Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022591 . , MINUTES WEEK OF FEBRUARY 25, 1991 Chairman Larry W. Dennison called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioner Richard E. Wojt was present. Commissioner B. G. Brown was in Olympia meeting with the Chairman of a sub-committee of the State Legislature. The Board met in Executive Session with Auditor Mary Gaboury regarding a personpel matter. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT re: Consultine Services for Base Mappine on Pro..iect #TM0960; Spencer B. Gross.' Inc.: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that this agreement is for aerial photos and base maps for the GIS project. This phase of the project is estimated to cost $131,990.00. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the agreement with Spencer B. Gross, Inc. for the mapping project. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Reimbursable Work on Kearney Street; City of Port Townsend: This reimbursable work request is ,for engineering services to be provided by the County in preparation of plans and assistance in the construction management of the City's Kearney Street project, Gary Rowe reported. The estimated cost of the project is $70,000.00. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the reimbursable work request with the City of Port Townsend. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENTS re: Cooperative Purchasine (2): Clallam County and City of Lacey: These agreements will allow the County to purchase items off the bids for equipment prepared by Clallam County and the City of Lacey. A five yard dump truck will be purchased off the City of Lacey bid and there are several items to be purchased from Clallam County bids, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Clallam County and with the City of Lacey as presented. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. \./;':1. . , 17 r~G~ 00 1.92 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 2 Proposed Solid Waste Rate Increase: Gary Rowe reviewed a memo to the Board regarding the proposed Solid Waste rate increase (See also Minutes of January 22, 1991). He explained that if all of the proposed recommendations outlined in this memo are implemented $75,000 to $85,000 would be saved and the proposed tipping fee at the landfill could be reduced to $50.00 per ton. Gary Rowe added that the operating hours would have to be cut back at the Recycling Center and the drop box sites to meet these recommendations. The Board asked that these recommendations be reviewed by the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Pat McElroy. Deputy Supervisor. State Department of Natural Resources re: 10 Year Forest Manaa:ement Plan: State Department of Natural Resource Deputy Supervisor, Pat McElroy, explained that this meeting is to ask the County's help in identifying issues for a re-write of the Forest Management Plan that will be named the Forest Resource Plan. This is the policy document to give guidance for managing Forest Board Lands. The document that the Department has been working under is out of date due to recent changes with regard to forest lands (spotted owl, Sustainable Forestry Round Table, changes in regulations, etc.). Chairman Dennison asked how this will change the management of the forests? Pat McElroy explained that the timber cut is calculated in a certain manner. DNR is exploring ways to change the calculation to meet the needs of each County. Mr. McElroy said DNR will consider how each County wants their forest Board Lands treated. Mr. McElroy explained that federally granted lands are those lands that were granted from the federal government at Statehood to endow the public school systems. Schools included Universities, common schools, agricultural schools, etc. These lands are managed for the sole benefit of the schools. In the 1920-30's the State legislature granted the State the authority to buy forest lands. The State purchased about 70,000 acres. The State determined that these lands were to be managed by the State for forest protection and they are called Forest Board lands. Jefferson County has a large amount of these State Forest Board lands (mostly on the east side of the County). Chairman Dennison explained that the County has set goals for watershed protection, enhancement of natural fish runs, etc. Senior Planner Craig Ward stated that per the Growth Management Act, the County has to look at cumulative impacts from forest land resources. Pat McElroy stated that land exchanges are used to provide the most of the forest resource. The County should treat federally granted lands just as they would treat any other property in the County for land use planning purposes. Craig Ward also identified a need to coordinate and plan for: transportation, wildlife habitat, buffering resource lands from non-conforming uses, wetlands protection, and open space. Chairman Dennison expressed concern for environmental impacts from specific local timber sales. Pat McElroy stated that all DNR sales go through an environmental assessment. Commissioner Wojt stated that he has heard concerns that the DNR's policy is to cut timber on eastern Jefferson County lands and then trade those lands for more land on the west side of the County. Mr. McElroy stated there is no such policy, but that is not to say that this situation has not happened. The general policy is to dispose of non-productive lands in exchange for productive lands when the exchange meets the needs of both the Department and the County. The department is very sensitive to the needs of the County on State Forest Board lands, but is a little less sensitive to the County's needs on the federal trust lands. ;0.1. 