noted that he would prefer that the Prosecuting Attorney be present when this determination is made, and that he would like more time to review the tes- timony received. Chairman Dennison agreed that he would like to discuss this with legal counsel. Erwin Jones, Attorney, stated that he is associated with Mr. Holloway and can speak for Mr. Boling. Mr. Boling does not object to the Board taking more time for review. Commissioner Wojt moved to postpone the determination on this matter until 3:00 p.m. on December 21, 1991. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Com- missioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. a. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Back Up Interim Destination for Jefferson County Solid Waste; Island County b. AGREEMENT re: Personal Services Contract for Cooperative Extension Agent; Washington State University c. RESOLUTION NO. 124-92 re: Joint Resolution between the City and County; Updating the Regional Growth Management Strategy d. Approve Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Russell Tupac $500.00 e. RESOLUTION NO. 125-92 re: Creating CR1069, Olympic Discovery Trail f. Approve Federal Aid Project Prospectus; Application for ISTEA Funding; Olympic Discovery Trail Phase 1 and 2 (From Port Townsend Boat Haven to Adelma BeachlFo- ur Corners) g. AGREEMENT re: Preliminary Engineering to Determine Right-of-way Location and Right-of-way Acquisition; Olympic Discovery Trail Phase 1 & 2 and Certification Regarding Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for LQbbying h. RESOLUTION NO. 126-92 re: The Statutory Vacation of A Portion of Unopened Stevens Street; Plat of Garfield's Addition . .-fI; 18'If 01. 510 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of December 14, 1992 Page:1 0 1. HEARING NOTICE re: Appeal of a Final Threshold Determination; Schoper Short Subdivision SP14-92; Christine Schoper, Applicant; Hearing set for January 11, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. J. Reappointment to Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Agness Walker to a Two Year Term (Term expires October 23, 1994) k. RESOLUTION NO. 127-92 re: Designating Duties of Clerk of the Board 1. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Timber; Grays Harbor and Clallam Counties Applications for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the applications for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund as submitted for Robert L. White in the amount of $500.00 and Robert Spafford in the amount of $200.00. CommissionerWojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Request for Waiver of Room Rental Fee at the Port Townsend Community Center: Do-It-Yourself Divorce Workshop: The Board concurred that the current policy of charging space rental fees at the Community Centers to all organizations be upheld and to deny this wavier request. They noted that even the County isn't exempt from paying space rental fees at the Community Centers. Application for Out of State Travel: Jefferson County Sheriff's Department: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the request for out of state travel submitted by the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Wojt seconded motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Liquor License Transfer: Ferino's Pizzeria: Commissioner Brown moved that the County has no objection to the liquor license transfer for Ferino's Pizza as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Plannin2 Commission Appointment: Commissioner Brown moved to appoint Ande Grahn to an unexpired term on the Planning Commission representing Commissioner District 1. Her term will expire September 30, 1996. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. MEETING ADJOURNED SEAL: ATTEST: ~ß j?1lJ)r-' Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board . JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ,~ 18 rM,f 01G11