HomeMy WebLinkAbout042522ra01 Department of Public Works
O Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 1
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Request
To: Board of Commissioners
Mark McCauley, Interim County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director/County Engineei��
Agenda Date: April 25, 2022
Subject: Consideration of 2001 Request to Vacate Ricky Beach Drive
Right of Way by Russell Trask and Termination Point Properties
Statement of Issue: Consider a request by Mr. Russell Trask and Termination Point Properties
to vacate the right of way of Ricky Beach Drive.
Analysis/Strategic Goals/Pro's a Con's: In 2001, Mr. Russell Trask (now Termination Point
Properties) petitioned to vacate all of Ricky Beach Drive (County Road #504809). The road is
0.25 miles long and wholly contained within the plat of Termination Point. The road was
closed in 1997 due to landslide activity and has remained closed since that time. This request
was put before the Hearing Examiner in 2001, and the Hearing Examiner recommended that
the road be vacated subject to the Petitioner satisfying four conditions. The Petitioner has
made intermittent attempts to satisfy these four conditions over the intervening 20 years,
and more recently has expressed a renewed interest in seeing this road vacation completed.
A more in-depth discussion of the issues is contained within the attached memorandum from
the County Engineer and created in consultation with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Fiscal Impact/Cost Benefit Analysis: Staff time and cost of a hearing. Costs for road
vacations are reimbursed by the Petitioners whether the road vacation is approved or not.
Recommendation: Please review the attached memorandum and Hearing Examiner's report.
The County Engineer will provide a brief summary of this issue and answer any questions the
Board might have. Public Works recommends that the Board remand this matter to the
Hearing Examiner given the 20 years of elapsed time since it was last heard. Alternatively,
the Board may deny or approve the road vacation request without remanding it for further
hearing.
Department Contact: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director/County Engineer x242
Reviewe By:
1i/4 ,s,, VZ/Z-Z—
Mark McCaule��/ 4County Administrat
Department of Public Works 623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA98368
Jefferson County, Washington 360-385-9160
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Monte Reinders, P.E., Public Works Director/County Engineer
Date: April 12, 2022
Subject: Proposed Vacation of Ricky Beach Drive
Executive Summary
Mr. Russell Trask of Termination Point Properties (TPP) submitted a petition to vacate Ricky
Beach Drive on May 23, 2001. The matter went before the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2001,
The Hearing Examiner issued written Findings and Conclusions on August 13, 2001 (see
attached) including a recommendation that the request to vacate be approved by the Board
subject to the Petitioner satisfying four conditions. Over the intervening 20 years, the
Petitioner has made intermittent attempts to meet these conditions and finalize this road
vacation process. Recently, the Petitioner has expressed a renewed interest in seeing this
process completed.
Procedurally, the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations should have
been brought before the Board in 2001 for a decision rather than waiting for the Petitioner to
satisfy the conditions first. This is the current procedure for road vacations. Only the Board has
the authority to decide whether to vacate a county road and to impose conditions.
This matter should be concluded one way or another. Much remains unchanged since 2001;
however, due to the 20 years that have elapsed, Public Works recommends that the Board
remand this matter back to the Hearing Examiner as was recommended in the original Hearing
Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (page 8, lines 28 and 29). This step will
allow any new information to come to light through a proper notification and a public hearing
process. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued an updated recommendation, the matter will
be brought to the Board for a decision within approximately 30 calendar days. At that time, the
Board may tentatively approve the road vacation subject to the Petitioner meeting any
conditions satisfactorily within 6 months (suggested) or deny the road vacation. Alternatively,
rather than remanding this matter to the Hearing Examiner, the Board has the options available
of immediately denying the road vacation or approving the road vacation.
Discussion
The following discussion summarizes the relevant points of this issue and will not repeat
everything that is already covered in the August 13, 2001 Hearing Examiners Report (attached).
Maps are attached which are helpful in understanding property ownerships and other issues
discussed herein.
Ricky Beach Drive is located off Shine Road near the Hood Canal Bridge. See Vicinity Map,
Exhibit 1.