1 7 r~f;f 00 :193 ',1- Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 3 PLANNING AND BUILDING Appeal of a Home Business Permit CC#38-90: Brinnon Glass. Robert Bowman. Wa Wa Point. Brinnon (Tabled on February 19. 1991): Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that last week this appeal was reviewed and tabled so that concerns for traffic generated by the project and maintenance of the road would be addressed. Jerry Smith then presented a letter from Douglas Smith, Mr. Bowman's attorney, with a list of suggested conditions to be added to the Certificate of Compliance for this home business. Jerry Smith also reported that a written request was received from Mr. Nystrom and Mr, Abe asking for a delay until March 18, 1991, on a decision regarding this appeal. Chairman Dennison asked why a delay is being requested? Mr. Nystrom answered that they (the adjacent property owners) didn't know that Mr. Bowman was going to be represented by legal counsel and they would like time to employ legal counsel also. Mr. Nystrom added that the four other property owners have agreed that the plank road should not be tampered with. The road is in need of repair because of the trucks that have used it to take materials into Mr. Bowman's two building projects. Mr. Abe asked if the Board received the petition from the surrounding property owners. Chairman Dennison indicated that the petition was received. Chairman Dennison stated that he doesn't feel that delaying this matter would do any good. The issue is whether this request meets the intent of the Development Code regulations for home businesses, and the provisions of the Brinnon Community Plan. Mr. Nystrom asked who is to police compliance with the rules? Chairman Dennison responded that whether Mr. Bowman complies with the rules is determined by whether complaints are received from the neighbors. Chairman Dennison asked about the number of trips per day generated by this home business? Douglas Smith explained that the building that houses the business has a capacity of two vehicles. Chairman Dennison asked how the number of trips per day could be limited? Mr. Smith stated that condition 5 limits the parking and that would limit the number of vehicle trips per day. Chairman Dennison added that people cannot see the business to know that there is no parking available. He again asked how the County will know if the maximum trips per day for the business is exceeded? Mr. Smith stated that if any more vehicles than that use the road, he is sure the neighbors will complain. Frederick Tuso stated that many times when people have a windshield changed, they will have someone come in to pick them up when they leave their car for repair and bring them back when it is finished. This would be six trips per day for one repair. Mr. Abe added that this number of trips per day is very unrealistic. Douglas Smith responded that Mr. Bowman asked for permission for a very small business. This condition might be unrealistic, but he has a right to ask that it be considered as a condition. Chairman Dennison noted that Mr. Bowman will be expected to abide by this language. Commissioner Wojt asked if Mr. Smith talked with the neighbors about road maintenance? Mr. Smith responded that he has tried to talk with Mr. Nystrom and Mr. Abe about this easement several times. The easement is a complex legal problem and they have been trying to work it out. Commissioner Wojt then asked how this request fits into the Brinnon Community Plan? Jerry Smith reported that the Brinnon Community Plan allows a home business, if it is compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Abe stated that the entire point ~a Wa Point) has expensive homes established on it. All of the area residents he has talked with are against this home' business. Mr. Nystrom stated that he has asked that the easement be legally defined. He noted that each deed refers to a road. Chairman Dennison reminded those present that the easement is an issue between the property owners. Douglas Smith stated that the home business proposed by Mr. Bowman does retain the rural atmosphere of the neighborhood, Commissioner Wojt moved to take the matter of the appeal of the Certificate of Compliance issued for Brinnon Glass off the table for consideration. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. VOl. 1 7 fAk~ 00 194 " , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 4 After more discussion of the proposed conditions, Commissioner Wojt moved to uphold the certificate of compliance for Mr. Bowman's home business with all of the conditions of approval suggested including the conditions presented by Mr. Smith and an additional condition that this certificate of compliance be reviewed again in six months. