Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061091 , :'t¡- MINUTES WEEK OF JUNE 10, 1991 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner B. G. Brown in the absence of Chairman Larry W, Dennison. Commissioner Richard E. Wojt was present. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt and approve the items on the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. CONTRACT, re: Drop Front Lowboy Trailer; Smith Tractor & Equipment Company of Tacoma 2. HEARING NOTICE· re: Changing the Name of a Certain County Road on the Official Road Log; Yarr-Johnson Road to Yarr Road; Oak Bay Area; Hearing set for June 24, 1991 at 10:45 a.m. 3. CONTRACT, Number 1440-83458 re: Human Services Department Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention and Treatment Services; State Department of Social and Health Services 4. AGREEMENT re: Human Services Department Developmental Disabilities Services; State Department of Social and Health Services 5. Application for a Bed and Breakfast Uquor Ucense; Weathertord Bed and Breakfast, Port Ludlow; Christine R. Nokes, Proprietor; Washington State Uquor Control Board 6. Application for a Special Occasion Uquor Ucense; Philadelphia String Quartet; Olympic Music Festival Barn, Quilcene; Washington State Uquor Control Board 7. Application for Uquor Ucense; NACO West Corporation of Washington, Gardiner; Washington State Uquor Control Board 8. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund; Gregory L. Mowers $460. 9. Certification of two (2) Federal Cash Transactions Reports; FmHA: a) Period Covered from 12/04/88 to 05/30/91 b) Period Covered from 11/20/89 to 05/30/91 10, RESOLUTION NO. 55-91 re: Budget Transfer; Auditor's 0 & M Fund 11.AGREEMENT and Request for Payment of Hotel/Motel Allocation; Peninsula Tourism Council/Region 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the Minutes of May 13, and 20, 1991 as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. LVO!..: 17 rA~J:~ 00· ("ð.~ '"'..,v ....... , . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 2 Application for Assistance from the· Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the application for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund as submitted for Ken Austin in the amount of $313.46. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS Application to Open County Road Riaht-of-Way re: Phipps Road and 10th Avenue. Irondale: Gene Seton. Applicant: 911 System Coordinator Bob Henderson reported that a environmental checklist may have to be filed on this project. He will review this matter with the Prosecuting Attorn~. Commissioner Wojt moved to table this application until such time as the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed it. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Establishina the Name for a Private Road: Paradise Lane: Bob Henderson reported that there is another road that uses the word Paradise (Paradise Bay Road) in another fire district, The Public Works Department recommends that another name be chosen. Commissioner Wojt moved to reject the name of Paradise Lane. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chanaina the Name of Delphi Place to Gull Shadow Lane: The residents that live on this road are not happy with the name Delphi Place and would like to change it, Bob Henderson reported. They have suggested the name Gull Shadow Lane. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 56-91 changing this road name as suggested. Commissioner Brown seconded. which carried by a unanimous vote. Updatina the OffIcial County Road Loa: Alder Lane: (See also Minutes of May 6, 1991) Commissioner Wojt moved to take this matter off the table. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, Bob Henderson explained that after the hearing the Board asked that the residents of the area suggest names that they would like, They have suggested the names Alderview Lane and Beachcrest Lane. There are no exact matches of these names in the County but there are several roads with the words Alder and Beach in them. Thè residents of the area do not want the road names changed at all, but have suggested these names because they include a portion of the original name, Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the following: RESOLUTION NO. 57-91 updating the official County road log to change the name of Beach Drive to Beachcrest Lane RESOLUTION NO. 58-91 updating the official County road log to change the name of Alder Lane to Adlerview Lane Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Report: Annual Bridae Inspection: Public Works Director Gary Rowe reported that all of the County bridges have been inspected and there are no major deficiencies, Minor matters will be corrected by the· Public Works crews, ;vot 17 rAG~ on 645 , , Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 3 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Usa Hames and Members of the Qullcene Community Center Advisory Board re: Buildina Improvements: Usa Hames and several members of the Quilcene Community Center Advisory Board came