Ricky Beach Drive is 0.25 miles in length and entirely contained within the plat of Termination
Point which was created in 1961. Ricky Beach Drive was closed on January 21, 1997 by
Resolution 10-97 due to landslide activity which damaged the road. Most of Ricky Beach Drive
is located on a large active landslide that is dropping and creeping very slowly during wet
winters. See Exhibit 2, Map. Resolution 10-97 was titled "Temporary Closure of Ricky Beach
Drive". The road has now been closed for 25 years and Public Works has no plans to expend
public funds to reopen this road because it does not serve any developable property or provide
public access to a beach, water, or public tidelands.
Ricky Beach Drive provides the sole access for Lots 36-41 and Lots 8-19 and Lot 57 of the Plat of
Termination Point. None of these lots is buildable due to their location on the aforementioned
active landslide. This has been confirmed in multiple geotechnical reports commissioned by the
Petitioner, the latest from the Stratum Group dated December 24, 2019.
RCW 36.87.020: "Owners of the majority of the frontage on any county road or portion thereof
may petition the county legislative authority to vacate and abandon the same or any portion
thereof." Mr. Russell Trask owned the majority of the frontage of Ricky Beach Drive in 2001.
He has since transferred this property to Termination Point Properties (TPP) of which he is
reportedly the "Manager." For ownership, refer to the map in Exhibit 3. The RCW does not
require every property owner along the frontage to support the petition, only a majority.
The original Petition stated that the reasons for requesting the road vacation were:
1) The area has been a place for dumping garbage
2) The road needs maintenance which the county has been reluctant to do
3) The road serves no dwellings and should not be open to the public
More recently, representatives of TPP have indicated that they desire to install a gate on this
road and maintain it for beach access for plat owners only via lots 9, 10, and 19 which TPP has
deeded to the Termination Point Homeowners Association. Indications are that TPP wants to
restore vehicular access.
The Hearing Examiner recommended in 2001 that the road vacation be APPROVED subject to
the Petitioner satisfactorily meeting four conditions. Procedurally, this matter should then
have been brought before the Board for a decision rather than waiting for the Petitioner to
satisfy the conditions first. This is the way road vacations are currently processed; however, at
the time this was not the case.
The following is a discussion of the four conditions stipulated by the Hearing Examiner in 2001.
Condition #1— The Petitioner shall perfect a mechanism, subject to County approval, to assure
continued beach access for the benefit of all the lots within the Plat.
On January 13, 2021, the Petitioner filed a document to create a Homeowners Association (AFN
640092) and deeded Lots 9, 10, and 19 to the Termination Point Homeowners Association.
These lots provide access to the beach. The document, however, only pertained to the lots
owned by TPP as of January 13, 2021 which did not include many of the 57 lots in the plat of
Termination Point. It also stated that the original 1961 Covenants recorded under AFN 170417
are "null and void." It is unclear at this time how Condition #1 can be accomplished without
approvals of the other lots in the plat, not just the ones owned by TPP.
In the same document, the Petitioner recorded a "contingent" easement for the plat owners
across the Ricky Beach Drive right of way to replace the public right of way "...in the event Ricky
Beach Drive is vacated by Jefferson County". This contingent easement was granted to the
Homeowners Association "...and all the remaining Lots". The easement requires the owners of
the Lots to "...be responsible for their proportionate share of the costs of maintaining the road
area."
There are a few issues with this approach that would require correction:
• TPP cannot legally record "contingent" easements over property TPP does not own, in
this case the Ricky Beach right of way. An easement can be granted only after the road
is vacated.
• The legal description of the easement will need to be corrected so that it does not
include areas that will not belong to TPP after the road is vacated. Specifically, half the
right of way (30 feet) adjacent to Lot 57 will become part of that Lot at the time it is
vacated. TPP cannot then grant an easement over this property, nor can TPP grant
easements across the portions that will become parts of Lots 9, 10, and 19 which were
deeded to the Homeowners Association.
• The document requires all Lot owners to share proportionately in the maintenance of
Ricky Beach Drive. TPP cannot require other Lot owners to share in the cost of
maintenance without their written consent.
More recently (April 2022), the Petitioner submitted for consideration by the County a draft
easement that would appear to grant access to all of the lot owners in the plat across the
northern and western 30 feet of the Ricky Beach Drive right of way. The easement does not
3
place any requirements upon the plat owners; presumably any future maintenance
requirements or costs would be handled through the homeowner's association.
It appears that this easement could satisfy Condition #1. This draft easement should be made
available as part of the recommended hearing and should be considered by the Hearing
Examiner at that time.