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison stated that Condition 3 suggested by Mr. Smith shall read: "Maintenance of the access road in a manner compatible with the rural character of the neighborhood shall be provided and such maintenance shall be upgraded as needed by Mr. Bowman. n Mr. Nystrom reiterated that all the neighboring property owners have agreed that the plank road shall not be tampered with. He asked again how the number of vehicle trips can be enforced? Chairman Dennison noted that a vehicle counter could be placed on the road. Chairman Dennison called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Proposed Jefferson County Hearine Examiner Ordinance: Assistant Planner Eric Toews gave a brief overview of this proposed ordinance which would create the office of Hearing Examiner invested with the power to conduct public hearings and issue final decisions or recommendations relating to diverse land use regulatory matters. This ordinance would: 1) relieve the planning department of the regulatory work that they are currently faced with week to week, 2) allow the Planning Department to separate the land use regulatory function from the planning process, and 3) guarantee both procedural due process and the appearance of fairness in land use hearings. The Hearing Examiner would be appointed by the Board for one year. The Powers and Duties section is the most important section of the ordinance; Eric Toews noted. Final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner could be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. The Hearing Examiner would make final decisions on: Variances from the Development Code, setback requirements, standards of the subdivision ordinance, the Camper Club Ordinance, road vacations and plat alterations. The Hearing Examiner would make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners on matters which the Board currently receives recommendations from the Planning Commission, such as: Approval of preliminary plats, mobile home parks, recreational vehicle or travel trailer parks, and membership camper clubs. Applications for conditional use permits, Development Code map revisions, planned residential developments, appeals from decisions of the administrator of the Shoreline Master Program, and appeals from administrative decisions on certificates of compliance under the Development Code. Chairman Dennison asked if a Hearing Examiner making a recommendation on an application for a conditional use permit is common practice? Eric Toews responded that this is done in other counties. Redesignations represent policy determinations, while map revisions are defined in the Development Code as a technical corrections to the map, Eric Toews noted. Chairman Dennison then opened the hearing for public comment. Huah Stocker: Hugh Stocker stated that he feels that (Section 03.00 Qualifications) preferential treatment for hiring a Hearing Examiner should be given to people who have had similar jobs in the private sector. Chairman Dennison stated that public administration is a general education field. David Skeen, Jefferson County Bar Association: David Skeen stated that the Jefferson County Bar Association has reviewed this proposed ordinance. He has discussed the lack of dispute resolution mechanisms in the Development Code with the County Planning Director. He stated that personally and as a representative of the Bar Association the concept of a Hearing Examiner is supported. He commended the County for taking this necessary step. One concern, Mr. Skeen noted, that the Bar Association has is if a person from out of town is hired to do dispute resolution. This would inhibit the progress of a local group that is working to provide this service. Having the Prosecuting Attorney provide legal assistance to .'01. ltoOJ (] 'r~ ,n I tA,,~ ';,(y :195 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 5 the Hearing Examiner is not a good idea. There could be a problem with "appearance of fairness. " David Skeen added that one of the main objections to this proposed ordinance is that there are no rules. The ordinance allows for the Hearing Examiner to establish his own rules. If that Examiner, for some reason did not sit on a particular case, a substitute examiner would be needed. It won't work to have substitute examiners have their own rules. The County should adopt a minimum set of rules. AI Boucher: AI Boucher read and submitted his comments on this ordinance. David Skeen: David Skeen noted in response to one of Mr. Boucher's comments, that on appeals, once the County has this system, it is bound by the Hearing Examiner's findings of fact. The Board does not have the right to override the findings of fact as a routine matter. This is what insures the fairness of the process, Huah Stocker: Hugh Stocker stated that he doesn't believe in the Hearing Examiner being given the authority to make a final decision. David Cunninaham. Pope Resources: David Cunningham stated that he personally and Pope Resources support the concept of a Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County. He noted that he has participated in hundreds of public hearings, some before Planning Commissions and others before a Hearing Examiner. The Planning Commission's role in holding hearings