Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM111885 ~;T ~ B1~.l' LJ.nQ) I ~~1~7iSrr. !fi ~-r~ I'.z/:L iz~ 1 District No.1 Commissioner: Larry Wii. Dennison, Member District No.2 Commissioner: B.G. Brpwn, Member District No. 3 Commissioner: John L.I Pitts, Chairman Public Works Director: Gary A.I! Rowe Clerk of the Board: Jerdinel C. Bragg ____________________________-'______________________1__________________ I .lEEJEi RffiO~ (G@BN'lli"ll, BOA! ID OF @ON1~JLS S,IJ0NERifB M ,I iN U '],: E $1' Week of November 18, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chair~an John L. Pitts in the presence of Commissioner B.G. Brown and Com~issioner Larry W. Dennison. 1 I Statement of Assurances: Federal Revenue ISharing: C Brown moved to have the Chairman sign the Statementl ot Assuran es for the County to receive" Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in 1 ~86. 6ommissio er Dennison seconded the motion. T Application for Assistance from Funds: Comm~ss~oner enn~son move to approve t Reliet Fund application as submitted for Brown seconded the motion. AGREEMENT re: Rental of VFW Hall: The folllowing ren ments for use of the VFW Hall were approved by motilon of Commi Dennison and seconded by Commissioner Brown: Victorian Squares - Two contracts Tony Larson The Board approved a letter which the Chairman signed, to Mr. outlin;Lng the conditions that must be agreed upon fbr the Kara to continue at this location, due to the change in icontract fr I. Mays to Mr. Larson. I ! I HEARING NOTICE re: Budget Appropriation; 'Board of Eq The hearing not~ce or a u get appropriat on e~ng:requeste Board of Equalization was approved and signed on t~e motion ma Commissioner Brown and seconded by Commissioner De1]n. ison" for No. 85-85. The hearing was set for December 2, 19815 at 10: 00 the Commissioners' Chambers. !' I Establishment of the Jefferson County Ce~tennial.Co Resolution No. 86..:.8 was approve y tnot~on 0 om~~ss~oner e seconded by Commissioner Brown, establishing the J~fferson Cou Centennial Committee. The members of the committe~ will be ap at a later date. I; Development of a State-wide Financial Po ;icy: The ~ County Comm~ss~oners ave as e t at t e oar s~g, a resoluti with them and the Chelan County Commissioners askiqg that the ashington State Association of Counties contract for the dra~ting of an 'nvestment policy to be used by the Countie?of the State. A1ter discuss.on with the County Finance Committee, Commissioner Brown m:~ed to appr ve Resolution No. 87-85 making this request to the Washington Sta e Association of Counties, with the Clallam and Chel n County Co missioners. Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion. I \il'll . V\,.Lt... 1'.~ , J. ri,GE 00' 3664 Minutes, Week of November 18, 1985 Page 2: BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS: HEALTH Director of Nursing: , Resignation: commi~. ,.sioner Dennison moved the accept the resignation ot Gretchen Gephart as ~irector of Nursing for the Health Department. Commissioner Brown secqnded the motion. 1 1 ,; I I 1 , Personal Services Contract: Jim Peters: J'The personal services contract with Jim Peters tor painting in the MultiService building and the Recreation Center was approved by motion ofi Commissioner Dennison and seconded by Commissioner Brown. ! I I , PARKS AND RECREATION I 1 Call for Bids: Furnishing of Petroleum Prpducts: Commissioner Brown moved to approve the call for bids for the f~rnishing of petro- leum products for the County for 1986. Commissioneir Dennison seconded the motion. The bids will be open December 16, 19~5 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. i Leland Creek Bridge: Barricade Problem: IPublic Works Di rec tor, Gary Rowe reported that the barricades across' the cllosed Leland Creek Bridge on the Rice Lake Road have been to~n down and there is evidence that the bridge has had tra1ffic. (See also Minutesl of November 19, 1984 Vol. 10 Page 3810) " PUBLIC WORKS The Public Works Department has made some attempts Ito secure funding