A related issue to this condition is the need for review by the Department of Community
Development of any permit applications necessary to re-establish the road bed and to provide
any amenities such as parking areas and stairs desired by TPP and its homeowners on the three
lots that provide access to the beach. Because of the presence of the active landslide hazard
area in a shoreline area, it may be difficult or impossible for TPP to achieve any goal for vehicle
access or structures on the beach access lots; however, this would not prevent the right of way
from being vacated.
Condition #2 — The Petitioner will provide a private easement to assure the continued access to
Barbara Cooper's Lot 57
As stated above, the Petitioner cannot legally grant an easement across property they do not
own, and therefore, until the right of way is vacated, this easement cannot be finalized and
recorded. If the road is vacated, it may be possible for the Petitioner to comply with this
condition and Petitioner has demonstrated that they are ready and willing to do so.
The owners of Lot 57, Barbara Cooper and Francine Long, were opposed to the vacation in 2001
and as recently as 2021 have contacted Public Works to express concern over the possibility of
the road being vacated. In 2001, Ms. Cooper wrote: "...1 object to the vacation of Ricky Beach
Drive. This would prevent access into the driveway entrance to our property." It should be
noted that Ricky Beach has been closed since 1997 and therefore vehicular access has not been
available to this parcel since then. Furthermore, Lot 57 is located on the same landslide as the
other parcels on Ricky Beach Drive and is considered unbuildable. This property is primarily
recreational in nature and provides the owners with beach access over Lot 57 and their other
contiguous parcel.
The Petitioner states that there is no legal requirement, nor was it a requirement of the Hearing
Examiner, that the Grantee (Cooper) sign and accept the easement, only that the Petitioner
grant the easement. A draft easement drawn up in 2001 by TPP required that Lot 57
participate in pro-rata sharing of road maintenance costs and also contained other legal
obligations. Clearly, it is not possible to place requirements upon a Grantee without their
approval as evidenced by a notarized signature.
More recently (April 2022), the Petitioner has submitted for consideration by the County a draft
easement that would appear to grant access to the Coopers' Lot 57 if Ricky Beach Drive were
vacated. The easement is across the western 30 feet of the right of way which is where the
roadbed lies. The easement does not place any requirements upon the Coopers.
4
It appears that this easement could satisfy Condition #2. This draft easement should be made
available as part of the recommended hearing and should be considered by the Hearing
Examiner at that time.
The road has been closed for a quarter of a century, and the County has no plans to expend
funds to reopen the road since it does not provide access to any buildable property or other
land with value to the traveling public at large. Vacating the right of way is not likely to change
the access situation for Lot 57; however, the owners of Lot 57 are entitled to state an objection
to the vacation and a preference that the County maintain control of the right of way.
If TPP continues to insist that there is no legal requirement that the Grantee (Cooper) sign and
accept the easement, the Board may wish to send this matter back to the Hearing Examiner for
clarification.
Condition #3 — Ensure remaining lots do not become landlocked
It appears that in 2001 there was an ongoing debate about whether the Lots served by Ricky
Beach Drive were buildable. The issue of whether these lots can be used for residential
occupancy has since been settled. The lots are not buildable, and there is no feasible way to
make them buildable. Satisfying Condition #1 will also satisfy Condition #3 in the opinion of
Public Works. A private easement, only for the benefit of owners in the Plat of Termination
Point, would be needed to replace the public right of way for Ricky Beach Drive.
Condition 4 — Petitioner shall remit the compensation for the right of way as calculated to be
$4,951.25
Petitioner paid this sum in 2001 and the funds were deposited by Jefferson County. There is no
need to revisit this issue in the opinion of Public Works. If the road vacation is denied, the
funds should be returned minus any outstanding fees for processing the road vacation.
Conclusion
Public Works is not opposed to the vacation of Ricky Beach Drive. The road has been closed for
25 years and does not serve any useful purpose for the traveling public at large. It does,
however, function as a valuable access point to the beach for Termination Point Plat owners,
even if only by foot.
Public Works recommends that this matter be remanded to the Hearing Examiner as discussed
in the 2001 Hearing Examiners Findings and Conclusions (page 8, lines 28 and 29). It has been
over 20 years since a hearing was held on this matter, and there still does not appear to be
unanimous agreement on this proposed road vacation from all of the plat owners. While the
draft easements recently submitted by TPP may be adequate to satisfy Conditions #1 and #2, it
is likely there will be a desire for additional public review and comment regarding this matter.
