Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM060589 :j: . _-I> -. " .I " '. MINUTES WEEK OF 3UNE 5, 1989 The meeting was called to order at the appointed time by Chairman George C. Brown in the presence of Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner Larry W. Dennison. Sallv McDole. CooDerative Extension Aaent/Chairman and Dr. Rob McDaniels. Associate Director of Communi tv Resource Development for Washinaton State University re: Interaction -between WashinGton State University and the County: Sally McDole introduced Dr. Rob McDaniels, Communi ty Resource Development, Assistant Director, for Washington State University. Dr. McDaniels stated that the WSU community development program concentrates on. three areas: 1) economic development, 2) local leadership development and management training for local elected and appointed officials and 3) water quality. The Small Business Development Center works closely with community colleges. The discussion turned to the resources available for small businesses and economic development and the' programs that have been started in other counties. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS BID OPDING: FurnishinG Two (2) Used PassenGer Vehicles. 1987 or Newer: Gary Rowe, ,Public Works Director, opened and re~d the bids received for two used passenger vehicles (1987 or newer) as follows: BIDDERS: BID TOTALS: Hertz Car Sales, Seattle: Ford, Crown Victoria, 1988 $ 13,403.32 each Commissioner Dennison moved to have the Public Works Department check the bids for accuracy and make a recommendation for a bid award that would be to the best advantage of t~ County. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by unanimous vote. Later in the Dav: Commis ioner B. G. Brown moved to reject the bid received as recommended by the Public Works Director and re-advertise the bid call. The bid opening was set for .June 19, 1989 at 10:30 a.m. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. \ ',,! . '\,01'1.... 15 fAf1t 00 2659 '>i" 7 . .. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 2 AGREEMENT. Consultant re: Construction - StakinG and Material Testina Services: CRe528 Point Whitnev Road: Northwestern Territories. Inc.: Construction Engineer Bruce Laurie, explained that this contract is for the construction staking and materials testing for the Point Whitney Road Project which is estimated to cost a maximum of $36,465.00. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the contract as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT re: Aareement for Construction Proposal: ORe579 Beaver Valley Road: County Road Administration Board: This agreement is for the funding of the Beaver Valley Road project, Bruce Laurie explained. Commis- sioner Dennison moved to approve the contract wi th the County Road Ad- ministration Board as submitted. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT re: Purchase of Backhoe: Case Power and Eauipment: Case Power and Equipment was awarded the bid for furnishing one backhoe, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the contract with Case Power and Equipment as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTRACT, Grant #89133 re: Solid Waste ManaGement Plan Uodate: State Department of EcoIOQV: Gary Rowe explained that this grant contract is for the update of the Solid Waste Management Plan which is for a total of $65,098 with a 50% match from the State Department of Ecology. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the grant contract and authorize the Chairman to sign it. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. EstablishinG Names for Certain Private Roads: Bay RidGe Court and Protection RidGe Road: These two private roads are located off the Cape George Road, Gary Rowe reported. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 47-89 establishing the names for these two private roads: Bay Ridge Court and Protection Ridge Road. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. Establishina Name for a Private Road: Delphi Place: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 48-89 establishing the private road name of Delphi Place. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Ini tiatinG A County Road Project Desianated as CRe796: Road Improvements: CoYle Road: This is a small project near the end of the Coyle Road to improve a curve and soft spot, Bruce Laurie reported. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve and sign Resolution No. 49-89 initiating CR(l796 as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. InitiatinG A Countv Road Project Desianated as OReSIG: 'Intersection ImDrovements: Rhodv Drive/Four Corners Road/Airport CUtoff Road: Bruce Laurie explained that this road project is for intersection improvements where Rhody Drive/Four Corners Road/Airport Cutoff Road intersect on the southern end of the Airport Cutoff Road. The estimated cost for the project at this time is $240,000. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 50-89 initiating CR0816. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Ini tiatina A County Road Project Desianated as CRe8l?: Intersection Improvement Project: Airport CUt-Off Road/Airport Road Intersection: This project would improve the Airport Cutoff Road/Airport Road intersection, Bruce Laurie reported. A truck climbing lane may be included in this project ~VOL 15 rAGf: 00 2660 , '1 T '.Il,; Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 3 as well as a left turn lane. A traffic study will be done to determine exactly what will be done at the intersection. Resolution No. 5l-89 was approved by motion of Commissioner Dennison seconded by Commissioner B. G. Brown initiating CR0817. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Comparative Bid Purchase: Two SharD SF8l00 Copiers with Document Feeders and Collators: Eauipment Rental and RevolvinG: Carter Breskin reported that these two copiers are being purchased for the Public Works Department * Two quotes were received: 1) Copier Maintenance Technology for $2,825.00; 2) American $3,895.00. These two machines would be able to handle a greater volume of copies per year. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the purchase of the copiers from Copier Maintenance and Technology for their bid price as quoted, after the three day posting period expires. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Traffic Impact Analvsis on Anderson Lake Road: The TransDo Group: Gary Rowe reported that an estimate for a traffic impact analysis for the Anderson Lake Road/Rhody Drive area was received from TransPO Group. They estimate that such a study will cost about $3,500.00. Three developments in this area were to participate in the cost of this study, (Rhody Industrial Park, Tamanamus Rock Recreational Vehicle Park and The Evergreen Coho Escapee Retreat Recreational Vehicle Park) and Gary Rowe asked the Board for direction on proceeding with this study. Commissioner B. G. Brown advised that the information is needed, whether or not the three developments participate in the cost of the study. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the Agreement with Transpo Group as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ReQUest to BrinG Matter Off Table: An Ordinance EstablishinG' Fees for the Solid Waste Division and Acceotance of Solid Waste Advisory Committee Recommendation: Landfill ExDansion and TiDoina Fee: (See Minutes of ,January 23, 1989) Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, read the recommendation of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee which states that they recommend the adoption of the tipping fee as proposed, as well as the expansion of the landfill. The proposed ordinance has gone through the hearing process on ,January 23, 1989 when the Board tabled action on it until the. Solid Waste Advisory Committee had time to review it and make their recommendation. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to bring the proposed Solid Waste Fee Ordinance off the table for action. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Chairman George C. Brown asked about the fee for disposing of a skidder tire? Gary Rowe explained that this fee was not changed from the previous ordinance. The existing rate of $40 per ton for disposal of garbage would raise to $45 per ton. Gary Rowe then reviewed the rest of the proposed fees. Disposing of septic waste will go from $.04 to $.06 per gallon. If this ordinance is approve, Gary Rowe added that the effective date should be delayed four to six weeks, to allow OlYmPic Disposal time to inform their customers of the rate increase. Agness Walker asked that the effective date be delayed for eight weeks. Chuck O'Conner, Chairman, Solid Waste Advisory Committee, stated that the Committee recommends that other methods of financing be researched for the Solid Waste program. .1A"~ Commissioner Dennison moved to approve and sign Ordinance No. L.!! establish- ing the solid waste fee schedule as presented with an effective date for all disposal categories of ,July 1, 1989 except for the General Disposal rate per ton which will be effective August 1, 1989. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. . VOL 15 tAtE 002661 ~. t Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 4 Tuesdav ,June 6, 1989 Two (2) Notices of Comparative Bid Purchase: l) Newspaper RecvclinG Drop Box and 2) Self DumPinG HODDers: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve posting and subsequent bid award after the three day posting period expires for the following items: Newspaper Recycling Drop Boxes $1,633.50 each Cascade Container Two Yard Standard Self Dumping Hoppers - Cascade Con- tainer $556.60 each Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. ~ ~ONTRACT re: CRe7l9 OWl Creek Bridae Replacement Project: Henry and Henry Construction ComDanV. Inc.: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the contract with Henry and Henry Constructionl Inc. for the Owl Creek Bridge Replacement project as previously awarded. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT COBi'RACT re: Operation of the Brinnon Senior Center: Brinnon Senior Oraanization: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the contract with Brinnon Senior Organization for operation of the Brinnon Senior Center as presented. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: For Services at the Tri . Area and Quilcene Community Center: Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the agreement for the operation of the Tri Area and Quilcene Community Centers with Clallam ,Jefferson Community Action Council as presented. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Rental of the Brinnon Senior Center for the Operation of the Senior Nutrition PrOGram: Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the agreement with Clallam .Jefferson Community Action Council for the rental of the Brinnon Senior Center for the Senior Nutrition Program. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT re: Operation of the Brinnon Motel:Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council: This agreement is the same as last year, Carter Breskin reported. Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the agreement with Clallam ,Jefferson Action Council as presented for the operation of the Brinnon Motel. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Road Vacation ReQUest: Larry Kohrdt: Mr. Larry Kohrdt was present when Carter Breskin explained, that his request is for vacating a portion of Black Bear Road. In 1976 a quit claim deed was presented to the County for Black Bear Road, but the County never accepted the deed, so it is !!Q! a County Road. Mr. Kohrdt Deeds to use a portion of the Black Bear Road right-of-way for placement of a septic system. The Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed this proposal and suggests that the County initiate an intent to vacate this right-of-way to clear the title on this property. Mr. Kohrdt stated there is a sixty foot easement on his property for this road and only a thirty foot easement across his neighbors property and he does not want to have to place an alternative septic system on his property. VOL 15 rAGE 00 2662 t , . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 5 The portion of Black Bear Road that crosses his property is not maintained and he has had trouble wi th people dumping garbage on his property and trespassing. The discussion continued regarding the access to properties in the area if Black Bear Road is vacated. Mr. Kohrdt asked who is responsible for the maintenance of the road? Commissioner B. G. Brown advised that the property owners are responsible for maintenance of the road. Mr. Kohrdt then explained where he wants to place a septic system on his property. Commissioner B. G. Brown stated that he does not feel it is in the best interest of the County to initiate an intent to vacate on this right-of-way since the County never accepted the deed for it. Commissioner Dennison moved to table any action on this request until more information can be provided. Carter Breskin will contact the Prosecuting Attorney again to clarify his recommendation. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Port Townsend Community Center Pro.1ect: City of Port Townsend: Gary Rowe explained that the City is willing to enter into a contract to provide a maximum payment of $25,000 a year toward the Farmers Home Administration Loan on the Port Townsend Community Center project. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the agreement as submitted. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMERT State Environmental Policy Act Review: Shoreline Permit to Construct a l25 Room Hotel and Conference Center with Parkina Facilities. and Access Road. at Port Ludlow: PODe Resources. ADDlicant: Assistant Planner ,Jim Pearson reviewed the environmental checklist and suggested mitigative measures for this Pope Resources project to building a 125 room (95,000 square foot) hotel and conference center at Port Ludlow. David Cunningham was present to represent Pope Resources. This project is located on a 9.2 acre parcel between the existing Harbor Master Restaurant and the Beach Club. There is currently an existing miniature golf course on the site. This project is one part of the Pope Resources overall plan for the Port Ludlow area. A water quality assessment has been done for this area, which looks at the cumulative impacts on water quality of all the project developed or proposed by Pope Resources. The site is flat at the entrance to the proposed hotel and parking area and then slopes down to the east and levels off at a spit to the beach. The average slope at the proposed building site is 14%. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated for the development and 4,000 cubic yards of fill would be brought into the site. 33% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces and 2/3 of the project site will be designated as open space. During construction and site development, temporary settlement ponds will be used to control run-off from the site. Mitigating Conditions 1 through 4 should cover the impacts anticipated from construction and development of the si te. The project is wi thin 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Port Ludlow Bay and will require a shoreline substantial development permit. The Ludlow Utilities secondary sewage treatment plant will serve the project. storm water runoff from the roads and parking areas will be diverted to a series of catch basins and run through an oil/water separator before the water enters the bay. There will be no discharge of storm water runoff across property not owned by Pope Resources. The whole site will be landscaped and application of herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers will be done by State licensed personnel. ,Jim Pearson then reviewed the water quality assessment done by the firm of Harper Owes for Pope Resources. This project was discussed with the Protect VOL 15 rAGE 00 2663 11 f ." 't.' I Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ,June 5, 1989 Page: 6 Ludlow Bay Committee to address cumulative impacts to water quality for all of the projects planned by Pope Resources in the Port Ludlow area. Chairman George C. Brown asked if there would be another restaurant in the hotel complex? Dave Cunningham stated that the plans right now are to utilize the existing restaurant. This is a conference type facility which would provide a specific number of meals at an appointed time. David Cunningham reported that Harper OWes looked at water ~~ality from the standpoint that all of Port Ludlow is built out to its' fullest capacity and all of the planned projects are built and fully utilized. They also added the impact of a 100 year summer storm and 100 year winter storm to make it a worst case scenario. Mr. Cunningham then explained the elevations of all of the buildings above sea level. Pope Resources met with the homeowners who live across the Bay who will be looking at this project and none of them had any objections to the project design. There are only two or three homes above the site that actually look down into this area. Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to issue a mitigated determination of non- significance for the Pope Resources project. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Shoreline Setback Variance Reauest: Construction of SinGle Family Residence: Porter Lane/McMinn Road: Sydnev Schneidman: Sydney Schneidman, owner, and Derek Reijnen, Contractor, were present when .Jim Pearson explained this request for a shoreline setback variance for construction of a single family residence on Porter Lane/McMinn Road. There is a 100 foot bluff along the shoreline in this area. Derek Reijnen explained that they plan to re- vegetate the existing paths on the site to provide more soil stability. A 100 foot setback is required and Mr. Schneidman is requesting a 78 foot setback (22 foot variance). He is requesting the setback to allow placement of a septic system drainfield on the site. The bluff stability/building site evaluation prepared by Northwestern Territories, Inc. was then reviewed. A recommendation was included in this report that a 75 foot setback from the top of the bluff be imposed. Mr. Reijnen explained that his client is not interested in putting the house on the edge of the bluff, but he would like to be able to place the septic system between the house and the road which is better than having it between the house and the bluff. Jim Pearson added that there are no existing houses on either side of this site. The hardship criteria was reviewed and Commissioner Dennison stated that this request seems to meet that criteria. Jim Pearson suggested that recommenda- tion #5 from the Northwestern Territories report be adopted if this variance is approved. After discussion of this eondi tion, Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the setback variance as requested with a condition that a stormwater drainage plan be prepared for the site by a licensed engineer. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Reconsideration of the EmerGencv Moratorium on FilinG and Process- inG SUbstantial DeveloDBlent Permits for the Growth and CUlture of Fish in the Marine Waters of ,Jefferson Countv: ExPires June 10. 1989: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to extend the moratorium on filing and processing substantial development permits for the growth and culture of fish in the marine waters of .Jefferson County for a six month period or until the Shoreline Management program update is finished. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 'lot 15 rAGE 00 2664 t '. . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 7 State Environmental PoliCY Act Review: Comments Received on Mi ticrated Determination of Non-Sianificance: Port Townsend Paper Company Co./Georae Cotton Chi_cum Creek Loa Yard Rip Rap Proposal: ,Jim Pearson reported that a letter was received from the State Department of Fisheries on the mitigated determination of non-significance issued on this project. This letter will be forwarded to the Shoreline Commission to be included in their review of the project. Tuesdav .June 6, 1989 OUt of State Travel ReQUest: Plannin~ and BuildinG Department Director. David Goldsmith: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the Out of State Travel request for David Goldsmith to attend a management training seminar in Colorado in August. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISTRICT COURT Recru.est to Allow Office Staff to Work OV8rti1ReforCOlBDuter Trainina: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the request from the District Court to allow the payment of overtime for two clerks to work a maximum of 15 hours each to be trained on the new computer system. Commis- sioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. TREASURER Petition for Property Tax Refund: Pat Jackson: The petition for property tax refund submitted by Pat .Jackson was approved by motion of Commissioner B. G. Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dennison. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. AUDITOR Tuesdav June 6, 1989 Adoption of Alternate Date and Establishina the Dates of 1990 BudGet SUbmissions. Review HearinGS and Final Adoption: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve and sign Resolution No. 52-89 selecting the alternate date of the first week in December to hold budget hearings for the purpose of adoption of the 1990 budget. as recommended by the County Auditor and the schedule of events for the budget process. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Mary Gaboury. Chairman. Salary Administration Committee re: Job Classification ReQUest: Commissioner Dennison moved to approve the clas- sificationof Court Reporter/Appellate Clerk at Grade 26 as recommended by the Salary Administration Committee. Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. RUMAN SERVICES Tuesdav - .June 6, 1989 CONTRACT #89-l0-04 re: Services Provided for the Jefferson County Human Services Department: Bavshore EnterDrises: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve the contract between the Jefferson County Human Services Department and Bayshore Enterprises as presented. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. * * * VOL 15 rAGE 002665 tf' '. h ", Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ,June 5, 1989 Page: 8 John Real re: Gibbs Lake Proposal: 17 interested area residents were present when ,John Heal came before the Board to discuss a proposal to save Gibbs Lake which was recently sold by the Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts to Manke Lumber of Tacoma. .John Heal reported that there is an Osprey nesting area around Gibbs Lake and the State Department of Wildlife is requesting that a 200 foot buffer be left around the lake when the area is logged. A letter of support was drafted for the Boards signatures, for the Department of Wildlife request to leave a 200 foot buffer around the Lake and 330 foot buffer around the Osprey nesting tree as well as a requirement that no logging be done from April 1 through September 15 each year because of this nest. Tom ,Jav: Mr. ,Jay stated that he is representing the Eastern ,Jefferson County Watershed Council. He presented petitions which express public concern about Gibbs Lake and its' preservation. Mr. ,Jay stated that they would like to work with the Commissioners and to make some suggestions, which will work to their mutual benefit. The timber cutting going on in the County is degrading the resource base of the County and selling the character of ,Jefferson County. Development on resource lands will mean that the County taxpayers will have to absorb the increased costs of services (law enforce- ment, etc.) for the people that move here. They feel that the Boy Scouts betrayed the public by selling this property. The citizens of ,Jefferson County want to save Gibbs Lake. 3) listed the following reasons to save Gibbs Lake: The watershed around the Lake has already been heavily logged. The buffers that were left are barely adequate. Many residences along West