for the replacement of the bridge, but nO ,fundingsjource has come through yet. The County needs to do the following to limitj. it's liability in respect to this bridge: 1) Pull the bridge down o'lr 2) Block the road in a more substantial manner. The Public Works Dir,ector will check into the matter further and report back to the Board at ~ later date. , ! Public Works Trust Fund: Gary Rowe reporited that he had attended a meeting held by the Association of Washi!ngton Cities re- garding the use of the Public Works Trust Fund mOhileSyThere is a pavement program that could be developed and ppsst~ly financed with B:diow interest (0 to 3%) Trust Fund loan. The loan can be made for 90% of a project, with the local government contri~uting 10%. I Incineration of Garbage: Gary Rowe reporlted on an Incineration Conference he attended in Spokane recently. Incin~ration ptograms for dealing with garbage are not the answer to all pro~lems, and there are alot of unanswered questions with regard to this t~pe of garbage disposal. An incineration program is basically a volume reducition program, but the a~h mu~t st~ll be hanCtlledirt some manner. SkaII1ania County will be exper~ment~ng w~th an recycling' program. i I PLANNING i I , Harvey Fleming re: Appeal of an Administrative Decision; Mooring Bouy on Mystery Bay: Five interested area ~esidents, the Planning Director, the Prosecuting Attorney, Mr. & 'IMrs. Tom Beveridge Mr. Harvey Fleming and his Attorney, Greg Norbut w~re present for an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the !placement of a moor- ing bouy on Mystery Bay. This appeal, David Gold~mith added, is pe-rsuant to section 9.201 of the Shoreline Master ftrogram, and Counsel is present. ". . , ' I Greg Norbut, Attorney with the Norbut Law Firm, re~resenting Mr. Harvey Fleming then outlined the following as part jof the request for this review: :,)1 r.. >>....rir 11 (:'L~ 0[' 3665 I' Business from County Departments (Continued): Plannling * This request for review is to resolve the dilfferen es between Mr. Fleming and Mr. Beveridge, but ailso to obviate any potential liability on the part of the C~unty. * There is a question whether the responsibililty for of the p~rmit system is being discharged by ~he Co permit system is required by Title 90.58 of ~he R. Management Act).~ ' * The Planning Department in their uti.lization~ of th between substantive and procedural may be apropri circumstances, but to characterize what's be~n imp County (by the State) as a responsibility aslproce to be a distinction without merit, in M~. No~but's * There is an e~emption~ provided for in the case of bouy placement:, but Mr. Beveridge has not applied exemption, ,and! as a consequence, by the spec~fic t code, a sUbs~ar. tial development permit would! be re * The substant~ve problem: The Department of Natural has jurisdiction over tidelands, but it has litera enforcement po~ers whatsoever. It does takefconce as referenced in the Shoreline Management Act, wit stepping in to: enforce the permit system. RGW 90. paragraph 3 st~tes that it is the responsibi~ity 0 government to ~dminister the permit system. I. * Have to focus pn the enforcement of law. My!clien is concerned with regard to: the County being hurt by not [I nforc,.ng their responsibility' under the law. ( · * Culverson Casel out of Seattle: An elderly w,mans ed a hotel in which her husband died in a fire, as weIll, as th County because the County faiil,ed to enforce the fire code. ! The S preme Court of the State held that the County was, in fa~t, Ii ble because there is a dut~ to a clearly designated clas~ of p ople, in this case, people wpo are mooring boats. The County is on notice that there is po enforcement for the provisiOns of the Shoreline Master Program. Those individuals who are m90ring boats in this County are a specific class of individu~ls wh are intended to benefit frotn the Shoreline Master Program! ':IT.or J fferson County. * Evet; if ~ot1;~n~. happ~ns to Mr. Fleming~ boat I, because of another' boat eomiLng,',wIthCLn ~he sw~ng path andcreat~ng da~age, if anyone at all in this County sustains damage because t~eCou ty has failed to enforce the, provisions of the Shoreline Master rogram, that group of indiv~duals will be able to go ahea~ and ring action against the Cdunty. 