5
Asking the Board to render a decision without conducting another hearing does not seem to be
appropriate in this case. In fact, 20 years ago the Hearing Examiner recognized that this matter
might need to be remanded prior to Board decision and suggested this as a potential course of
action. Public Works agrees that sending this back to the Hearing Examiner will provide the
opportunity for the Hearing Examiner and all other interested parties to review this road
vacation proposal, the draft easements, and any new or relevant information that may emerge
given the 20 years that have elapsed since the original hearing. After a proper public hearing is
conducted, the Board will be in a better position to make a final decision on this matter.
Alternatively, rather than remanding this matter to the Hearing Examiner, the Board has the
options available of immediately denying the road vacation or approving the road vacation.
As can be seen from the above discussion, vacating right of way is complicated when multiple
ownerships are involved and particularly so when not all of the owners agree. TPP has had over
twenty years to resolve these complex issues and so far, has not been able to do so. It may be
possible, but a time limit should be set in order to put this matter to rest once and for all.
Recently, TPP has submitted draft easements that may work to satisfy Conditions #1 and #2,
and should be considered as part of a new hearing.
It should be noted that there is an alternative option which has been presented to TPP.
Without vacating the right of way, TPP could be allowed to install a locked gate on the road,
which is closed. TPP and other plat Lot owners could request and could be issued permits by
the County to use the road "at their own risk" (they would not need permits to access it on
foot, only by vehicle). This would have the effect of eliminating any public vehicular access and
the associated problems of illegal dumping. TPP could also attempt to secure environmental
permits to improve the roadway if desired. While this would not prevent the public from
walking down the right of way, it is unlikely many people would try this since the road does not
provide access to the beach and there is no convenient parking along Shine Road. This option
has been presented to TPP representatives, but so far TPP only remains interested in pursuing
the road vacation option to its conclusion.
t�
-----------
IQ
-•--- Nt LUdifiVi
17 b
la
21 22
23
20 28 27
216 6,
25
EIiMCpark :•loud Heisid
3 2
Ph-4 tl�k,
130 8 6 6O0 2
.48
LIZ.
all
10
-.? ilml E5 5 Q 0 Qlo
41L
0 0(fo CGI
.03
4f.
lj
r -- -
0CD
_ ra
1 99660000'i42 998600017
56 o 55 52
c e G o
"lam 0m. 54 .D. 53 g m
. Y n •m: m w m w g
cyyf
I. r 43:998600021 - [ a4
.99Q500020 � I
17
v oN
-;, c 47 0o n S1 986600029 "-
m
a---__ 'o m; •l0 o as
44- 996600022 m �; m •i7 0
99•B�b0000 � � - _ m ~�~���
4�, �"P M1500029 -
>5 996600023 A t)A
Zsn aeenaaa ; OR,
31
-
30 4 0 990600005 , �?` .ti 16 j 37 m
23
X
113386000N
12 26 .
1�• 01, 7 1
20 998,6,00010 '
6
31 3i ^ n
rn
7 998600006 30 0 n
f o t
'. 30 890600014
�V
40996600015 1 ' ���C•N 1 17 0
4t938600016 � R�i•K y 18
+ 17
16
988500008 I
13 ` 7.j Ll
ty
� 998800007 jj jl
9 99B600019 r'
i
26
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!�•. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
tE: Petition by Russell Trask to ) File No. Ricky Beach Drive RW
vacate all of Ricky `Beach Drive )
within the Plat of Termination ;
Point.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOM aNDATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The plat of Termination Point has a difficult geologic history
due to landslides. Ricky Beach Drive has suffered as well, partially
due to drainage problems and lack of maintenance. The plat has been
under a general building moratorium —partially lifted for part of the
plat. Consequently, none of the lots served by Ricky Beach Road is
developed. The petitioner owns all lots but one fronting on Ricky
Beach Road. However, all lots within the plat hold beach access
rights for which Ricky Beach Road has served as the principal route.
The geologic conditions were issues in a previous Shoreline
Conditional Use application.' Currently, the petitioner has
applications pending review resulting from a Correction Notice issued
by the County due to work without permits. State agencies involved
include Department of Natural Resources [DNR], Department of Ecology
[DOE] , and Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] .