Valley Road rely on shallow wells. How this clear cut will effect th~ water table is a concern of many County residents. Increased runoff from this clear cut could cause problems for the dairy farmers downstream of Gibbs Lake. Siltation in Naylors Creek could destroy the fish run that has just been re-established. Gibbs Lake is the last wildlife refuge in the County. This resource must be preserved. Gibbs Lake is a traditional recreational and fishing spot. Mr. ,Jay 1) 2) 4) 5) Due to the issues stated, Mr. Jay noted that they encourage the Board to do one of the following: 1) Ini tiate a State Environmental Policy Act review of the logging operation planned for the Gibbs Lake area. 2) The Board could ask the State Department of Natural Resources to require an Environmental Impact Statement on the cumulative impacts from logging this area. 3) Take this Forest Practices Application to the Forest Practices Appeals Board to delay the logging operations and allow time for negotiation with Manke Lumber. If the Board cannot help with this, Mr. ,Jay stated that this group will appeal the Forest Practices Application themselves or as a last resort initiate legal action. The ,Jefferson County Watershed Council would like to work with the County to develop a policy on resource conversion. They are not against logging, but they want to encourage sustained yield of our forest resource. A wildlife and botanical inventory needs to be done. Once a policy is developed, the ,Jefferson County Watershed Council would like the County to seek a way to fund the aC~Aisition of lands to be used for parks. The formation of a special taxing district, or the application for grant monies from the Trust for Public Land, were suggested as alternatives. The Manke Lumber forest practices application is due the 26th of this month. Mr. ,Jay concluded by noting that it is time to protect the forest and wildlife resources of this county. Bruce Marsten: Mr. Marsten stated that he feels betrayed by the Boy Scouts and so do the boys in his Troop. He added that he has tried to speak to the Boy Scouts to express his concern about how they have handled not only this VOL 15 rAbt 002666 .. I . Commissioners' Meeting Mi1)utes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 9 I property, but also other !properties that they have received in trust. A dialogue must be opened w$thorganizations, such as the Scouts, to make them aware that they are askfng the community to help them and they should consider the impact they !make on those communities. Mr. Marsten reported that he has sent a letter! to the Boy Scouts about this issue. I Rick Tollefson, Member, ,Je!fferson County Parks Advisorv Board: Mr. Tollefson stated that the County Parks Advisory Board was contacted about this issue and there seems to be a ?onSiderable amount of community support for some sort of recreational actiyity at Gibbs Lake. The Parks Advisory Board does not have a planningdoc~ent developed yet. In reviewing the possible alternatives to acquire G[bbs Lake there is no clear option. The value of the Gibbs Lake property i~ about the same as the whole Parks budget for one year. The Parks Board does not have a recommendation on whether or not Gibbs Lake should be a County ~ark. They would like to see something done to provide more time to look I into the alternatives for acquiring Gibbs Lake. , Aubrev Tavlor: Mr. Taylor stated that the Board should not take any action on the Gibbs Lake matter. i The area was logging and burned in the past. If the Board does act on thislproposal they will find themselves acting on every logging job that is propo~ed in the County. I I Frank Petrich: Frank Petrlich stated that the effects of logging of the Gibbs Lake property and the lan4 adjacent to this area, could effect the amount of run-off that comes off the watershed. This runoff would also effect the farms in the Chimac1J.m v,lley. The runoff from the logged areas would inundate the Chimacum valfey. I Chairman George C. Brown advised those present that a decision would not be made on these re~~ests to~ay, but that the Board will make a determination on the requests as soon as possible within the next two weeks. I I Commissioner Dennison sta~ed that as far as an environmental impact statement requirement would have to be made by the State DepCilrtment of Natural Resources. ' Pat Rubida: Pat Rubida ~tated that he is not speaking for or against the proposed activity. Mr. Ru~ida reported that several years ago logging in the Discovery Bay watershed caused increased siltation in the creeks, and flooding of pasturelands. There is a grassroots citizens movement in the that watershed. Albie Baker: Alvie Baker stated that it's not just the logging that will be going on around Gibbs Lak~. He has heard that there is a plan for a resort there. This is a beautifu~ area and the effects of logging and people moving here are making an affection the landscape. I I Commissioner Dennison sta~ed that the first thing that needs to be addressed is what the process is on !forest practice applications because local govern- ment doesn't have any rol, in these applications. ! The meeting wasi recessed at 5:00 p.m. and reconvened on Tuesday afternoon at 1:30 p.m. wi~h all Board members in attendance. , AGREEMENT re: Centennial Tourism Promotion PrOGram: Jefferson Countv' Centennial Committee and the City of Port Townsend: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve ~he agreement between the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson County Cenjtennial Committee for funding of Centennial ac- tivities for the City. ,Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unani~ous vote. I ! I Fireworks Stand! Permit: Eauitese Pony Club: The fireworks stand permit requested by the Equitese Pony Club to be located near Nesses Corner Road and Irondale Road was approved by motion of Commissioner Dennison, seconded by Commissioner B. G. Brown. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. VOL -15 t~Gt 00 2667 " .... . J r Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of ,June 5, 1989 Page: 10 Appointments to the Communi tv Health NursinG Advisory Board: Penny Balk and Anne E. Biedel, M.D. were each appointed to serve a two year term of the Community Health Nursing Advisory Board as recommended by the Health Department, by motion of Commissioner B. G. Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dennison. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Their terms will expire May 31, 1991. ApDlicatlon for Assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Fund: The application for assistance from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief fund submitted for Elmer Assman in the amount of $412.0~ was approved by motion of Commissioner B. G. Brown, seconded by Commissioner Dennison. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Pennv and Bob Henderson. Chairman. 'l989 Rhododendron Festival re: County Loao: Penny and Bob Henderson, represent ing the Rhododendron Festival, came before the Board to discuss the County logo. They advised that rumors have been going around that the County is changing the logo that is placed on County equipment, from the outline of the County with a Rhododendron superimposed on it to the design that is in the center of the County flag. The Board indicated that the County flag logo would be used in the future on all County vehicles. Bob Henderson explained that the Rhododendron Festival is the only festival in the State that celebrates the official State flower. ,Jim Humphrey of the Jefferson County Rhododendron Society also supports having a Rhododendron in the County's logo. Bob Henderson further reported that the County Road Supervisor has received compliments on the logo that is currently used because it utilizes the shape of the County. He asked that a Rhododendron be added to the flag logo since that is what will be used on the County vehicles in the future. After discussion of the County flag and the process under which it was developed, the Board advised that the County flag will not be changed but agreed that Bob Henderson could research the cost of adding a Rhododendron on either side of the words Jefferson County in the logo to be used on County vehicles. Jean Dunbar. Jefferson Countv Centennial Committee re: Suecial Centennial Stamp Cancellation for ,Jefferson COunty and Placement of a Time Capsule at the Courthouse: ,Jean Dunbar, representing the ,Jefferson County Centennial Committee presented the Board with a letter from Committee Chairman Glen Bellerud requesting permission to place a time capsule somewhere in the Courthouse during the remodelling being done this year. A list of suggested materials for inclusion in the time capsule was attached. The Board concurred that a time capsule be developed and the Centennial Committee will work with Carter Breskin to implement the project. Jean Dunbar then reported that a Jefferson County stamp cancellation to celebrate the County and the State Centennial will be held at the Courthouse on September 15, 1989. She will contact Carter Breskin to make the arrangements for this activity. The meeting was recessed on Monday afternoon and reconvened on Tuesday evening at 7:30 p.m. at the Chimacum School Auditorium for the following hearing. All Board members were present. BEARING re: Proposed DeveloDment Code Ordinance: Chimacum. School Auditorium: Approximately 70 interested County residents were present to present and hear testimony on the proposed Jefferson County Developmental Code when Chairman George Brown called the hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. in the Chimacum School Auditorium. Vlll 15 rAGf 002668 >- .' / , Commissioners'Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 11 Planning and Building Department Director, David Goldsmith, reviewed the history behind this draft development code. He explained that the philosophy behind the proposed ordinance as: 1) A need for a timely consistent predictable decision making process, 2) To provide a high degree of flexibility dealing with land development proposals, and a high degree of sensitivity in the location of those in the community, and 3) To balance and protect individual rights as well as community rights. No official action will be taken on this proposed ordinance until these hearings are over. The public hearing process will be open until June 30, 1989 for public comment. After that the Commissioners will make any changes they feel are necessary in the draft document before considering final adop- tion. Chairman George Brown then asked for public comment on the proposed or- dinance. (The following are excerpts of the testimony given. This is not a verbatim transcription of the testimony. Neil Berastrom, Representative of Marrowstone Island Community Association: The Mar rows tone Island Community Association approved (without a dissenting vote) a statement of support of the draft of the .Jefferson County Development Code dated September 1988. The Association strongly supports the Marrowstone Island Community Plan and wants an ordinance to enforce it. There is language in the Addendum issued May 16, which the Association Planning Committee feels affects the position of community development plans and the. addressing of environmental concern. They feel these are of the utmost importance. Wi th some minor language changes _ in these two areas, the Association would again urge passage of the Development Code as amended. Other Marrowstone Island residents will address in detail the particular concerns the Association has on these two points. Hararave Garrison: Mr. Garrison stated that he owns land at Discovery Bay and he is sorry to say that the Commissioners would be mistaken to pass this ordinance. It is an attempt to enact land use regulation which will stand up in court while retaining complete discretion over all commercial, industrial and multi-family development. Anyone who has read this document and the communi ty plans knows that the idea is to keep complete discretion. There's a constant reference to the very indefinite Comprehensive Plan, its' goals