1_ * If the, County government does not enforce th~ prov.sions of the ~horelineMan~gement Master Prog:am the risk'l. of gr ater liability ~s worth the County's considerat~on. . Planning Director, Da'vid Goldsmith, then outlined the Dep position on this issUe. The Department of Ecology ~as ac Jefferson County Shor!eline Management Master Program as p State's program and f'Dund that the Jefferson County!: part gram does protect the, public waters from degredatior. Had Mr. Beve,ridge come!. in to apPlY. to t, he County forb, a, P, er it, Prosecuting Attorney John Raymond noted, he would have been tolL that he didn't need a permit under the prlovisions of 3.402 (Subsection pf the Jefferson- Port Townsend Shoreline Management Master Program) permit exemption. Whether or not he plaiced his bouy to clo.se to Mr. F~. eming' s is a lia- bility question betwe,en Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Flemig.J hn Raymond added that his understanding of the Environmental Pdecti n Act and SEPA is that these laws are thereto protect the enYironm nt and nor necessarily peoples piersonal property rights. Thisl' parti ular dis- pute is outside the giambit of the. Shoreline Management Ma ter Program. lfrtherewas a great ~umber of people wanting to pu~ moor.ng bouys in I Mystery Bay ,then, the!. County m,ay h. aV,e some liabilit[ and ossibly have to change it's progra~ because of the potential dam~ge to Mystery Bay. That instance would allso be part of the Department Of Natural Resources area of responsibilitly. Mr. Olson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney was representing Mr. Fle~ing at one time, but due to th~ nature of the response, Mr. Olson X1ealized there would be a confl~ct of interest and withdrew. ,.. ! ~. -. I 11 ::::.. De. ,I 26'661. Minutes, Week of November 18, 1985 Page 3: . "J' , "'r'. ..;'?>a administration nty. The . W. (Shoreline distinction te in certain sed upon the ural seems opinion. mooring or this rms of the uired. Resources ly no ted effort, the County 8.140 sub- local rtment's epted the rt of the f the pro- .. I ' I I I 1 , , Nov~mber , 18, 1985 Minutes, Week of Page 4: \ The discussion contiriued regarding the intent of t~e Shoreline Master Program and how that iaffects this matter. Mr. Norbut suggested that with regard to the permit process itself, that in olrder to obtain an exemption under the ~equirements of the Jefferson-Bort Townsend Shore- line Management master Program, an' application for lexemption will be submitted in writing ito the Planning Department andl shall include a description,of the Ideation of the property, the prlOject and a plan view, profile or ele,*ation of the proposed project.1 There is no way to say that this project is not a danger to the publlic waterways when there has not been a Iplan submitted. The only way Ito make a deter- mination is to look ~t the application and if it iSli said that an appli- cation is not necessary, Mr. Norbut continued, the,; that is being arbi trary. i . ! I Commissioner Dennison asked if the County is being lasked to require a permit exemption? ,David Goldsmith answered that lin his reply letter to Mr. Olson he stated that the Planning Departmentl was not going to take any action in t~is regard. : Chairman Pitts stated three choices that the Board Icould take at this point: 1) Change the present procedural structure,1 2 } Maintain the present procedural structure or 3) Ask for additio~al information from the Prosecuting Atto-rrney and the Planning Departmenjt. Commissioner DenniSOr1 moved to recess to allow time! to confer with Counsel. Commission~r Brown seconded the motion folr t:he purpose of discussion, because the Board needs. t,o determine w~a. t they feel the problem is on this m~tter. Mr. Norbut