has been very difficult and cumbersome. The Planning Commission's job in Jefferson County is going to be recommending long range growth policy to the Board of Commissioners. Sworn testimony with submitted exhibits, as the Hearing Examiner process requires, is a more factual and cleaner way of conducting a hearing and it adds fairness to the process, David Cunningham stated. He then commented on the ordinance: Section 01.00 Purpose (page 1) Item 3 - Goal is to satisfy the ". . . public and private demands of the community.". This is unclear. Section 08.00 Submittal Requirements - " . . .Examiner determines that the submittal is within his/her jurisdictional scope. . ." Since these applications are submitted to the Planning Department, the Department should determine if an application is within the scope of the Hearing Examiner. Later in that sentence ". . .the applicant has complied with all requirements and furnished all requested information,. . ." This is somewhat vague, and David Cunningham suggested the wording be changed to: II. . requested information as provided by applicable ordinances. II Section 10 ". . . will carry out and perform the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. . ." add lIand applicable development regulations.1I Same Section, #2 Recommendations: Item F should be stricken from this list. Revising a Development Code map is not much different than adopting a Development Code Map. This is a legislative act and should be under the purview of the County Commissioners, Mr. Cunningham noted. Same Section, Item 3: Jurisdictional Umits - The last line 7he Examiner may render a decision which constitutes a recommendation concerning such a matter, however, the final legislative determination is solely within the purview of the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners." This line appears to give the Hearing Examiner a responsibility and role that is clearly the Planning Commissions role. He added that this seems to imply that the Hearing Examiner can make a policy recommendation to the Board. If that is the case, the power is poorly placed by this sentence. Section 11.00 Reconsideration of Examiner Decisions: David Cunningham stated that lIany aggrieved party or agency' should be tightened up. He suggested that possibly the wording could be, IIAny aggrieved party or agency directly affected by the decision. II Section 13.00 Examiner's Annual Report: This section should be worded to say IIAny recommendations the Examiner has for improving the County's land use policies or regulations. II This would allow the Hearing Examiner to point out any policy that is unclear and hard to work with. VOI_ 1 7 fM:~ on 196 · .' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 6 Harvev FleminQ, Marrowstone Island: Harvey Fleming stated that he feels the County will be losing some public process for the sake of efficiencies if this ordinance is approved. He suggested that there are other alternatives such as more than one Planning Commission or establishment of sub-committees of the Planning Commission. Section 10 gives the Hearing Examiner influence over the majority of land use decisions. Having the Hearing Examiner give a recommendation on Planned Residential Developments which can be sited almost any place in the County, gives one man a lot of authority. With reference to the Shoreline Management Program, Mr. Fleming stated that he doesn't feel that the Hearing Examiner should make any recommendations on this Program. Eric Toews clarified that this section (Section 10.00 Item 3) needs to be revised because the intent was not to give the Hearing Examiner the power to make these types of recommendations. Sam Swanson, PlanninQ Commission: Sam Swanson read the Planning Commission's letter regarding this proposed ordinance. Fred Grove: Fred Grove indicated his support of this proposed ordinance. He stated that after meeting a working Hearing Examiner, he was impressed with the process used. Frederick Tuso: Frederick Tuso stated that people in this County have been working for years on the Comprehensive Plan and growth development. To think that one person can be ready to make decisions on these issues is unbelievable. In Section 8 - on a public hearing, there is no indication of how the public would be notified of a hearing. Also the amount of time for notification of the public of when a hearing will be held is very important. Fees need to be defined. When recommendations are made to the Board (Section 10.00, Item 2), will the Board take testimony from people at that time? Eric Toews explained that the recommendations would be handled just like they are from the Planning Commission. The Hearing Examiner would hold a public hearing and the recommendation would be sent to the Board for them to hear at their open, public meeting. Mr. Tuso then questioned how the Hearing Examiner can inspect the sites as well as hold the public hearing on applications? Section 12.00, Item 3 "Notifying parties of record shall be informed..." Informed has to be clarified. Mr. Tuso suggested that only half of these items listed be taken for the Hearing Examiner to handle. He suggested that some of the more controversial items be handled as they are currently. Mr. Tuso added that