policies and provisions. The point is that it's an attempt to have it both ways and to retain complete discre- tion with the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Dept as to what's built in the county. It's going to make a lot of people mad at the Board of Commissioners. People will tolerate being disadvantaged, if it's a law, but if it's just a matter of the Planning Director or the County Commissioner decide what you can do with your property, in each individual instance, I don't think people are going to go with that. And I don't think it's right. The ordinance creates a nightmare of administration. This is not appropriate for every commercial and industrial development in this County. People think they will find some rules in the Planning Department when they go in to apply to be allowed to develop their property, but there aren't. There should be some rules. Most of the existing commercial and industrial properties in the County will not have their property designated as industrial or commercial. We don't have any maps and that's one of the problems. The maps are in the Planning Commission being developed. Half of the property will be properly zoned, but the other half isn't. All grandfathered property is treated as a non- conforming use. If you want to make any change to a non-conforming use, the ordinance says that a rigorous review is required. Mr. Garrison then reviewed the process a non-conforming use would have to go through to gain approval of a change in the business on their proper~y. Every time you have a grandfather clause, the Commissioners will have to make lRany findings before they can let you do what you want to do. Mr. Garrison then stated to the County Commissioners "if you do this, in my opinion, YOllr going to be sued and ultimately you'll lose." This ordinance amounts to an abuse of power. If you pass a land use ordinance you are VOL 15 rAGE 00 2669 , i' . ' I . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 12 supposed to have standards that are objective and definite enough for people to read and they just aren't here. There is no standard here. If it's the law, people will accept it. But, people are unwilling to do that if it isn't the law. I'm sincere in urging you not to go down this road. This road is an illegal, barely legal at best. It's not a defined certain standard that the people are entitled to and I don't think you should do it. .John Brown: .John Brown stated that he has lived at Discovery Bay for 48 years. He disagrees with this ordinance. I have a hard time understanding why you have insisted on holding hearings on this code at this time for the following reasons: The document is not' complete, i. e. we have a document and a supplement, which leaves a lot to be desired. It is difficult to read both documents and come out with anything but confusion. The maps are not updated and complete. The supplement was not put out to the public until the 16th of May, which really does not give working people time to study it carefully. I don't agree with a 35 foot building height. The development code should address all the uses in the County, i.e. residential, the whole thing. It should address everything, not just commercial, industrial and multi-family. You inadvertently direct what can be done with a residence when you go into what you can and can't do as far as a home business. You are limited to hiring two people outside your family. I don't think that's too kosher. Definitions - some of them are hard to understand. Condominium, multi- family dwelling, home businesses, etc. Tonight we got another handout that changes the flow chart again. I don't think that all this permitting process is dandy and fine and people complain about loggers sending logs overseas, but by the same token how long would it take to get a permit to build a sawmill in ,Jefferson County? If someone was going to spend $10 or $15 million on a sawmill, I don't think he could even get the permit. Frank Petrich: Mr. Petrich stated that he lives in Port Townsend. I have lived in Washington State all my life and have had the dubious distinction of seeing areas like Pierce County and Tacoma decline under the weight of no planned growth. Too much growth and no planning for growth. I'm here to speak in favor of the implementing ordinance tonight. The way I look at is that it's a process. It's a beginning process to work these things out. If you want Jefferson County to look like the Gig Harbor peninsula today, just don't forget about the implementing ordinance. Get the ball rolling on some comprehensive planning, because if we don't our grandchildren will catch hell for it. ,Joe Coates: Mr. Coates stated that he resides at Discovery Bay. He disagrees with the idea of the ordinance. While we have an R.C.W. that says that the statute requires the preparation of a comprehensive plan by any county with a Planning agency, but that the enactment of official controls are optional. We don't need to establish more hoops to jump through. The essential point is that the property owners must be left with a reasonable and economic use of their land under this Development Code, if they pass it. Having a business that is located on Highway 101 and been in operation for over 30 years, dealing with custom sawing and retail sales of finished products, and have someone here come is and tell me I'm a non-conforming use. If this code is passed I can't pass this business on to someone else interested in the same process, because the business will be grandfathered just for him and not to sell it so someone else. The Commissioners better look at this really strongly before they even consider any such ordinance. We're here with a public hearing on a document that is not completed. The Planning Commission passed on a document without a recommendation which has been amended and that document was not taken back to the Planning Commission. RalDh Theriault: Mr. Theriault stated that he is a landowner who has lived in ,Jefferson County for 53 years. I have seen this county gradually grow and this County is prospering without this burden that is trying being fostered upon us. I've gone through the process with Mr. Goldsmith and the County Commissioners and got a yes and a no. The Commissioners and the Planning Department tell us they want a decision making process that is practical. I do not think it is practical. The code Vlll 15 rA~f 00 2670 f '.... .,. T 1 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 13 as written is capricious which means unpredictable. It leaves the interpreta- tion and decision making solely up to administration, which is the Planning Department. The code is not drafted so that a layman can understand it. The origin of this ordinance came from the Planning Department. Washington State law states that the Planner shall write the ordinances for the planning of the County. The first draft of the ordinance was so restrictive that there is very little left of the first draft. The Planning Commission worked on this code for two or three years before they brought it up for public discussion at meetings. They have been working since 1987 to try to clarify it. This was railroaded because these people didn J t want to hear anymore. These are good people that were trying to do a job that was given to them by the County. The Planning Department was trying at all times to influence the forming of this code and I would say they succeeded in their efforts. To inform the people of ,Jefferson County how unpredictable this code is you should know what happens in the procedure of applying for a permit. Mr. Theriault then described the permit process for his recreational vehicle park project. I asked, specifically what a permit would cost and was told $300 to $400. The permit ended up costing $850.00, I guess, cause I don't have any right to do anything on my land. When'all of the Planning Department wishes were finally fulfilled, I applied for what I thought was a permit for my project and that was only the beginning of the process. The Planning Commission (nine gentlemen) was very attentive and helped as much as they could to find solutions for the many requests fostered upon a private landowner by certain people who didn J t understand what we were going to do. This led to an approval of the project. After that I was not through with the process. It was brought before the Commissioners and was approved with additional mitigating circumstances, to which I agreed except for one. They had seven mitigating circumstances and of the seven, six were things that I would do on my own property even if they weren't mitigating circumstances. There was one, number seven, that required me to pay a portion of a study for a left turn lane off Rhody Drive to Anderson Lake Road and a part of the construction costs. I told the Commissioners I could not afford the money to do this. At the next meeting I asked for relief from having to pay a portion of the cost of construction of a left turn lane off Rhody Drive. The Commissioners then sent me a letter notifying me that they withdrew the Mitigated Determination of Non-Sig- nificance issued on March 13. I do not have approval from the County to do with my land as I see fit. We pay road taxes and gasoline taxes and the County also receives forest fund money, of which half is earmarked for roads, and they can't afford to pay for the left turn.lane on Rhody Drive? They have spent thousands of dollars on left turn lanes at Ness' Corners and West Valley Road for the schools. That is not the case for the Evergreen Coho Escapee Retreat Recreational Vehicle Park who built an RV park on Anderson Lake Road, adjoining my property. This ordinance is discriminating. It targets the few landowners who would like to improve their land to assist them in improving their position in the County. It does not effect the homeowner, only the business portion of the County. If you are to have equality of the law, the law should affect everyone on an equal footing. This law, if approved, is capricious and unpredictable because it is too broad in interpretative langlJ.age. C. Montaomerv ,Johnson: Mr. ,Johnson submitted a copy of and read his written testimony. (see attached) Will submit several minor suggestions in writing later. W.E. (Bill) Whitnev: Bill Whitney stated that he is from the Coyle and he served on the Planning Commission for two years while this document was under development. I am disappointed in the number of people who were able to attend here tonight. At the time of my resignation I submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing my very serious concern with this document as written at that time. I was and I am still in agreement that a develop- ment code is needed for this County. Some form of development document is needed, not only protect these gentlemen, but to provide reasonable standards VOL 1-5 rAGE 002671 , ,~. .... , t Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 14 for everyone. A time table for both the County and the developer, but also the document should recognize the individual property owners right to do what he want to do with his property. I had serious concerns when I resigned and I still have some concerns, however, many have been corrected in the past few months. There should be uniform in reference to the County Comprehensive Plan. Some references wording and definitions should be standardized. The added sub-section 1.6 - relationship of code to the Comprehensive Plan was a desirable step. I personally have no objections to the standards, the building standards, because the plan itself provides for variations from that. Those standards are detailed and I don't think that's the real problem. The problem to me is some guy who brought some property 40 years ago and thinks that someday it will have commercial value and then through the years, we took that away, its no longer designated commercial. We have to recognize his rights. We should be more liberal in what they can do with it. Wi th a few more modifications in the development code, I think it's something we should go ahead with. It's something