has pointedJout generalities that would be used i~ this was a trial, which it iSI not, but the Board does need to look at iwhat should be done with the plrocedures under the Shorelines Manag~ment Act to make the County lelss vulnerable in respect to the liabi]ity that could be incurred. IThe motion carried to allow the Board tq confer with the Prosecuting ~ttorney. , I The Chairman called 1+he meeting back to order after! the recess and Commissioner Dennison advised thatoue to the info~mation he had been given in the discussilon with Counsel, he moved to ~phold the Planning Director's administrative action. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion., I , i I Greg Norbut called fdr a point of order and asked whether the findings and conclusions would. be provided for the decision Ijust rendered? John Raymond, Prosec4ting Attorney advised that fi~dings and conclusions would be available at a later date. ! ! ,; ! i Setback Variance Request : Peter Baffaro; iMoen Road, Marrow- stone Island: Mr. Battaro has replaced an existing mobile home with a new mobile home, David Goldsmith reported. The slhoreline setback requirement is 100 fEfet and the mobile home is set~ack 90 feet, (bank is 50 feet high with ,the mobile home set 40 feet f~bm it). The bank has shown evidence of sliding even though it is no~ in a slide prone area. There are no dwellings within 300 feet of t~e mobile home on either side. The Board directed the Planning Depa~tment to work with the applicant for an lalternative solution for this sletback. , : 'HlS.ARING.;re.~ c Buclget:Kxtension;:,-jl~)4ai1nitigl~uilding Department Chairman Pitts openeq the hearing at the appointed Itime This budget extension is to reimQurse the Planning and BUildin~ Department budget for $1,575.00 from the Coastal Zone Management '306 ,Grant. The Chairman closed the hearing wHen no one appeared to speak f~;r or against the budget extension. Commissioner Dennison moved to ~pprove and sign Resolution NO,. 8, ,8....-, 8,.5,:...0, rd er thejbud getappropriatioJi..... for the, Planning/ Building Department. ! Commissi ner Brown seconded qhe motion. . I !', DraftLe-tt~to Washi gton State Department of Transportation re: SR 20: av~ 0 I sm~t pr sente a ra t ett r or t e oar s perusal and signatur~ to the W shington State DOT legarding Highway 20. The Board will niake the c anges they want and ,the Planning Depart- ment will send the l~tter at a later date. !I I II I! :1 OJ' ,,1'.,- ......... - ",0' oe' 3667 #I.. k,. Minutes, Week of Nov~mber 18, 1985 Page 5: I .1 The meetin~ was recessed on Monday eveni~g and reconvened with all Board membe~s present on Tuesday morning. I, I!, !' Deborah Sh~mer re: Proposal for Up-Gradi g Main Floor of VFW Hall: Cor ~e ~m er ,Iy 0 t e ' ar s an ecreation I epartment was pre- sent when Deborah Sh~mer came before the Board to diiscuss the VFW Hall. After discussion of ~he condition of the VFW Hall, IChairman Pitts asked that Ms. Shomet! present a written proposal folr the Board's con- si.deration, listing W.'hat type .,of work her group WO~l. d be w~lling t, 0 do in the building a~d an est~mate of how much freel' rent t~me they would want in return iifor this work. I i! I: Deborah Shomer sugge$!ted that a policy for the bUil~ingsmaintenance be developed and distcl.ributed to all of the rentors. i ,The Board concurred and suggested that p~ssibly the current!various rentors meet and develop a set of guicll:elines for consideration. Ii 1 Brown m~ved to approve thettwo rental f. greements for a s ?res]'nted by Deborah' Sh. mer. commiS.., sioner Dennison mot~on. . , , ! MEET~_~~~ I ~~r~ R~~N cg~~~~~IIONERS '\)~ .. ;. /J" I <;,.~.. '~.' '-"c, / ..rh~ f,~: " , ..~, LAr/(S 'CO",. '.n S\' aJ. t '. " ", J .v>. . ~. _ -"~__": -" ... _~ / I If ",t-:~.~ "~ . I 1:",,1 \ ..... -:).). .:..,.~' .. .. ':\ ~, <'" \illiiOllt';?~' ' · <..; ',t '\"",--,1'(' ,...."... ::,'.1 A. es~;\:,:~~ Commissioner the VFW Hall seconded the John L. Pitts, CI airman ~~#<J B.G. Brown, Memb,~r H . ~ ""- ,'.J A~ 1.t '.' r 3668 I