the Planning Department be allowed to determine if the (Section 8 Submittal Requirements) submittal is within the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dennison closed the public hearing. He noted that the Board's intent has never been to circumvent a public process or the Planning Commission. This ordinance is a way to relieve the Planning Commission of some of the burden of the regulatory matters and to allow them to devote their time to the growth management issues that are coming up, Scopine and Department Recommendation; Environmental Impact Statement; Teal Lake Center Planned Unit Commercial Development #CCl-91; Intersection of State Hiehwaf 104 and Teal Lake Road; Dean Reynolds: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that a Determination of Significance was issued on the Teal Lake Center Planned Unit Commercial Development toward the end of last year. Jerry Smith then reviewed the comments received and the Planning Department recommendation for the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Greg Waddell, representing Dean Reynolds, stated that they reviewed the Planning Department comments and made it clear that items 4 (Fire District #3 services) and 5 (pUD #1 services) will be discussed with these districts to determine what they can provide. David Cunningham asked if the Scenic Highway Act, with its special signage requirements, is addressed in this scope? Greg Waddell stated that they would comply with these requirements. Chairman Dennison stated that the impact to all public services needs to be addressed including: fire service, law enforcement, water, septic, and emergency response. :/[11" 1.."" ' or' I r~ r, ~ <, 1 ~9? · . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 7 Hugh Stocker: Hugh Stocker stated that his primary concern is contamination of the aquifer in this area. Commissioner Wojt moved to concur with the Planning Department recommendation for the scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Teal Lake Village project with the additional condition that the impacts to all public services be addressed. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion re: Review of Comments Received on Proposed Aquaculture Policy: Associate Planner Jim Pearson reported that he has been reviewing the comments received on the proposed aquaculture policy. He will summarize the comments for the Board and submit the summary along with any pertinent information, to the Board at a workshop on this policy. Barry Graham: Barry Graham stated that he is disappointed that the Board won't be open to some of the recommendations. Chairman Dennison clarified that all of the comments and recommendations from the public will be reviewed in the workshop. Review of Comments Received on the DNS Issued to Remove Failed Bulkhead and Construct drift sills on 3 lots and community property at Beckett Point; Cape Georee Fisherman's Club and Wilfred Wachter: Jim Pearson submitted a list from Wolf Bauer, Consulting Engineer, of the natural protective beach berm installations on salt water that he has designed and are currently working as planned. Commissioner Wojt moved to uphold the determination of non-significance on the project to remove a failed bulkhead and construct drift sills on three lots and community property at Beckett Point. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion that carried by a unanimous vote. Final Short Subdivision; Deputy Short Plat SP12-90; Four (4) Lot Residential Subdivision; South Point. Adjacent to Brideehaven; Gerald and Violet Deputy: Jerry Smith reported that this short plat divides a five acre parcel into four residential lots. The subdivision is located in the South Point area. Lot 2 is extremely steep and may be unstable according to the Coastal Zone Atlas, and part of it has been designated as open space. All the requirements for short plat approval have been met. Commissioner Wojt moved for final approval of the Deputy Short Plat as presented. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. *** APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of February 4 as corrected. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Chairman Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Appointment of Orabelle Connally to a vacancy on the Mental Health Advisory Board. This term for this position will expire November 20, 1991. 2. Bid Award: High Volume Duplex Copier; Olympic Copier Systems, Inc. for the bid total of $8,667.12. 3. Bid Award; Two (2) 286 Laptop Computers; DAK, Industries, Inc. for $1,300 each. 4. Bid Award; Conversion of three (3) Chevrolet Caprice Car to LP. Gas Fuel Systems; Eric's R.V. Sequim 5. CONTRACT #89-10-04, Amendment #3; Bayshore Enterprises Programs; Group Supported Employment (Bakery and Animal Control) and Recycling Programs; Jefferson County Human Services Department .,' ('¡:. 1''1 Or" I r'M,~ J I 1.9B Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of February 25, 1991 Page: 8 6. Application for Assistance from the Soldier's and Sailors' Relief Fund; Paul A. Anderson $150.00 MEETING ADJOURNED ~."" """''''-~~.., JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~) B. G. Brown, Member cIowa-~ Lorna L Delaney, Clerk of the Board Jill 1'7 r~ nn , ¡..~,,~ \LJ' 1.99