Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM110287 ~, _I _I -I _I I BE' _I -I _I -I BE' District No. 1 Commissioner: District No. 2 Commissioner: District No. 3 Commissioner: Larry W. Dennison, B.G. Brown, Member George C. Brown, Member , , , Chairman' I I I , I , -.'" - - .., E 3EFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Clerk of the Board: Public Works Director: Jerdine C. Bragg Gary A. Rowe - ~ BE - - MINUTES Week of November 2, 1987 The meeting was called to order at the appointed time by Chairman Larry W. Dennison. Commissioner B. G. Brown and Commissioner George C. Brown were both present. BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT #86-60-13 re: 3efferson County Courthouse ECM Loan: Washinaton State Enerav Office: Public Works Director, Gary Rowe reported that this loan from the State Energy Office is to install thermostatic valves on the Courthouse radiators which will provide zone heating controls for the offices. The total loan is for $7,850.00 payable over a five year period in quarterly paYments. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve and sign the loan contract with the State Department of Energy. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. CONTRACT #B-85-DC-53-0001-8502, Corrected Second Amendment: Community Develooment Block Grant: Washinaton State Deoartment of Community Develooment: This second contract amendment for the Brinnon Senior Center Project was approved, Gary Rowe reported, on October 19, 1987, but there was an error in the total amount. This error has now been corrected. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve and sign the corrected copy of amendment number 2 for the Community Development Block Grant contract for the Brinnon Senior Center Project. Commis- sioner George Brown seconded the motion. ,~~: CONTRACT re: Seotaae Disoosal Study: Economic and Enaineerina Services, Inc.: All of the details regarding the scope of work and completion date have been worked out, Gary Rowe advised, on this contract. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve and sign the contract wi th Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. for a sept~ge disposal study as presented. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. License to Use County Road Riaht-of-Way: Cassellary Road: Robert Benoit, Aoolicant: Gary Rowe reported that Mr. Benoit has applied for a license to use County road right-of-way for a well protective area, for his property located off of Cassellary Road. Commissioner B.G. Brown mqved to approve the license to use county road -".... - .....-t lVOl {-la' fA~iftJ 3773 ' I '-'\ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 2 right-of-way as presented by Mr. Robert Benoit. Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner George pavment of Insurance for the Brinnon Senior Center: A letter has been received from Peter Simpson, Director of Clallam Jefferson Community Action Council, regarding paYment of the fire and liability insurance on the Brinnon Senior Center which is $4,022.00. Gary Rowe asked the Board if this should be paid? The Board advised that Community Action Council agreed, when they took over the administration of this project, to insure the building on their insurance and the County would reimburse their costs. The Board directed that this reimbursement be paid out of the non-departmental budget. Petition for surfacina Dortion of Schwartz Road, Marrowstone Island: This petition has been referred to the County Engineer to see how that section of road fits into the departments road and oiling programs, Gary Rowe reported. PLANNING Final Johnston Short Plat No. 3, SP10-86~ Biahway 101: Stan 3ohnston, DeveloDer: This is a three lot short plat, Senior Planner Rachel Nathanson explained. The tax parcels that make up lots one and two were attached legally (due to a common interest) to the tax parcel that is now known as lot 3. These tax parcels had to go through the short plat process so that they could be divided and sold separately as individual lots. Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to issue the final approval of the Johnston Short Plat #3 (SP10-86) as submitted. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. Shoreline Substantial DeveloDment Permit Review SDP87-011: ExDansion of Commercial OYster Facili~, KillaDie Beach: Jan Shriner: (See also Minutes of September 28, 1987) This proposal is to expand a commercial oyster growing facility, Associate Planner Bob Duffy reported, located approximately one quarter mile south of the Hood Canal Bridge on Killapie Beach. The facility would consist of up to 400 rebar racks added over a three year period to four existing racks. The racks would measure three by two by ten feet and would be anchored to the beach floor between the plus two and the minus four foot mean low or low water elevation. The edges of the site would be marked by buoys. The racks would be placed by boat and processing of the oysters would be done off si te. The upland portion of this beach is in a designated slide area which limits development of that area. Mr. Duffy then reviewed the Shoreline Commission's findings on this pro j ect and the condi tions they have recommended be placed on it as follows: Condition 3: Whatever is placed in the intertidal area must be sturdy. This condi tion was to require water quality monitoring of the site and was deleted by the Shoreline Commission because they felt that because of the scale of the project it is not necessary. The State Department of Fisheries can require monitoring in their hydraulic permit approval. Navigational Safety: The Shoreline Commission added to this condition "that the perimeter of the site shall be marked by strings of floats or buoys that shall be spaced no further than twenty feet apart.1I Condition 1: Condition 2: lVot . 