that should be reviewed. Bill Goodhue: Bill Goodhue stated that the Jefferson County Development Code is essential. The draft of the code gives a developer a fair and predictable process and standards by which he can develop a project and at the same time protect property owners the environment and the community at large. The addendum which accompanied the letter dated May 16, 1989 has added and deleted several thing which I would urge you to reconsider. Mr. Goodhue stated he would write a letter on this later. Section 5 entitled "Policy and Performance Standard Review Process" a new paragraph has been added which appears to remove from the code the authority of the County to review the environmental impact of a project. I feel it is imperative that the County review both the environmental and social impacts of a project. Section 5.5.10 "Review Criteria for Conditional Use", should state that approval may be withheld and add "unacceptable and social impacts beyond the property boundaries. " I urge you to approve the code, but also request that the modifications I have mentioned be included in the final code. ,John Illman: ,John Illman stated that he is from Nordland. He disagreed with one item of Mr. Theriault's about no opportunity for public input at the Planning Commission meetings. Official testimony was not taken, but several people who attended those meetings, were given an opportunity to speak their piece during those deliberations. He then read a written statement, which he also submitted. Dale Leavitt: Dale Leavitt stated that she lives on Airport Cutoff Road. She advised that she will be submitting written testimony which will provide specific comments on the ordinance. She added that she wants to address philosophical approaches of the ordinance as far as land use development and the way it is processed in the County. Currently commercial development (such as Reeds Shopping Center) on commer- cially designated land, would have to obtain a building permit for expansion. If there was environmental review associated with that it would be under the environmental law that is currently on the books. My understanding of the process under the code, is that every single building permit application out for a public comment of 15 days. If someone complains during that period then conditions could be placed on the permit by the Planning Department. If your commercial on commercially designated land and meet all the stan- dards, I don't understand why it should go out for public comment. The process is very fuzzy, very unclear and very frightening for a small business. Another concern is home businesses. The home business section has a series of standards that a person has to meet, one of which is you can't have more than two persons employed outside the immediate family, employed on the premises. That's fine for Hadlock, but in the rural areas like Discovery Bay and Quilcene many businesses are home businesses, and that really doesn't fit. The seeds of small business is in the home. I would like the Board to see if there could be modifications made to accommodate the rural areas. Vlll 1-5 rAbf 00 2672 , , . " , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 15 I urge the Commissioners to continue to review existing commercial and industrial businesses in ,Jefferson County and get the maps brought up to speed with their land use designation. William Leavitt: Along with Dale we own Leavitt Trucking and Excavating on Airport Road. The people that have been in the County doing their business on their property should be classified as commercial or industrial for whatever they're doing. Somehow along the 1 ine the people of the County have got to the point that residential comes first. Residential has the only rights. They're the ones that have been hurt by everything and they are intolerant of anything else. My parents and grandparents came to this County in the early 1900's and if they'd taken an attitude, like we have in the County today, of let's lock it up and save everything, we'd have a small audience tonight if they'd taken that attitude way back then. Everyone is afraid that its' going to be another Woodinville or Bellevue or whatever they came from, but we have so many drawbacks, that it just can't get there. We don't have a water supply. We have a pretty poor transportation system. There are lots of drawbacks in the County to ever get to the full blown Seattle that everyone is afraid of. I feel we have to be more tolerant of people trying to make a living in the County. We went through this process for the last year and a half and it is an atrocious, horrendous, thing to go through and that's with no law. People claiming they do have a law. It's a big County and we can all live here and we can make a living here and get some thing done and still not bother our neighbors. Mike Fleming: Mike Fleming stated that he strongly supports the need for a development code in .Jefferson County. I've said that for the five years Ilve worked on the Planning Commission, and I still do. The draft code that you were furnished by the Planning Commission in September was adequate and it provided a balance of interest and some protection for individual property rights, for communities, and for the environment. I was rather dismayed at some of the changes you made in your addendum dated May 16, 1989. I think you have erred and adversely effected the balance between the various interests that the code was set up to protect. Specifically, I refer to Section 1.60 titled "The relationship between the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan". In your addendum you have seriously degraded the importance of local community plans. In Section 5.1220 titled "Environmental Review", you have completely eliminated the codes concern with environmental impacts. When you get so much support from communi ties and the communi ties have developed community plans, that you could do them in by knocking down the emphasis community plans have in your addendum. I think the changes I'm referring to can be corrected. What you've created you can un-create. I think we need to the code. I urge you to make those corrections and to pass a code. Leslie Aicken: Leslie Aicken presented written comments that go into several areas. She stated that Section 1.60 amendment dilutes the authority of community plan to determine the location and nature of developments in that community. It seriously erodes the value of the citizen process in determining the future of their neighborhoods. She asked that this Section be softened, if it is required legally, to give primacy to the community plans. If there is no legal requirement for this amendment, she urged that the community plans be allowed to prevail. Specifically change 1.310, Number 1, "Findings Required of Referrals" to read "the uses in conformity with the goals, objectives, and land use plans of the County Comprehensive Plan or applicable community development plan." In Section 5, I understand that the County does not have the authority to interfere with the SEPA process, but I'm under the impression that the County is at reasonable liberty to establish resource conservation standards. If this is true, in Section 5.122, shouldn't there be a reference to this right? Since, determinations on classifications of approvals, denials or conditional uses are made administratively by the Planning and Building Department, I want to have a specified listing of required findings to govern the deter- Vlll. t5 b~t;E 002673 ~ f ,. I Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 16 mination and I want those findings to be those standards listed in 5.310, as per the original draft. In 5.510 "Review Criteria for Conditional Uses" standards are referred to which resemble findings for referrals but they are substantially watered down. Specifically in number 1 "materially" should be deleted and the use of the word "nor" looks like a typo. The use of the findings required for referrals is a standard for all other cases is important to me for two reasons: 1) the primacy of the community development plans can be established if my previous recommendation is adopted, and 2) the phrase in Finding #3 which requires non-engagement of environmental resources beyond property boundaries, is essential to the protection of private and public property rights. Private property rights are deeply important to the citizens of this county. If we are to honor private property rights as a principle the development code should specify protection of those right by limiting adverse environmental affect to the property of the person causing those affects. In Section 5.61 the amendment to variances and exceptions deletes the requirement that the condition which causes the hardship to exist not be the resul t of the action of the applicant. I suggest that seems to be a potentially large loophole for variances and I encourage you to close it. We have lost in Section 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 something that I have felt to be an important condition of development. Specifically, there's a requirement for landscaping for commercial and industrial developments, but none for multi- family residential development and this seems peculiar to me. What is a greater concern is that we have lost the standard for 10% minimum landscaping exclusive of parking areas. Since parking areas do not necessarily provide a permeable surface. I would encourage you to restore the minimum landscap- ing provisions. I believe the amended draft code is better than no code at all. I support a development code for Jefferson County. Charles O'Conner: Charles O'Conner stated that he is the President of the Discovery Bay Heights Community Association, not to be confused with the community at the south end of Discovery Bay. We are a small 33 lot residen- tial development located between Four Corners and Chevy Chase Golf Course on Discovery Road. This 33 lot development can be considered analogous to an island in a large geographical area currently designated rural on the Comprehensive Plan map. We have Discovery Bay to the south, a church camp to the west and undeveloped land north and east and therein lies the rub, this vast area of undeveloped land. Phase 1 was legally platted in 1980 as residential community, with developers plans for phases 2,3,4,5, etc. All we're asking for is assurance that the County Commissioners can reasonably and legally protect us from unwanted, non-compatible use encroachment. We don't believe, at the present time, that you can give us that assurance. We do believe the implementing ordinance will be a giant step in providing that legal assurance and protection to us. We urge you to adopt this ordinance following the conclusion of this series of hearings, and the changes that will come about from the input you receive. Charles R. Samples, ,Jr.: Charles Samples stated that he and his wife are for the code with the data submitted by the number of speakers who were for it. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to comment. Palmer Osborn: Mr. Osborn read and submitted his statement. Tom .Jav: Tom ,Jay stated that he lives in Chimacum and concurs with Mr. Fleming and Ms. Aicken regarding potential defects in the plan. Especially Ms. Aicken's concern with the conservation and resource issue. Further on that is one of the major problems that the County is facing in the coming years is the conversion of the resource base., especially the timber and wildlife resource. If there is some specific way of addressing conversion in the plan, in legal or policy language, I think that would be appropriate for the times we live in. Development is fine, but the history of develop- ment has been shadowed by the lack of conscience . Development brings certain advantages, but also ceratin problems. The Code tries to make developers pay Vlll -15 rA&t 00 2674 -." , Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 17 the real costs that they bring to the County, especially in social and environmental terms. Pea Lewis: Peg Lewis stated that she planned to talk in favor of the code and in the urgency of passing it. I simply want to say, in view of the time, that most of my arguments have already been stated. Wayne Kina: Wayne King stated that he lives in Gardiner. Mr. King invited all the people against this code to come out and see what has been happening in Gardiner lately. This is why we need a code. Have a developer who is harassing the neighborhood, shooting our pets, you can't believe what is going on out there. Pass this code and the sooner the better. Bob Dalev: Bob Daley stated that there are three things he wants to talk about on the code. On 6.71 Temporary Activity: This says that temporary activity shall be reviewed and approved administratively. I don't like that. I'm the owner of Olympic Greenhouse and I have a temporary asphalt plant next to me. I want more hoops to jump through on a temporary situation. Viola- tions: This doesn't say anything about the Commissioners, Planning Depart- ment or Planning Commission violating a condition. I want you guys to agree that you have to live by this, if we have to live by it. Legal Remedies: That's pretty loose. It sounds like a guy can do whatever he wants to anyway and the legal remedies are very weak. There must be a code. You've got to protect. our neighborhoods and our businesses. We need protection from big money so they can't ruin the little guy. We also need protection against wild administrators or commissioners that get a little crazy after they're elected. If we don't have this code, we don't need commissioners, because everybody can do what they want to do. A County without a code is a County out of control. Mvrl Hancock: Myrl Hancock stated that the attorney (Hargrave Garrison) said it all for me. I even had to hire an attorney. I'm one of these property owners who bought property out here 25 years ago, and started a wrecking yard. That's what I bought it for. I want to put in a business. I sit up there next to Fred Hill. It's not 660 feet from my front door. Mr. Goldsmith won't let me put in a driveway. I have to file an environmental impact statement to put in a driveway. I have to hire an attorney to get his (David Goldsmith's) attention. We need to let some of these officials have a little flack. I think you got even for that carport. Trish Warner: Trish Warner stated that she lives in Gardiner. I would like to tell the COmmissioner that my husband and I are in favor of having this implementation passed. We've spent untold hours over the last four years working on a community plan for Gardiner. I can't imagine working on this plan and not have it mean anything, which it will not mean if the plan does not pass. The people that complain about the County telling them what they can do with their property, could also spend the time and go through the process that we've gone through to create a plan for their community. And they would have a say in it. We feel that this will be for the good of all people coming to ,Jefferson County. We feel that this needs to be passed to protect all of the people of Jefferson County. ,Janet Welch: ,Janet Welch stated that she lives and works in Hadlock. She urged the Board to pass the development code. It late, its weak, it's inadequate in places, but it's a lot better than having nothing. Many people talk about private property rights, but nobody is talking about respon- sibilities. Nobody is talking about the responsibility of the person who wants to put the R.V. park on his property. His responsibility to his neighbors, and his community. His responsibility to that road. If we had a group of people that were fully responsible to themselves, their neighbors, to their com~unity and to our society, we probably wouldn't need this code. I would like to encourage you to pass the code. Work on it later if it needs changes. Radiance: Radiance stated the she feels very strongly about the changes I've seen in the last two years. I choose to live here because of the community, the spirit of the community that I see. People caring about their environ- ment, their homes and their businesses. I see trees being massacred for profit. I haven't seen the plan, because I haven't been politically act~ve. VOl 15 rAGf 00 2675 . . (. ..' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 18 It sounds like there's not be clarity. People want decisions. With knowledge you can take action. I believe in a law that is clear and defined. So that people will know when they change their property, what they can do. I can't fathom that there's planning going on, but people are not being enforced to do certain things. That's really scary to me. I'm in favor of some law rather than no law. Aubrev Tavlor: Aubrey Taylor said that his views have been well expressed by Mr. Garrison and Mr. Coates. I oppose this plan. Darvl Moeqlina: Daryl Moegling stated that he is involved in a community plan at Discovery Bay. We're getting started on a local community plan. I've been amazed, listening to the comments of the people from Marrowstone Island and Gardiner. The comments made by the Marrowstone Island people, I agree with, but I'm a little confused if they think that their plan is going to mean much if this ordinance goes through with this supplement. I don't know if we should ever bother pursuing the plan that we're doing at this given time, because it doesn't look in this supplement that it means anything. If the community plans and determinations are going to revert to the development code. The whole development code bothers me. I do believe we need a development code in this county, but I believe this is the wrong one. I believe that a lot of people are going to be hurt, but they're not here tonight. The home business in the development code is a little dangerous in my view. Somewhere, residents in Jefferson County have lost an American heritage. There's no place in the world or the planet that young people, old people, city people, country people, black people, or white people can start a dream from a home or apartment, without being legislated or lobbied against. I will submit written comments. Chairman Brown stated written testimony will be accepted until the first of July, and thanked everyone for coming. The meeting was re_cessed on Tuesday evening at 10: 20 p.m. and reconvened on Thursday evening at 7:30 p.m. at the Quilcene Community Center for the following hearing. All Board members were present. BEARING re: Proposed Develomnent Code Ordinance: Quilcene Communitv Center: Chairman George Brown called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. David Goldsmith reviewed the process that the proposed development code has gone through since the first draft was issued. The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comment. David Cunninaham: David Cunningham stated that he is the Vice President of Pope Resources, which is probably the largest private landholder in ,Jefferson County. Most of their interest is in timber and to some extent real estate development in places like Port Ludlow. The 40,000 acres they own and manage is primarily in timber production, although some of it is in real estate development. The predictions are 50,00 new people per year in puget Sound area. We think those predictions are pretty reasonable and accurate. That's half a million people in the next ten years. We see many of no-growth initiatives in the City of Seattle and King County. We see tremendous improvements in the ferry service in places like Kingston and Winslow. We see the State Department of Transportation predicting that Kingston ferry terminal will be largest in system in next ten years. We see growth coming to Jefferson County, but we don't think its reason to panic or fear it. To manage growth you have to try to get the benefits without losing the lifestyle and the basic freedoms we've all had. Our position on this ordinance at this point in tim is that we support the notion that land use planning should be done locally. We want State to stay out of it. We can support reasonable standards as long as those standards don't become taking without compensation. We can also support some approval process as long as it's not too bureaucratic. Standards proposed in here are reasonable. It is good that single family homes are exempt and that forest practices and VOL 15 rAGf 002676 " "', Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 19 timber management are exempt. It seems to be a little bit bureaucratic._ I see too big of a role and too much being directed to the Planning Commission. We think the Planning Department staff and the County Commissioners are competent enough to make the initial decisions and to review appeals. The Planning Commission is to look after the Comprehensive plan. To have the Planning Commission involved in development review and detailed site plan review is going to create a bureaucracy that none of us want to see. For now you have our support. We see it as a trial and if its adopted and things go awry, we'll let you know. We will send more'details in writing in the next few weeks. You have our qualified support. Dan Thompson: Dan Thompson stated that he is very concerned about this ordinance. I see it as an attempt to abridge or infringe our freedoms. Our freedoms are our options to exercise our property rights. Rights come down to the very act of being able to dispose of your own property. You can not be free if you cannot posses property. Ownership means that whatever is owned is exclusively possessed by the owner. The person who owns not only exclusive posses but has the exclusive right of use and disposal. This ordinance seems to be attempting to take away some of the rights of use and disposal. I have the sole right to use and develop my property in my own best or worst way. This is an option you have if you're free. Your not guaranteed success. It's my opinion I have the right to do anything I please on my property as long as I don't interfere with the equal right of others to do the same thing. We have laws to take care of people who are violating someone's rights. The whole philosophy of a group of people telling another group of people what to do with their property, is never brought up and discussed openly. This implies that either you don't really own property or that it's owned in common with all those other people. You've probably heard of such systems, called socialism, fascism, and various other collective isms. It seems to me that no matter how many other people there are they don't have the right to interfere wi th the use of my property. The only way a right can be infringed upon is by force or threat of force and that's what this implementing ordinance is about. We got a Comprehensive Plan awhile back and now they realize that not everybody's going to do what they want them to because, if your not going to be thrown in jail, shot at, fined or robbed, for Violating it, you might just do what you want to do. So they want to put some teeth in it, which means that they want to be able to exercise coercion a.gainst us. We need to talk about rights and we need to refer to basic principles. I haven't seen that done in this proposed ordinance. Dale Lea.vitt: Dale Leavitt stated that she lives on Airport Cutoff Road. I attended the public hearing at Chimacum and since they were short for time and they were running behind and I cut my testimony short. Basically what I'm concerned about with ,Jefferson County in its' planning process is the philosophies that are being used to plan our land use. A lot of it goes back to when they put the Comprehensive Plan together and that process and the proposed ordinance has evolved out of that same thinking. I did some delving into the books and writings that were used to put the original Comprehensive Plan together. The people at Chimacum represented community and commercial interests and they were basically both saying the same thing. The ordinance as we saw it was very unpredictable. Business owners can't predict whether or not they're going to be able to set up in .Jefferson County, continue to operate or expand and residential people don't know whether or not a commercial or