Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091487 ... i. .. - _I 1- _I J"EI'I'ERSON COUNTY BOARD 01' COMMISSIONERS 1 - _1 1- _I District No. 1 Commissioner: Larry W. Dennison, Chairman 1 - _I District No. 2 Commissioner: B.G. Brown, Member 1 - _I District No. 3 Commissioner: George C. Brown, Member I_ 11_ _I Clerk of the Board: Jerdine C. Bragg I . ., Public Works Director: Gary A. Rowe I . ., I .' . MINUTES Week of September 14. 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry W. Dennison in the presence of Commissioner B.G. Brown and Commissioner George C. Brown. APPLICATION . re: .. Cooperative Boatina Safety Program Fundina: Washington State . Pal'ks and Recreation Commission Boating Safety Proaram: This application, Chairman Larry Dennison reported, is to fund the purchase of a boat and safety equipment in the amount of $30,000.00 ($15,000 from the State and $15,000 from the County) so that the Sheriff's Department .can carry out search and rescue and water related law enforcement activitie~. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve the application for the grant as presented. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. Budaets: requests expense deadline Audi tor, Mary Gaboury re: Presentation. of 1988 Preliminary Mary Gaboury, Auditor, presented the Preliminary 1988 budget to each Board member. She further reported that all current budget requests were received before the August 24, 1981 and many of the requests. include narratives. Revised Billina from Coffman/VI'T Balancina Services: David A. Johnston, AlA: Since there is a legal question regarding the payment of this bill, the Board referred it to the Prosecuting Attorney for his opinion. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS BEARINGre: Application for Franchise: Hood Canal Tele~hone: Public Works Department Administrative Assistant, Carter Breskin reviewed this franchise application submitted by Hood Canal Telephone Company to install cable television lines in the southern portion of east 3efferson County near Brinnon. Rick Buechel representing Hood Canal Telephone explained that the companies main offices are in Union but they serve Hoodsport and beyond towards Jefferson County. Chairman Dennison opened the hearing and when no one appeared to speak for or against the franchise appl ication, he closed the hearing. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 73-87 granting non-exclusive franchise to Hood Canal Telephone Company. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. Vtl: I 3 f)&~ o 3118 . . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: September 14, 1987 Page: 2 AGREEMENT re: IBM System 36 Backup: Port Townsend Paper Corporation: Public Works Director, Gary Rowe, explained that Port Townsend Paper Company and the County both have IBM System 36 computers and this agreement provides for reciprocal use of the computers on an emergency basis if there is a system failure at either of them. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve the agreement between the County and Port Townsend Paper Company for emergency use of their IBM System 36. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. Establishina a Petty Cash Fund for the Public Works Office: This $100.00 fund, Gary Rowe explained, is needed for the office to make change when customers purchase maps or pay permit fees and to pay for small items that now require that a warrant to be issued. Commis- sioner B.G. Brown moved to approve and sign Resolution No. 14-81 ordering the establishment of a petty cash fund for the Public Works office. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. Proposed Easement Aareement: Moore Street, Irondale: Georae Cotton: The Prosecuting Attorney reviewed this agreement, Gary Rowe reported, to grant an easement to the County for a portion of Moore Street in Irondale that would allow access to the Irondale log dump. The Public Works Department reviewed the road logs for this road and found them to show that it goes all the way to the creek. Chairman Dennison asked if the road was maintained by the County all the way to the creek? The Road Maintenance Supervisor has stated that he thinks that the County maintained the road until about 10 years ago. The discussion continued regarding the question of public usage and the two statutes that cover this situation. The public usage of a road for ten years can make the road a public road or the County maintenance of a road for seven years makes the road a County road. The County is involved in this issue because the County has established by Resolution a list of County roads by name, as well as beginning and ending milepost. This list includes Moore Street to it's end. Between 1915 and 1980, Gary Rowe added, the county records were changed because research done by the Department showed that the road had been vacated. No research was done into public usage or County maintenance of the road. When the Official County Road Log was adopted it was adopted with Moore Street less the portion that was vacated. Commissioner B.G. Brown added that the exact end of the County portion of Moore Street still needs to be established, however, once that is done it may be found that the road still does not go all the way to the creek. Leon Lopeman stated that all the area residents are asking for is the establishment of First Avenue in the plat of Irondale. They are not worried about access to the creek or to the beach. Mr. Cotton owns the tidelands and the land on both sides of the road. They would like First Avenue in the bottom of Irondale declared a County Road. The Shoreline Commission will provide the access to the beach if the road is a County road. Commissioner B.G. Brown clarified that the Shoreline Commission cannot give access across private property to the shoreline, however if a County road goes to the shoreline then it can not be vacated. Part of the problem, Chairman Dennison added, is that this road was vacated in 1910 before the law was enacted that precludes vacation of a road that goes to the shoreline. Chairman Dennison stated that he would like to know what exactly the public concern is regarding this street and access. It would be best if a solution can be reached regarding this public concern without having to go to Court. Mr. Lopeman urged the Board to reject Mr. Cotton's proposal. The Board assured him that no action would be taken on this ~asement proposal until more research is done regarding this road. .