before the Board to ask for improvements and expansion of the Quilcene Community Center building. She asked that the County consider a new building in their future budgets. Commissioner Brown stated that the Board will have Facilities Management staff draft some plans for expansion of the Center. Usa Hames then presented a set of plans, drafted by one of the Advisory Board members, that reflect what the community feels are necessities in a Community Center. Commissioner Brown responded to a question from one of the Advisory Board members, that he feels the Community has out-grown their building. He added that the process of determining the wants and needs of the community and what the County can afford may take a period of time. The Quilcene Community Center Board is willing to do their part to help in this process, Usa Hames added. Commissioner Wojt said that he has also looked at the present facility and can see there is a need for an expanded and improved building, BID OPENING re: Courthouse Renovation: Re-roofina & Masonry Restoration: Public Works Director Gary Rowe opened and read the bids received for re-roofing and masonry restoration on the Courthouse as follows: BIDDERS: SID TOTALS: $508,706.00 660,324.00 297,149.00 1) Armstrong-Gilthvedt Construction, Inc., Kent 2) Queen City Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc" Seattle Engineer's Estimate Commissioner Wojt moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for bid award that is to the best advantage of the County. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING Proposed Omnibus Ordinance: Associate Planner Eric Toews reported that Section 15 on page 18 of the proposed Omnibus Ordinance has been changed to specify the procedures for the transition from the Planning Commission to the Hearings Examiner on those projects that· the Hearing Examiner will be handling, After discussion of the time frame for hiring a Hearing Examiner, the Board advised the they want to check further on this and will consider adoption of the proposed Omnibus Ordinance at a later date. Variance Reauest: To Allow No Setback From Sewer Une Easement at 100 West Ludlow Point Road: W. E. Foust. Applicant: Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that the normal setback from a recorded utility· easement is five feet. This request for variance is for the residence on Lot 20 of the Ludlow Point Village. A zero setback from the sewer line is being requested. The sewer line serves the neighboring property. When the sewer line was installed it was not constructed in the platted utility easement. A utility easement for the area where the sewer line is actually located is being filed. Mr. Foust relocated the house on the property in an attempt to accommodate the as-built sewer line. The setback variance is needed from the corrected easement. The residence on this property will not encroach on the utility easement, but the porch will. The Planning Department recommends the following conditions of approval for this variance: 1. The house structure not be located on or penetrate the sewer. line easement. 2. The porch may penetrate the sewer line easement but may not be located over the as-built sewer line. lVm. 17rAr,~ 00- ('3sl,z; ¡jj¡iiJI· 11f!' Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 4 3. No portion of the house or associated structure may locate over the as-built sewer line. 4. Sewer line clean outs will be provided at the property line to the north and at the point where the as-built sewer connects to the sewer line within the platted easement. Commissioner Wojt moved to grant the variance from the utility easement setback with the conditions as recommended. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. which carried by a unanimous vote. Continued State Environmental Policy Act Review and Threshold Determina- tion; Captain Vancouver Estates. Larae Lot Subdivision and Class IV General Forest Practice Permit: Sections 31 and 32. Township 31 N. Ranae 1 West. SW of McCurdv Point (Middlepoint): Tom Beavers (See Minutes of June 3. 1991): Commissioner Wojt moved to take this matter off the table. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Associate Planner Jim Pearson presented the Board with a copy of proposed covenants for this large lot subdivision, and a memo which highlights and focuses on what was discussed at the June 3, 1991 review. He suggested that the proposed covenants be included formally as part of the plat. Commissioner Wojt asked if 60% of the lot owners can vote to amend the covenants as stated in Article III C. Amendment, what happens? Jim Pearson reiterated that he feels that these covenants should be made part of the mitigation, however the amendment clause would not be included. He then continued his review of the memo submitted. Commis- sioner Wojt asked if the applicant would submit a map to show how the lots would be divided at the possible full built out of 27 lots? Jim Pearson reported that Article II, M (Bluff Set- Back) is proposed to control how the lots are divided in the future. The precise meaning of Article