industrial operation can be put in near them. The ,Jefferson County Commissioners have opted for performance standard zoning instead of traditional zoning (like in Clallam County). Performance standard zoning means that the County is zoned basically residential .and then commercial and industrial areas can locate anywhere in the County as long as they encapsulate themselves. This has been done with vegetative buffers, so that at the property line there is no impact on the residential neighbors. I am very opposed to that kind of thinking. This creates an very excessive cost to business to try and sound proof themselves and whatever so they don't VOl 15 ~A&f 00 2677 '. \ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 20 bother their residential neighbor. It's a great imposition on residential use to have to worry about whether an industrial operation next to them is violating these standards. The standards are sound, dust, ground vibration, etc. The reason this county is in a bunch of litigation right now is because they don't have anyone to monitor that these standards are being met. Separate the uses. Don't allow industrial to plunk down in the middle of residential. Industrial and commercial have to have adequate areas desig- nated for future growth. Need to look to the future to plan for where the growth will happen. There is not a list of performance standards in that ordinance. All it is right now is opinions of who you're up against, with the Planning Commission. This is an agonizing process that will continue to trigger litigation. We need predictable land use. Let's look at a different philosophy, a different basis and let's start allover again. I don't feel comfortable with someone sitting in office determining the needs of my business. The Comprehensive Plan, which is referenced throughout~this ordinance to be used as the blueprint by the Planning Commission for deciding where commercial and industrial developments will be able to locate and what they will,have to do to encapsulate themselves. What has been alarming me about this document is the roots of it. As I understand it the ordinance in its' original form was drafted primarily by Rachel Nathanson and my ex- perience with her is that she was an advocate for stringent environmental regulations and it was written into that document. Feel there is enough in there that is stringent and over controlling from a bureaucratic standpoint and leaves to much up to the discretion of a nine member Planning Commission and then they drop the hot potato into the Commissioners laps. The Commissioners position will become full time position and they're going to be processing building permits. Our Commissioners time is better spent administering all of the parts of the County, not just building permits. I will be submitting written testimony on the specifics of this. Herb Beck: Herb Beck stated that he just received a copy of this a few days ago. I was going through the points of the ordinance, there's nothing cited as objectives, what are we going to do down the road. Definitions. I went through the definitions and found one for the Board of Commissioners but I didn't find a definition of the Planning Commission. It's not in here. One problem in grandfather use. The three year prior to adoption of this ordinance, how was that three years set up? Recreation facilities - nothing on R.V. and mobile. Several people who have tried to put these facilities in have had a multitude of trouble. Planning Commission - doesn't say the makeup of it. How many members, how they are selected and their term. Under Section 5.21 Appeals and Approvals - Board of Commissioners upon receipt of appeals. Available meeting agenda should be changed to a number of days, or you could put them off for a long time. Also add a Section 9.30 - Constitutional rights that a person has. Main problem with Comprehensive Plan at present is that many of us have purchased property over the years, and may not be able right now, to do what we would like to do, and there are no options at the present time, according to the map, to put in an R. V. facility in for instance. Section 6.202 - Traffic generation. Commercial enterprise located outside a commercial designated area which earns more than 25 vehicle trips per day shall have a direct access to collector arterial. We need to take a second look at many of these articles in here. It is cumbersome and bureaucratic. My feeling is that under the Constitution that if the government seizes your property you're supposed to get compensation for it. My feeling is that if you put rules and regulations on your property it's also taking a right away from that property and I want to be compensated for that particular right that's being taken away from me. Lou Madieu: Lou Madieustated that he is on Gardiner Planning Committee. I haven't attended any of your meetings, but I have a feeling that I could describe what happened here. Rachel Nathanson came to your meetings, handed out papers that were to be worksheets to help design your community plan. They were self serving documents of David Goldsmith and Rachel Nathanson in forming the community plans that they wanted you to adopt. I felt that's what vot 15 rAGf 00 2678 . . " Commissioners I Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 21 happened in Gardiner and I have a strong feeling that that's what happened in all the outlying communities. The Planning Department has spent money and expansion to get this thing adopted. They've added employees to their roles at no time did the County put another Sheriff on patrol at night. They think its' more important that they plan your community for you. If this ordinance is enacted, you'll find that there's a lot of unconstitutional language. I don't think that the wording in our particular Community Plan is serving the community. There is sentencing that is specifically designed to control certain developments and let other development alone. The Planning Depart- ment has crammed this plan down our throat. If this ordinance is adopted we're going to be stuck. They say this makes this community plan of ours law. We've got plenty of laws. It they want to spend more taxes, why don't they put more Sheriffs on or give us better fire protection, or fix our schools up. This whole ordinance is self serving of David Goldsmith and his dYnasty he has created down there in Port Townsend. Tony Bodenheimer: Tony Bodenheimer stated that he has a landscape business in Chimacum. My story is the way it didn't work for me. In 1987 there was some property owners across the street from me, that went into the Planning Department and made a proposal. Three of them got their proposal through. I though maybe I should apply and get my property zoned. I've been in business there since 1980. The redesignation request for commercial of the property across the street was approved based on the nearby land uses of the adjacent properties (my landscaping business). There is too much power being given to the Planning Department. I went through the time and the money to fill out the environmental checklist. When we got to the Planning Commission I was turned down. There were only five members there that night at the Planning Commission and I didn't know until I got there, that when there are only five it has to be unanimous. Unfortunately for me, one member and I have had a personality conflict that's been going on for years. I tried to get it postponed until there was more people there because I knew I wouldn't have a chance to get it unanimous. I tried to make a motion to have it postponed until there were more members there. They ignored me. From there it went down to the Commissioners. The Commissioners tabled it. This is my business and my property and it is my investment which represents a lot of my retirement. To let that get into someones hands that doesn't treat it with the sincerity that it deserves, is a big mistake. The Planning Commission, all nine of them, should be here and hear the people. This is the heartbeat of the community. How are they going to know when you go before them, how to react to what the people really feel like out there. After going through all those procedures and being turned down, I couldn't understand it. The bottom line on this whole thing is control. Who is going to control your property and what sacrifice are you going to make to give up some of that control. It I S my feeling, at the present time, that we do not have competent people on that Planning Commission that are listening to what the people are saying. I want to be heard by our govern- ment, elected or appointed, and I want fair treatment. We should have a voice in what goes on. It's not a game and we canlt handle it that way. Gary Phillips: Gary Phillips stated that he has a logging business in Quilcene. The Home business section says no outside storage of equipment. In the logging business we have large equipment and in order to store it inside it would require us to build a shop that would be a lot bigger than our needs. That part doesn't work for us at all. The buffer part bothers me too. If I couldn't build a building large enough then I would be required to buffer it and I really don't want to do that either. Under complaints, if three of your neighbors or people who live in the same residence complain about your business you're up for review. If the Port Townsend Leader has a consensus, getting three people to complain about a logging business would be too difficult. I'm really concerned about, with the things that are going on in the logging business, I feel like my business is going to change drastically and I'm not sure what those changes will be, but I'm not sure that I will have time to come to you people and let you decide what I can do '/OL 15 r~G! 00 2679 4 . '" Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of 3une 5, 1989 Page: 22 on my property or what my employees are going to be able to do. It makes it that much more cumbersome. Dave Goldsmith mentioned that community and individual interests were the main concern of this plan and I think they're the same. Some of the things that are real important to us is to either have had a job and a worthwhile career or to have a job. To be able to raise a family and do it well here is important and to have and be good neighbors. I don't see where this helps us. I can handle problems with my neighbors better than you can. It's not enhancing my interests or the community interests. In Quilcene we've pretty much have had unplanned growth and it hasn't been a problem. I have always felt good about the community, but not always felt good about dealings with County employees. The plan is not necessary for me, my neighbors or my com- munity. Mvr 1 Hancock: Myr 1 stated that he doesn't think we need a Planning Commission to tell him what to do with his property. I lived in the same place near Port Townsend for 25 years. If I want to put in a business it should be on the highway. That's what I bought that highway frontage for to put in a business up. there. I don't want it hidden in a bunch of trees where nobody can see it or they have to drive a half mile to get to it. I want a driveway to come in off that highway to get to it. That buffer zone is a laugh. Going to have parking space and landscape i tanyway. I wouldn't want to hide a business. ,Jim Olson: ,Jim Olson stated that he has a business in Quilcene and lives in Brinnon. I think a favorable comment on the Planning Department and the Commissioners is that in Paragraph 1.5 that you have listened to some of the testimony in the past. You have allowed the local community development plan to hold precedence over the Comprehensive Plan. (Comment from the audience that Mr. Olson should look at that section again) I would like to get some definition on where a specific development isn't address by the Community Plan or where a proposal is county-wide in nature, the overall County Plan shall be utilized. I would like to see specific examples of what type of items will override the local community plan? We need to call our own destinies with the