~ 13 ~~r,~ o 3119 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: September 14, 1981 Page: 3 PLANNING Judith and Charles Landau re: Home Business Condition #14 Amendment ReQUest: Timbercraft Bomes. Martin Road, Four Corners: Planning and Building Department Director, David Goldsmith, reviewed this request for an amendment to Condition #14 of the building permit for Timbercraft Homes home occupied business expansion project. The main concern when this proposal was originally reviewed was that the project was exceeding the parameters for a "home occupied business". A motion was made at that time to issue a hdme business conditional use permi t for T imbercraft Homes. Mr. a Mrs. Landau the owners of T im- bercraft Homes are asking to modify the conditions on which that home business use was based, by changing Condition #14 to deal with the number of full time equivalent employees which would be utilized on the site. . Mr. and Mrs. Landau were present to explain their request for the Board as follows: Mrs. .Judi th Landau explained that all of the conditions placed on their building permit are acceptable to them. She reported that the building has been upgraded to a tim.ber frame barn and the entire business will be enclosed within that structure. The condition which only allows two employees is not functional for their project. For the last seven years they have functioning wi th between two and six employees at various times. Five of the past eight months there has been no one working on the property. Mrs. Landau further stated that at the present time they feel that it is better for them to function has they have in the small shop on their property. Two to four additional people. driVing onto the property and leaving their cars out of site of any other residences in the area will not .make a measura- ble impact on the neighborhood. The people will not create any additional noise or disturbance because they will be working with draftsman's tools and hand tools. The shop is insulated and there is practically no sound that comes from the building. Basically. the grandfather clause, Mrs. Landau concluded, allows their business to function in their present facilities. All they are aSking is to be allowed to do essentially what they are doing now, only.in a nicer facility and to contain the operation iriaway that it won't cause any problems for anyone. Chairman Dennison asked what has changed since the f.irst time this project was reviewed that would require more full time equivalent employees? The discussion then centered on the number of full time equivalent employees that are actually being proposed. Commissioner George Brown stated that two full time employees would work 4,160 hours in a year without any overtime. Mr. Landau responded that the two person home business is not a fixed and fast rule. He also stated that this business has been operating for approximately eight years in its' present location with two to six people and everyone agrees that they can continue to do this. What they want to do is be able to employ up to six full time employees without having to worry about someone monitoring them all the time. Mr. Landau added that the ordinance that allows these conditions, as he understands it, is trying to reduce the industrial impact on the area. There are many home businesses operating in the County that are operating beyond the home bU$iness limitation of two people. When this project was reviewed originally and the issue of employees was discussed, Chairman Dennison stated, there was a problem because the policy allows two full time employees. To try to accommodate the needs of the project propon.ents the wording was changed to say "full 'voC' .,.~ . 1 U' r~r,r rl3120 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: September 14, 1981 Page: 4 time equivalent" employees. This request again tests the County's policy on home occupied businesses. Discussion then continued regarding the parameters set for home occupied businesses and the County's current policy. Mrs. Landau added that the policy the County has needs to be enforced and they feel unjustly discriminated against because there are many other people operating home occupied businesses that are not meeting the policy. David Goldsmi th added that this situation is di fferent than most because this is not a new business just being started. This is an existing business with an existing work force established, so the policy may not fit the existing conditions. Currently the only way the County. can deal with this project is to consider it a home occupied business or redesignate the property for an industrial use. Commissioner B.G. Brown reminded those present that this policy has been under review for change for the past three years, and it isn't right to expect people to wait until the policy is changed to present their proposals. This proposal by the Landau's sounds like the are making an effort to lessen the impact of the business on their eigh- bors. David Goldsmi th reported that the proposed implementin or- dinance states that if a grand fathered use wants.to expand or cha ge it can be allowed as long as the degree of non-conformity doesn't c ange (the non-conformity isn't made worse). He then suggested that some upper limit be set for the number of employees to assure tha the neighbors have some protection. Discussion ensued regarding ho the policy was developed that included the two employee limit. .