II, N (Bluff Greenbelt/Natural Area) of the covenants was then discussed. Tom Beavers stated that the purpose of this covenant is to keep people from removing the under story from the bluff area to put in landscaping such as lawns, gardens and rockeries, The under story can be cut back to 24 inches. Commissioner Wojt asked how the plants will live if the debris is removed and the plants are cut back to 24 inches? Tom Beavers answered that the natural areas are being left to prevent erosion of the bluff, it does not mean that some debris removal would not be allowed, The Department of Wildlife is requiring that identified trees that are 24 inch DBH (Diameter, Breast Height) are to be left along the bluff. Commissioner Wojt again asked about the lot owners being able to change the covenants. Tom Beavers stated that he took the concerns he heard at the last meeting and put them into the standard format used for covenants. W, C. Henry, Attorney for the applicant, said that the concern is asking the applicant to impose a level of permanent control of the property that is beyond the scope of the ordinance or the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). He added that paragraph (Covenant) N creates a natural area which is to accomplish erosion control, not to provide complete protection of the existing foliage. Paragraph Q controls the clearing of trees with the coordination of the Department of Wildlife. It has been established that the property owner has some right to clear trees for view and this goes beyond the requirements of SEPA or any of the ordinances for protection of the existing foliage. He recommended that paragraph N be amended to include "natural vegetative coverage including naturally occurring organic matter (such as mulch - leaves falling off of deciduous trees, etc.) and naturally occurring dead falls be left. " Tom Beavers stated that with regard to the layout of the subdivision, he doesn't have any control over how a lot owner may divide the property in the future. He added that he is trying to control the number of houses in the bluff area (see Covenant M). The discussion continued about future subdivision of the lots and how to best address the impacts of full build out, Jerry Smith reported that there is a restriction on large lot subdivisions which does not allow any lot to be short platted for a five year period. A lot owner could long plat the fiVe acre lot, however. Jim Pearson reported that the comprehensive plan would allow 240 lots on this site, while the covenants, if they are enforceable would only allow 27 lots. Commissioner Wojt asked if the covenants that are being proposed are strong enough to ensure the maximum built out of 21 lots. The Prosecuting Attorney would have to review these covenants to make that ~ Vat. 17 rA~E 00- -;-", t<") r:0(o-i2 J at If¡, " Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 5 determination. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is enough information on the cumulative impact of a build out of 27 lots on runoff? Jim Pearson referred to the information provided on soil composition, the setbacks for homes, the covenants regarding vegetation of the bluff, etc. Tom Beavers stated that his application is for nine lots, not 27, and SEPA does not require that he provide a drainage plan for a 27 lot build out. Commissioner Wojt stated that this is the only time that the County can ask for this information. Tom Beavers added that he feels he is making a considerable concession, both financially and to the future lot owners to limit this to three building sites per parcel. Eliminating one building site on the bluff by requiring a 400 foot setbac~ for the second building site. He added that if he is required to do a drainage design plan then he will look at the possibility of 240 units on the site. He is offering this as a mitigative concession. Commissioner Brown noted that it will never be a 240 lot plat without going through the long plat process, Tom Beavers stated that if he has to go through the same process for these nine lots that he would have to for a long plat, then he may as well look at a long plat. Chuck Henry said it is his opinion that the runoff is covered by Covenant J, which prohibits any lot owner from doing anything that discharges, other than existing runoff, on to the bluff or the sensitive areas. The drainage plan requirement that is being discussed, he feels is beyond the authority of SEPA He urged the Board to remember that this applicant is not pushing the limits of what he can do on this site if he was trying to accomplish maximum densities. By talking about the possible Mure alternative of how those nine lots can be divided, you are requiring him to exercise the discretion of the property owner on how each of the nine lots will be further divided. He is trying to develop nine parcels Chuck Henry added, and it is absolutely artificial to submit at this time that he should design the drainage plan or anything else for potential build out. The Subdivision Ordinance and SEPA will protect the public interest if any of