13 fACt ~ 03774 -. c4:J..~. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 3 Condition 4: Condition 5: Condition 6: Condition 7: Condition 8: Condition 9: Condition 10: Predator control. Noise control. Harvesting of the shellfish. Illumination. Repair, replacement or removal if facility is abandoned. Review of project required if there is evidence of environmental impacts. Only the two species of oysters currently found in Hood Canal can be cultured at the site. The Shoreline Commission recommends, Mr. Duffy concluded, that the Board approve this project subject to the conditions as modified. Chairman Dennison asked Jan Shriner how long the iron rebar that the racks are made of would last? Ms. Shriner reported that the racks are expected to be functional for seven to ten years. Commissioner George Brown moved to approve Shoreline Development Permit #SDP87-011 as recommended by the Shoreline Commission with the modified conditions. Commissioner B.G. Brown seconded the motion. Plannina Commission Interviews: Rachel Nathanson suggested and the Board agreed, that the applicants for appointment to the vacancy on the Planning Commission be interviewed next Monday between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. COMMISSIONERS Budaet Transfer: Commissioner B. G. Brown moved to approve and sign Resolution No. 89-87 authorizing the budget transfer for the Commissioner's Office. Commissioner George Brown seconded the motion. HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rick Miklich, Director of Environmental Health re: ProDosed chanaes to the County'S SeDtic System Reaulations: Rick Miklich came before the Board to review his proposed changes in the County's septic system regulations. Mary Catlin, Administrator/Director of Nursina re: Personnel: The Board met with Mary Catlin in Executive Session to 'discuss Health Department personnel issues. * * * Bomer Smith III re: Public Officials Errors & Omissions and Law Enforcement Insurance: Homer Smith III came before the Board to discuss renewal of the County's public officials errors and omissions insurance coverage ,and the Law Enforcement coverage which both expire 11/8/87. The quote from Scottsdale Insurance Company for these coverages is a follow~: Public Officials Errors & Omissions Law Enforcement $7,822.13 13,974.00 Commissioner B.G. Brown moved to approve the purchase of the public officials errors and omissions and Law Enforcement insurance coverages from Scottsdale Insurance Company for the premiums as quoted. Commis- sioner George Brown seconded the motion. .........--.-..- ~- q,. - . VOL 13 If; ".03775 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 4 The meeting was recessed on Monday evening and reconvel?-ed with all Board members present on Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. for the following public hearing. BEARING re: Jefferson County City of Port Townsend Shoreline Man.aement Master Proaram UDdate: Twenty interested County citizens were present when Chairman Dennison welcomed everyone to the public hearing on the draft update of the Shoreline Management Master Program and introduced the members of the Board of County Commissioners. The Chairman then introduced the Director of the Planning and Building Department, David Goldsmith. Mr. Goldsmith reviewed the process that the draft has undergone to date and the process before final adoption is considered. After the public hearings held by the Board and the City, the comments received will be incorporated into the draft by agreement of the City and the County and the final version of the program will be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology. This County/City Master Program is part of the state law, and because of this the Department of Ecology will also hold a public hearing on the program. If the State concurs with the proposed changes then the program is adopted by the State. Associate Planner, Bob Duffy, then reviewed the proposed changes to the Shoreline Program as follows noting that the proposed changes are a recommendation from the Shoreline Commission which held their own public hearings on this draft. Section 2 Definitions: This section is being revised to include approximately fifteen new definitions for items such as applicable master program, average grade level, dock, exempt development, fair market value, float, height, marina, natural or existing topog- raphy, pier, residence, structure and vessel. Section 3 Permit Exemptions: This section deals with the threshold value with respect to the requirement of a permit or an exemption. This value has been raised by State law from $1,000 to $2,500. Clarification was made to the definition of normal maintenance and repair. Section 4 Desianations and Project Classifications: Urban: The Shoreline Commission recommendation incorporates an entirely new section to deal with the urban environment. The draft performance standards are to guide the type of urban develop- ment and the location of parking. Impervious surface cover~ge is limited and parking areas must be landscaped. There is also a provision for public access in all new developments. Condi tional: The difference between conditional uses and variances is clarified. Classification Table: An introduction, explanation and title has been added to explain how the classification table works. Policies and Performance Standards: Aquaculture - This section is scheduled for update in 1987-1988. Section 11 was changed to void aquaculture permits after two years of abandonment. Commercial Development: A standard was added to limit commercial interference with adjacent uses. Docks, Piers, and Floats: This section was substantially rewritten and expanded and is now .......... - - - '. . VOL Ii-) WI '(.): r~G~ :0 3776 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 5 call non-commericial docks, piers, and floats and pertains primarly to residential development. Landfills: Differentiation has been made between landf i lIs in the aquatic or wetland environments and landfills in the upland apeas that are still within the jurisdiction of the shoreline program. Information will have to be submitted for every fill proposed in the shoreline environment. Marinas: Covered moorage and covered over-water boat storage is prohibited. Pump out facilities at marinas are to be available to the user at no charge. Mooring Buoys: New performance standards were wri tten to allow land based retrieval lines for mooring buoys, require visibility, engineering and identification and prohibit placement in sensitive ecological areas. Buoy placement is limited to no closer than 100 feet from fixed navigational structures. Oil Transshipment: This is an entirely new section which establishes policy and performance standards for oil transshipment. Section 6 Administration: Advisory Commission: The two consecu- tive term limitation on the shoreline commission membership is deleted. Public Notice: Requirements are clarified. Permit Revisions: State law changes are incor- porated into the update. Section 7 Variance: The difference between conditional use and variances is clarified. Section 9 Leaal Provisions: State regulations pertaining to regulatory orders are incorporated into the proposed revision. Appendix A &: B: The list of streams and lakes subject to the program have been corrected. At the conclusion of Mr. Duffy's presentation, Chairman Dennison asked if there were any questions? Donalda Porter: Question -What provision is there to limit protrudances out into the water that prohibit navigation along the shoreline? Answer - The impact to navigation was considered in the sections on docks, piers and floats. A recommendation was made and incorporated into the draft to limit the length of docks, piers and floats, but the program does not preclude struc- tur,es that may prohibi t shoreline navigation by small craft. Planning Director David Goldsmith reported that two items came up in the written testimoney which need to be reviewed: 1) Imprevious surface coverage limitation in the urban environment: The urban environments in Hadlock, Port Townsend, Quilcene, Port Ludlow and Brinnon would be impacted by this performance standard with the lower Hadlock and the City of Port Townsend being areas that would be effected most. The a1Jlount of walkways, rooftops, tvOl 13 ~ACf 03777 Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 6 ery well articulated. The performance standards recommended by the Shoreline Commission to deal with concerns raised about aesthetics and urban runoff, David Goldsmith stated, are not policy based. Either the policy needs to be developed to deal with these concerns and then a performance standard developed from tha t or this performance standard needs to be deleted from the proposed draft. 2) Mooring buoys: Performance Standard #10 (page 50) attempts to give an exclusion to the waterfront property owner for a single purpose mooring buoy. The Shoreline Commission was attempting to allow shoreline property owners the opportunity to use a mooring buoy for their vessels as an alternative to a dock. This perfor- mance standard does not deal with how far out in the water such a mooring buoy can be placed and still be used exclusively by the property owner. A better way to deal with this issue, David Goldsmith added, is to look at the exemption section (page 19). Currently a waterfront property owner is allowed the use of a mooring buoy as an alterna- tive to the construction ofa single family dock, as an exemption. If this exemption was extended it could address the issue of this perference and set a limitation on how far out in the water the buoy could be placed before it would have to be made available to all water users through the permit system. The Planning Depart- ment staff recommends that the exemption be modified to maintain the mooring buoy alternative with a condition that the mooring buoy does not extend waterwa~d more than a minus 12 foot (or two fathoms) tidal elevation as measured from mean low water. This would allow the waterfront property owner the option of building a dock (up to $2,500 in value) or put a mooring buoy out within the limit as suggested, as an exemption from the shoreline permit process. Other mooring buoys proposed by non-waterfront property owners or waterfront property owners that want a buoy beyond the 12 foot limit would be required to obtain a shoreline permit. The permit cost for mooring buoys is not addressed specifically by the shoreline program, which means they are the same fee as any other shoreline permit. David suggested that the cost of the permit for a mooring buoy be dropped to encourage