community plans. Daryl Moeglln~r- asked Mr. Olson if he had the supplement to the proposed code and brought him one turned to a specific page. Mr. Olson then read from the supplement regarding the precedence of the Comprehensive Code and the community plans. David Goldsmith explained that the R.C.W. and case law says that when there is an ordinance and a plan the ordinance will take precedence if there is an issue between the two. The ordinance is a regulatory document and the regulation will take precedence over the plan. The Community plans and the Comprehensive Plans are the same thing, because the community plans are a special chapter to the Comprehensive Plan. If there is a conflict between the two the code takes precedence. ..Tim Olson asked that if that's the case, what good are the community development plans if they can't dictate the needs and wants of the community? Quilcene has entirely different needs and interests than does say, Port Townsend or Marrowstone Island. My main theme all along has been that those of us in the communities need to be able to say how we want to be handled in our communities. The State law overrides all of this. You've uncovered a major problem and I have no solution to it. Unidentified Ladv: Quilcene is the prettiest part of the whole of ,Jefferson County and we have kept it this way without the State, or the County or the federal government telling us what to do. LoU Madieu: I want to ask a questions of the Commissioners. I read in the paper last night that the Chimacum people were overwhelming in support of this plan? Now maybe I'm going to read in the paper tomorrow that the Quilcenepeople are overwhelmingly in favor of this plan. Without a ballot measure how are we going to be sure that the people of this County want this plan? Why isn't this not being decided by the public? VOL 15 rAGE 00 2680- . . 4 .. . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 23 Commissioner Larrv Dennison: When I ran for election last year I made land use my principal issue in my campaign. I made a point of making my position on land use planning and the ordinance up front and real clear. I always have been for the ordinance. I believe it's a good idea to have an ordinance. I have never said that I have made up my mind that any par- ticular document was what I support. I have said in every single election that I've been involved in that was my position. Chairman George Brown reminded everyone that this is a comment period so that the Commissioners will have some idea when it comes down to the final enactment, after this is all taken care of, I'd be in favor of letting the public again take a look at it. Jodi Reandeau: ,Jodi Reandeau stated that her family has lived here for four generations. I feel the Implementing ordinance is a classic case of over- regulation. I've worked hard to earn my property and I want to preserve my rights and freedoms as an American citizen. And preserve them for my son when I leave him my property. I've seen more and more regulations be imposed on property owners and in my opinion mostly made up by people who have come into this County in the past eight to ten years. In other words new people moving into our area from other areas, particularly California, are telling us how to live and what we can do with our land. I want to urge the Commis- sioners to reject the implementing ordinance. Pete Norman: My name is Pete Norman. I just recently moved into the area. I'm a foreigner and I bought a business here. I couldn't understand, ~ntil this meeting, I didn't know about any of this until day before yesterday, when a concerned citizen gave me a slip and said I should attend. I couldn't understand why my business was a non-profit organization. I couldn't understand it l.1ntil this meeting. That's why the previous owner sold, because of this. Ed Bolina: My name is Ed Boling. I'm from Brinnon. I've been here a while on and off. I was involved in this years ago when it was first thrown out and that's seems to have been the best idea. I got copies of this two weeks ago and I put one of them together. They've given you this sheet of paper which on the back sides says "replace subsection 55.130 on page 5.9 which you can't do because you need the other side for replacing other parts. It turns out when you get done you get twice as much paper. That's poor planning. It's not even a continuous document that you can make heads or tails of. What do we need to do to reject this document and start totally over. David Goldsmith responded to a question from Mr. Boling about how to reject this that the decision is up to the Board of Commissioners after the public hearings are completed which is after June 30. There is no time limit. Several people felt it should be put on a ballot. Lorna Ward: Lorna Ward stated that she is entirely opposed to this whole thing. There is too much power given to too few people, to put too much regulation on most of us. It is absolutely unnecessary. It sounds as though the plan or ordinance will takes rights from the land owner in the use of his or her land and take freedoms away from each and everyone of us. It scares me to death when the government the State, the County or anyone else starts telling the people what to do, and how to do it. We have a tax base in this County that is going downhill. You're making it harder for businesses or individuals to move into this county. It's a bunch of hog wash and I'm scared to death of it. Tonv Bodenheimer: Tony Bodenheimer stated that every elected official should be an echo of the people. That's their job. Dan ThomDson: This whole thing implies sacrifice. How can some group of people, when they're not managing their own property, decide how all the other pieces of property in this County are going to best be managed. Some people's businesses or lands will have to be sacrificed. ,Jodi Reandeau: ,Jodi Reandeau stated that it was hard for her to get up and speak in front of all you people. This is one of the.few chances we have to VOl 15 l'Abf 00 2681 4 .. !': Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of .June 5, 1989 Page: 24 say anything about that. There are a few silent people who have feelings in this room and you should at least get up and let the Commissioners know how you feel about the ordinance. At least you've been heard. That's what these Commissioners are going to base whether they pass or reject it on, is the public opinion and these hearings. ' William Leavitt: Bill Leavitt stated that the meeting in Chimacum the other night was a little bit different meeting. This is the real ,Jefferson County. what you're seeing here. The people in this room have done more to . this County to make it what it is than all your Marrowstone Island and Port Townsend and everything else put together. You better listen to what the people are saying here. When you go down to Brinnon you're going to get the same thing because that's ,Jefferson County. Anne Saint Alven?: I've only been here a year. Its time the people take their power back. You're sitting there in your job because you're supposed to be representing what the people want. Herb Beck: Herb Beck stated that the City of Port Townsend has been zoned for years. You have three members on the Board and it is my feeling that your Planning Commission don't have as much to lose as the rural areas of this County. Andy Davidson: Andy Davidson stated that he has a business here in town and he has been here too long. I'd like to know from each of you Commissioners, what do you feel the people are saying? I want to hear it from your mouths. Chairman George Brown: Chairman Brown responded that the purpose of this meeting is taking testimony tonight, and they will give till the first of ,July for written comments to be submitted. After that the Board will go over all of the comments. Chairman Brown stated that he hears the community loud and clear. Andy Davidson: People feel this plan represents more Port Townsend interests than it does the actual outlying communities. Discussion ensued on the testimony taken at the Chimacum meeting, the need for the community plans to override the Comprehensive plans, and the process that Quilcene would need to go through to develop a community plan. Commissioner Dennison responded to Mr. Davidson's in~Airy about what he is hearing from the people in Quilcene, by stating that he is hearing that a majority of the people don't like this document as it is written and that a certain number of the people don't want anything period. Gary Phillips: Could the Quilcene plan state that Quilcene doesn't want a plan, that we will abide by State law and ,Jefferson County's Implementing Ordinance would not effect us here? David Goldsmith responded that there has been a county-wide Comprehensive Plan which has been in existence since 1978. Under the laws which we operate, when a development proposal of a certain size comes before the County Commissioners, they have to review that against the Comprehensive Plan. That is their charge. I don't think you can opt out and say that the ordinance doesn't apply to Quilcene. Andy Davidson: It is my understanding that the Comprehensive Plan isn't anything that you can hold the outlying communi ties to. It's just a guideline. It's not yet law. David Goldsmith explained that the Comprehensive Plan is not binding. It is a decision making document that both the Planning Commission and the county Commissioners are bound to use when they make decisions. If they're going to deviate from it they have to say why they're going to deviate from it. .John Brown: ,John Brown stated that small groups or small cities can incorporate which opts them out of the County plan. ,Jim Olson: ,Jim Olson stated that in November of last year, he had approached Rachel about doing a Quilcene Community plan and she asked them to hold off, ',Gl 15. h~('E 00 2682 ., \ 4 '. . . ~ , ~ i- t' Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of June 5, 1989 Page: 25 for two reason. A budget item is required for that and there wasn't one and that she was working with the Gardiner plan at that time. There is interest in the community, but it has been put on the back burner, both in your operation and here. If we can determine that a community development plan will really do this community some good and will do the wishes of the communi ty,. when items come before the Commissioners. We'd like some assurance on that. Darvl Moealina: Daryl Moegling stated that he is from Crocker Lake but has a Quilcene address. I have looked at this document and it's vague and the average working stiff in ,Jefferson County can't understand it. A bureaucracy is growing. Listen to these people around ,Jefferson County and not just the ones that have it good. Chairman George Brown reminded those present that the next hearing would be held Monday ,June 12, 1989 at the Brinnon Senior Center at 7:30 p.m. Ray Sorenson: Ray Sorenson stated that he is not a businessman. I am retired. I love this community of Quilcene. This document doesn't make much sense to me. There's lots of words. There's control, control, control. Any document that is made by bureaucrats, that it takes a full page -- everyone look a Section 9.1 Violations. They have covered every piece that there is in 3efferson County. I think a lot of us have fought for our rights, in several different skirmishes around the world, but I feel like I'm giving up my citizenship. All want to do is have a little piece of property out here on East Quilcene Bay Road, pay my taxes and sit by the side of the road and be a friend of man. And I want to have my neighbors be able to make a living and be able to have a business. Like the gentleman said, if we have a problem with our neighbors, why can't we sit down and negotiate? If this is such a good document why did they have to put in all of the legal remedies and if your not a good boy or good girl then the County Prosecutor will get you. MEETING ,JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~~wne:XE~~ ~J B. G. Brown, Member ATT~SiJ C)Z(YU{CC Lorna L. Delaney, Clerk of the Board Member ... ;uL 15 rM,f 00 2683