these nine lots are ever divided further. Commissioner Brown asked if the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed the draft covenants? Jim Pearson reported he has not. The discussion continued regarding the possible build out on the property to 27 lots. Jim Pearson reviewed the information that the Board had in front of them. He noted that the covenants that have been developed by the applicant have attempted to address the County's concerns regarding run-off, bluff erosion, and vegetation management. Commissioner Brown stated that there is a soils report from a geologist. If the information he presented is not sufficient the Board must direct him to provide what additional information is needed. Commissioner Wojt stated that he doesn't remember that the Geologist's report addressed what will happen with the stormwater on top of the hill if the project is buïlt out to 27 lots. Jim Pearson then reviewed the geologists recommendations regarding stormwater runoff. Tom Beavers reported that there are nine septic permits that have been approved for this plat. Commissioner Wojt asked Jerry Thorsen the Geologist what the possibility is of developing a perched water table on this property are once the homes, the septic systems, driveways, etc. are constructed? Jerry Thorsen presented the Board with an addendum to his original report. He said that the question of the impact of effluent on the water table and slope stability has been brought up in the past. There is no good way to address all of the variables, but to provide a rule of thumb he made an attempt to compare the effluent to rainfall in the same area, The septic tank manual says 300 gallons of effluent per day per rural dwelling with four people. That equates to 2.3 inches per year spread over the 40 acres. His calculations indicate that three times the density could be sustained without impact. Commissioner Wojt stated that this run off would all be within 200 feet of the beach, not spread out over a half mile. Jerry Thorsen stated that he recommended that the runoff be dispersed, included that from the road. A system of short~ ditch segments would work. Bob Larson, Fire Chief, Fire District 6: Bob Larson asked what happens if there is a forest fire in this area? It would take a lot of water and digging to put a fire out in this area because of the under story (salal and Rhododendrons). Pete Lana lev, Fire District #6: Pete Langley said that he felt there were some inconsisten- cies in the way that the driveways were planned. He asked if the Public Works Department ! Vat 17 fMÆ 00' . rr::" r¡ :l/.' :w ;;1 Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 6 has approved the one driveway at the intersection? Has the visibility from that driveway been reviewed by Public Works? Tom Beavers answered that the Public Works Department has been out to the site at least five times to review the road plan and the driveways. The only reason that the driveways are on the plat, even though they are not required to be, is that they must be built to allow emergency vehicles access. The purpose of the 40· foot easement is to allow the home- owner to place a winding driveway to their site. The driveways allow the two adjacent property owners to share some of the cost burden. Pete Lanalev: Pete Langley reported that the Uniform Fire Code states that a residence can be built 150 feet from the County Road right-of-way only if it has a sprinkler system built in. There will need to be a circular turn around (70 feet in diameter) at the end of each driveway. Chuck Henry reported that Article /I Restrictions, G. Fire Protection Access requires that each applicant for a building permit on the subdivision has to obtaïn the approval of the local fire protection district for access and turn around. He stated that he doesn't know how much more this applicant can do at this time to meet these concerns. Mr, Beavers is trying to keep the number of driveways to a minimum to cut down the clearing of vegetation. He is trying to provide residences that are appropriately located on the property for the natural uses of the property. He has tried to deal with the density. Each applicant for a building permit is going to have to work with the fire district, the health department and with all County agencies to meet their requirements. Ellen Beavers said that this discussion keeps returning to whether the subdivision is being judged on 27 lots or nine lots and she thought that Mark Huth had addressed that at the last meeting, by saying that it should be judged on nine lots, The discussion continued regarding how to proceed so that Mr. Beavers can get on with his project and the County can get the best protection possible for its citizens. Commissioner Brown stated that he needs to know that the covenants will do what is needed. Tom Beavers proposed that several of the covenants (Article II B, G, J, M, N, 0, P, and Q) be placed on the face of the plat as part of the approval process, Jim Pearson continued with review of the environmental checklist. Steve Havden: Steve Hayden stated that Commissioner Wojt is raising the question of the cumulative impacts of these lots being divided. If a lot owner waits five years, they can short plat the lot into three lots which is categorically exempt from SEPA review. This is the only time cumulative impacts can be reviewed, The proper way to ask for the information that is needed is through an environmental impact statement. Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman reported that she talked with Mark Huth about addressing impacts. She understood him to say that impacts that may arise from probable activity are appropriate to address, however, impacts from speculated or possible activity may not be addressed. She feels that there is more implied through the checklist on this project than what is in the proposal. To this point the County has not tried to address the cumulative impact of activities anywhere along the bluff in the McCurdy Point area. Commissioner Brown .stated that some of the items that were addressed in the covenants were addressed because they came up as concerns from the public. As the Board tries to deal with the cumulative effects of a project and what the proponent is required to do, the scope has to be for the project that is submitted, Julie Jaman submitted copies of the concerns and comments from the Friends of Middlepoint. Road right-of-way, what will happen to the tax base, and displacement of people in the area are some of the concerns in this report. Commissioner Brown asked if Ms. Jaman is saying that the County does not have right-of-way on Middlepoint Road? Julie Jaman reported that the County has right-of-way ditch to ditch by usage and not by deed. Tom Beavers: Tom Beavers stated that one of the requirements from Public Works on this subdivision is that the 60 foot. right-of-way for access on Middlepoint Road be deeded to the County. He added that he has already purchased the property and it has been surveyed, ; Val 17 HG~ 00 r~"" ?1'~ \'Ui~::.:~ ·. I Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 7 Jerry Smith reported that a large lot subdivision requires road improvements for roads that are adjacent or within the subdivision. There has to be legal access to the property being proposed for a large lot subdivision. Jerry Busic: Jerry Busic said that trees along the bl~ff in this area stand upright because they are interlocked at a sub-surface level which is caused by minimal precipitation which stays on the su~ace. The Quimper Peninsula is unprotected from the northwesterly winds. There has already been blow down on the property. This proposal includes leaving trees along the bluff and there has been no study to indicate that they would even stand up. Commis- sioner Brown stated that there is conflicting information regarding leaving and/or taking the trees. Mr. Busic stated that the information could be provided by requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Julie Jaman: Julie Jaman add that one thing that has not be addressed at all was the letter from the National Heritage Information System which stated that they do not know what plants, including trees, exist on this site. There is no classification or typing of this forest at all. This is area is verging on old growth and is a very unique gene pool. It is not known what kind of micro habitat it is. Noone has addressed the cumulative impact along the bluff for displacement and disturbance of any species, including the Eagles and Falcons. Without this information we don't know what we're giving up. Commissioner Brown explained that if a determination is made today, a fifteen comment period would start. Jim Pearson added that at the end of the comment period the Board could amend their determination based on the comments received. Commissioner Brown stated that guidance is needed from the Prosecuting Attorney. Commissioner Wojt moved to continue this meeting until 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday June 11, 1991. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote, Tuesdav June 11. 1991: Commissioner B. G. Brown reported in the absence of the Chairman that the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney was detained out of town and therefore is unable to meet with the Board at this time. He noted that a letter was received from W. C. Henry, Attorney for the project proponent. There was discussion of the information that is needed on this project which included: traffic impacts and drainage. Tom Beavers asked if the Board is asking for studies on traffic impacts and drainage for 27 houses? Commissioner B, G. Brown stated that there is a question about the scope of authority the County has under the SEPA to ask for information on anything more than the nine lots and this needs . to be answered by the Prosecuting Attorney. The meeting was continued to 10:00 a.m. Thursday June 13, 1991. Thursdav. June 13. 