-" '<11 Palmer Osborn, a neighbor to the Landau's, stated that he is in favor of home occupied businesses in the county. He then reported that since this project was reviewed last there has been tractor trailer traffic into the site every month from February through August. Most 0 the time during the summer the workman have been arriving at 1:00 a.m. One Sunday the operation was on-going until 8:30 p.m., and on one occasion a truck arrived at the site at 6:20 a.m.. The concern regarding this project becoming an industrial operation has turned out to be fact. Mrs. Landau explained that the property next to their 11 1/2 acre site is more than 300 feet away from the operation. During the mont s of March and April there has been. no activity on the site becaus the employees were working off the property at various ~ther s. tes. Employees did come to the site so they could pick up tools and ca pool to the work site. Mr. Landau added that during an eight month eriod there were tractor trailers on the site three times, "andflatped rucks on site an additional three times. Mr. Osborn responded that he is not making up any misinformation regarding the activity on this site. The Landau's stated that they were not making up any misinformation either. The discussion then centered around the wording of Condition #14 that would be acceptable ,to all parties. Commissioner George Brown noted that six full time employees would mean 12,480 man hours per year. If these employees only worked six months a year they would work 6,240 hours. Two employees full time per year is 4,160 hours. This would mean that six full time employees for six months would be w rking slightly more man hours than two full time employees for a year. A business needs the latitude, Commissioner B.G. Brown added, to have the employees needed at the time they are needed. It is his der- standing that the location on the property of the new buildi g is better with respect to the location of the Osborn's property and their proximity to the operation. Commissioner George Brown moved to change the wording of Conditi n #14 to read as follows: "No more than six persons (other than membe s of the immediate family) shall be employed on-site. (The intent of this condition is to govern those employed on the site and not inci ental movement of other employees to and from the site). Commissioner B. G. Brown seconded the motion. Chairman Dennison called for the vote. "VOL .".- . 13 P~r:f n 3121 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: September 14, 1981 Page: 5 Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner George Brown voted for the motion with Chairman Dennison voting against . it because he said he feels that as a matter of policy this condition change should not be approved. Mr. Osborn asked if the County intends that all of the conditions listed be observed? Commissioner George Brown asked Mr. Landau if they can abide by tbe conditions listed, to which Mr. Landau answered he could. Shoreline Manaaement Master Proaram UPdate.: Recommendation from Shoreline Commission: Associate Planner, Bob Duffy, reported that an update has been done by the Shoreline Commission of the Shoreline Management Master Program. A copy of the of the updated program, the Shoreline Commission's findings and a draft implementing resolution was submitted to the Board for their review. A draft public.access element for the program is being withheld due to recent Supreme Court decisions that effect it, Bob Duffy added. Changes to the draft can be made by either the City Councilor the Board prior to adoption of the final resolution. A public hearing may be held but it is not required. After local adoption of the update, it will be forwarded to the Washington State Department Ecology for their review and approval. The following are some of the important features of the update: II< The following sections were updated: Dock, piers and floats: landfills:. mooring buoys and the urban section. An oil transshipment section was added. The Planning Department recommends that this section be listed in the Classification table. Typographical corrections were made and changes to the Washington Administrative .code were reflected in the updated document. The Washington Administrative Code now allows the exempt level to be raised from $1,000 to $2,500 provided that mater~al interference with the public use of the water is n.ot a problem. Definitions were expanded. The permi t exemption section now requires that exempt projects comply with standards; clarifies exemptions for normal maintenance and repair, and grandfathered development predating 1971. The Urban section was entirely rewritten. The new standards guide the type of urban development and location of parking. It address barriers along the shoreline and impervious surface. coverage. There is a requireme.nt that new urban development provide for some form of public access. Clarifications were made in the Conditional Use .Section and changes were. made in the classification table. The aquaculture section was not updated at this time but that will be done in 1981-88 grant year. The landfill section was completely re-written. Marina Section: A performance standard was added to prohibit covered moorage and covered over-water boat storage. In the Administration section the two consecutive term limi tation for members of the Shoreline Commission was deleted. The Planning Department recommends that WAC proviSions be incorporated. II< * * * II< * II< * * II< * VOl . 13 r~GE o 3122