more people to make the application before placing a mooring buoy. William Steenrod, Marrowstone Island Community Association: Mr. Steenrod asked why the draft proposal has paragraphs-headed by question marks? David Goldsmi th reported that the Shoreline Commission did not number these paragraph so that they would be obvious because they are new portions of the program. The question mark is just a way of highlighting the new portions of the program. Harvev (Mike) Fleminq: Mr. Fleming asked for clarification on the Planning Department staff recommendation for change to performance standard #10 for mooring buoys. David Goldsmith responded that as an exemption to the waterfront property owner, the mooring buoy exemption would be changed to allow the mooring buoy to be placed out to a minus 12 foot tidal elevation, with no permit required. Beyond that tidal elevation (for a waterfront property owner) or any placement proposed by a non waterfront property owner a permit would br required. Donald Porter: Ms. Porter asked what would be required to place a mooring buoy off of public owned waterfront property? The Shoreline Program allows the waterfront property owner to build a dock (up to $2,500 in value) in front of their lVOl 13 rACE \ 03778 i . Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of November 2, 1987 Page: 7 property regardless of the ownership of the beach (permission would have to be granted from the beach owner), or to place a mooring buoy. Chairman Dennison then opened the public hearing and asked for comments for or against these proposed changes to the Shoreline Master Program. R.B. "Scotty" McComb, President, Oak Bay Coalition: Mr; McComb submitted the Coalition's comments regarding the current update of the Shoreline Management Master Program based on the revision obtained on 10/23/87. (See written testimoney). William :J. "Bill" Steenrod, President, Marrowstone Island Community Association: Mr. Steenrod reported that the Marrowstone Island Communi ty Association submitted a letter with their comments to the Board. Mr. Steenrod summarized the letter dated October 7, 1987. (See copy of letter). Donalda Porter: Mrs. Porter expressed concern regarding the proposed installation of fish pens at South Point; how these fish pens would impact small craft navigation in this area; and how these Shoreline Program changes would address those impacts. She also had a question regarding the public use of the beach adjacent to the Trails End Plat. Mrs. Porter asked if it is possible to attach a fish farm to property that is dedicated to the use of the public forever? Bob Duf fy responded that the Shoreline Management Program does not address regulations for specific sites. It does, however, p~ovide guidance for specific types of developments. Because the South Point area is a shoreline of statewide significance, there is a section (Section 4.3 on page 27) of the Program that address the use of this type of shoreline. Bill Duesina: Mr. Duesing asked that the following changes be con- sidered: Section 6.10 which abolishes the six year limit for term of service on the Shoreline Commission, be left as it is currently. Mr. Duesing stated that six years is long enough for a Shoreline Commission member to serve. Section 6.402 (page 68 #2) shortens the public notice time from 20 days to 10 days, be left as it is currently. The public notice time is short enough right now. Section 9.102 (page 74) the penalties established are too high. David Goldsmith explained that the penalties have not been changed from what they have been for years. Harvey IIMikell Flemina: Mr. Fleming commented with regard to the Marrowstone Island Community Association's recommendation (see last page of letter) on Section 3.402 (page 18) permit exemptions. Mr. Fleming stated that to his knowledge the majority of mooring buoys in this County are not formally exempted. The problem is treating everyone in the same manner. The Marrowstone Association has proposed that a buoy that has been considered "grandfathered" should lose that status if they do not voluntarily get the buoy permitted or exempted. Mr. Fleming stated that there has to be an incentive for people to have their buoys permitted or exempted. Being no further public comment the Chairman closed the hearing and thanked everyone for coming. He advised that the Board would take the comments received into consideration before a final decision is made on adoption of these changes. David Goldsmith reported that the City will hold a hearing on these proposed changes December 1, 1987 and after it is determined what changes need to be made to the final document, both the City Council and the Board will meet to adopt the final program at a scheduled meeting. The program will then be forwarded to the State who will also hold a hearing and then make a decision on it's adoption. , VOl 13 rA~E , {} 3779 L' '-. .., C~ssioners' MeeU~g. Minnt.es ,'~e~k~f lf~e..t.<lr 2; 1l!81 I . ~..i1s' . 8 ... Th.eJlleet~ngwas ,recessed at the ' ndofthe 'meeting ,and reconvened on Saturday morning in > theCUall.J;,cpunty . Co'Urtl1ou.se with ~~f::::\~~t~:~F:rf~;:n~~!i:=:~5ff:~~~t~~~~~::::"~l~~ State H.ouse" of Represe.ntat,i. v.e...., for the. ' 24, th:fIlis,triC,.tc..re"a,tC9~ ,by the death of Representative Dick Fisch. (Seeattacbed M.inutes). . ..'.' ,.. , I I '. " I MEETING ,.'ADJ'OtJRNED I I JEFFERSO. chUNTY BOARII OJi'CttlllltOQRS ......,........... ~.. B.'G.BroWll,1 Member I ' I I I r SEAL ATTEST: : VDl 13 'fACt: I , I '03~~