1991: Commissioner B. G. Brown called the meeting back to order at 10:00 a.m. and reported that a letter was received from Mr. Beavers legal counsel, Chuck Henry, regarding n. . . information to insure impartiality of the Commissioners who will pass on these matters. " Commissioner B. G. Brown asked Chuck Henry the purpose of this letter? Chuck Henrv explained that they have concerns that one of the Commissioners may have met privately with the opponents, outside the public hearing process and participated in group meetings at which opposition to the project was discussed. They may have given advise, answered questions and stated opinions about the project. If this is so, that would be a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and that Commissioner would have to be removed from deliberations on this project. Commissioner Brown responded that answers cannot be provided on this matter today because Commissioner Dennison is out of town. Chuck Henry noted that the Appearance of Fairness question would only apply to Commis- sioners that are going to vote on the project. Chuck Henry agreed that these questions would only apply to the two Commissioners that are present. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Huth inte~ected that this meeting is not a public hearing, but a public meeting. The SEPA threshold determination process does not require a public hearing, The only purpose of allowing people to testify is to provide information, that they may have about the environmental concerns. Commissioner Brown added that the Board has not had a public hearing on this project. tVDt 17 f-AG£ On 1,"); r"": trc)' \:YÛ't.. Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 8 Chuck Henrv said that it is his understanding that the vote on the threshold determination is a quasi-judicial matter. Mark Huth reported that he doesn't feel that it is. The determina- tion doesn't require deciding between opposing parties. The Commissioners are looking at the project and its impacts. Mark Huth directed the Commissioners to disclose any ex-parte contacts they have had with the applicant, and to state if they have voiced any opinions for or against the project outside of the public meeting process to interested parties. Commissioner Brown reported that the only person he has talked to about the project, outside the meeting, is Mr. Beavers. He called and asked if there was anything Commis- sioner Brown felt he should furnish to bring this to a conclusion. . Commissioner Wojt reported that he has had no contact with Mr, Beavers on this project. Various members of the Friends of Middlepoint have talked to him. He has avoided as much as possible, his feelings about the nature and extent of this project. He hasn't been to any gathering of these people and hasn't given them advise about things they should do, say or feel about this project. Mark Huth asked if either Commissioner feels that they have a bias pro or con about the project that will not allow them to vote fairly today? Commissioner Wojt and Commissioner Brown both stated that they do not. Commissioner Brown reiterated for everyone present that this is not a final hearing. It is not a public hearing and it is not known if it will be the final deliberation on this project. Commissioner Wojt noted that he needs the following information: 1) the effects of the runoff on the site in terms of a build out of 27 lots, and 2) the cumulative traffic impacts to the road that joins the County road and if it can accommodate the maximum build out of the project, Mark Huth advised the Board to keep in mind that this is a project proposal for nine lots. That is the proposal that the Commissioners have to decide on and judge the impact of. Any mitigative conditions have to address that project. Build out is something that should be considered, particularly since Mr. Beavers has stated that covenants would allow up to 27 lots in the future. There is a legal question about whether those covenants could be changed and how many additional lots could be added if they were, which leads to speculation. The State law is clear on that, Mark Huth reported, and states that local government can not get into speculating about what a future project might be. He suggested that .the Board request Mr. Beavers to provide studies on the drainage and traffic impacts, given the build out of 27 lots. A threshold determination could be made contingent on these studies being prepared and if any impacts are identified in the studies then additional action could be taken at that time. The purpose of these studies is to provide a baseline of information, so that when future development does come the Planning Department is able to come back to that information and identify potential impacts. Discussion ensued about the threshold determination process. Commissioner Wojt asked about the issue of the proposed covenants, which can be changed by a 60% vote of the lot owners. Mark Huth explained that covenants are separate from mitigative conditions on the project. Commissioner Brown stated that Mr. Båavers has offered, in a letter received on June 11, 1991, to place some of the covenants on the face of the plat. Mark Huth reported that the County isn't a party to enforcing covenants. The State law requires that restrictive covenants be stated on the face of the plat so that property owners can see what they are bound by. There is no way for the County to ensure that the covenants won't be changed. Covenants can not be part of the mitigation requirements. In order for County to place mitigating conditions on a project an impact must be identified, there must be a policy in writing that addresses that impact, and then a specific mitigating condition must be developed. Once a threshold determination is made and if it is a mitigated determination of non-significance, a document is created which states what the mitigating conditions are. There is a fifteen day comment period after the document is signed. Comments are received from interested agencies and the public. After the fifteen day period is over, the comments are reviewed. If the Board feels there is no additional information or impacts identified that require re-addressing the determination made, it becomes permanent. Jim Pearson then reviewed the impacts that have been identified as: stormwater runoff, soil erosion, increased water placed on the ground by septic systems, how these first three items relate to bluff stability, wildlife impacts (particularly Eagles), and compliance with regulations for the 1) Environmentally Sensitive Areas, 2) the Shoreline Management Master Program, and 3) the Large Lot Subdivision Ordinance. He added that the language that is contained \1'" f ii', ·1""'1 ~Jr; on t ,,'. u ((,-; t"' ,{; \j:(.:.~lJ&:;.;a , -- . ... ~ Commissioners' Meeting Agenda: Week of June 10, 1991 Page: 9 in the covenants on drainage, bluff setback, protection of the vegetation along the top of the bluff, the 100 foot area on each side of Middlepoint Road and the perch and roosting trees for Eagles, should be included as mitigative measures. Commissioner Wojt moved to issue a mitigated determination of non-significance for the Captain Vancouver Estates, Large Lot Subdivision and Class IV General Forest Practice . Permit, with the mitigation to be put in writing and signed at a later date. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion~ Julie Jaman asked the how the threshold is determined for requiring a scoped environmental impact statement? Mark Huth stated that the State Environmental Policy Act defines when an environmental impact statement is required. This determination is based ,on the nature of the impacts, the degree of the impacts, and the necessity for further study. Jim Pearson gave another explanation of the 15 day comment period. This comment period will begin the date that the mitigated determination of non-significance is signed. Mark Huth will review the mitigation prepared by Jim Pearson before the mitigated DNS is brought back to the Board for signing. Commissioner Brown called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 'It 'It 'It AGREEMENT #91-10-21 re: Jefferson County Health Department Early Intervention Proaram: Jefferson County Human Services Department: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract between the Human Services Department and the Health Department for the Early Intervention Program as presented. Commissioner Brown second- ed the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Lois Smith. Juvenile and Family Court Services re: Consolidated Juv.enile Services Grant Application: Lois Smith updated the Board on the biennial grant for Con- solidated Juvenile Services. The funding comes from the State and currently there are only preliminary budget figures available. The CJS Grant program began in the mid-70's as probation subsidies to allow the County to provide a detention program, The State is in a crisis for the number of beds for committed juveniles and they would like the counties to pick up the slack. This grant proposal has been drafted and the Board will need to provide a letter of intent if they agree with the grant proposal. Support of Participation in the Dunaeness-Quilcene Pilot Proiect Under the Terms of the Chelan Aareement: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve Resolution No. 59-91 in support of participation in the Dungeness-Quilcene pilot project under the terms of the Chelan Agreement. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed on Monday evening and reconvened at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday. It was then recessed on Tuesday and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday June 13, 1991. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Richard Wojt were both present. Chair~ar:-~ Dennison was out of town. -~:-¿~- '" ..,;.. , MEETIN...G... >:AD.." J.Q...U;R~. . '." ,"''\. /' . -:, \' ~ ' ~ .. .. .j\ c: " . 'e. -',,- I·. o. .. '. .'\~ j. ~. SEAL: J ..;: ..JI!<I, ) '. ~: \ \ ~ \, 'h· .. ..~ 4',. '. ' ·4 ..' .... :"""".,. .. e . .... '., .~....~ ..·."_/1' ~r¡;1 .. . '. .'_~_'" .. ./4 , .... - ...... ,. '.,~- ~ . .." ..... / ....... . . '\ .. ATTEST: '.'~'iI.~ ~.) -'t@J..i......~..,)...'I\.... ",,' rYe ,,-, &:-:.,"' ~"~. .1£.. ., ~ t '-"~" Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <..... ~ Vat. 1 7 rAGE 00 rC t:" c-;P- \,-J¡t.:....-}¥..;.j