In spite of the history of the property, the matter before the
Examiner is a right-of-way vacation petition. The history of the
property is helpful in understanding the testimony of participants.
1 SUB96-0008 & SDP95-0003, Termination Point Plat Amendment & Shoreline
Application: Appeal of Administrative Decision denying request to conduct
phased environmental review.
Pagel Findings, Conclusions
Russell Trask, Petitioner and Recommendation
Ricky Beach Road R/W LOG ITEM
# Li4 Page_.._. a�_La--
r-. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Notices: Mailed: June 21, 2001
Posted: July 9, 2001
Publication: July 18 and July 25, 2001 (Port Townsend -
Jefferson County Leader).
SEPA: Categorically exempt per WAC 197-11-800(2)(h).
Site Visit: July 31, 2001.
Hearing Date: July 31, 2001.
TESTIMONY:
The public hearing was opened on July 31, 2001 at 1:15 p.m. in the
Commissioners Chambers. After the procedures for the public hearing
were explained, testimony was accepted. All testimony was taken unde
oath. A verbatim recording of the public hearing was made and is
maintained in the Jefferson Permit Center file.
Participants:
Wendy Ward, Engineering Technician II, Public Works
Russell Trask, Petitioner, POB 10652, Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110
Anthon Brenna, Neighboring property owner, 110 Harbor View P1,
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Barbara Cooper, Adjoining property owner, 5101 27u' Ave West,
Everett, WA 98203
Jeff Eckley, Permit Facilitator for the Petitioner, 710 Ericksen Ave
Suite 201, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Josh Peters, Associate Planner, Development Review
Other parties present but not testifying:
Elena Brenna, 110 Harbor View Pl, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Beverly Ardohain, 4525 67`h Ave NE, Marysville, WA 98270
The public hearing was closed at 2:20 p.m.
Russell Trask, Petitioner
Ricky Beach Road R/W
Page 2
Findings. Conclusions
and Recommendation
� 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
TABLE OF EXHIBITS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The petition is to vacate all of Ricky Beach Drive. Ricky Beac
Drive provides direct (sole) access to 19 platted lots and one tax
parcel.' According to undisputed testimony, all lots within the Plat
of Termination Point have beach access rights, and have used Ricky
Beach Drive for walking access.
2. The rear of Lots 29-35 adjoin Ricky Beach Drive, but have direct
access from Harbor View Drive and Linda View Drive. The sideline of
Tax Parcel 721022001 also adjoins Ricky Beach Drive, but fronts on
Shine Road.'
7 Lots 8-19, Lots 36-41, Lot 57 together with Tax Parcel 721022002, and Tax
Parcel 721022004.
3 See the property line map (Attachment K to Exhibit 1, Staff Report).
Russell Trask, Petitioner Page 3 Findings, Conclusions
Ricky Beach Road R/W and Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
13. None of the lots with direct access to Ricky Beach Drive is
developed. The petitioner owns all of the lots with direct access
Ricky Beach Drive except Lot 57 and its connecting tax parcel.
4. The County Assessor's records indicate Lots 9 and 10 are
"Community Lots" with an underlying ownership by Termination
Partnership.4 Lots 9 and 10 are identified on the Adjoining Property
Owner list as owned by Termination Point Partnership, c/o Robert
Clark; however, the Petitioner testified that he has purchased those
Itwo lots.
15
tip
The Petitioner makes the following argument:5
"I/ This area has been a place for dumping of garbage, washing
machines, etc. A gate will stop this. 2/ This road needs
maintenance, which the county has been reluctant to do. This
,road serves no dwellings and should not be open to the public. No
longer a problem, we have done most of the repair. 3/ This road
serves no dwellings and should not be open to the public. 4/ No
change of ownerships since orig_ request.^
The Community Development Department submitted the following:6
2. According to .Environmental Sensitive Area mapping under the
Jefferson County Unified Development Code, the following mapped
environmentally sensitive features existing either within the
platted road right-of-way or in the immediate area: (see ... ESA
informational flops)
o Shoreline Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area/Conservancy
Shoreline resignation;
o Shoreline Wetland Area;
a Shoreline Seismic Hazard Area;
a High Level of Landslide Hazard Area within Ricky Beach Road
right-of-way and north and south of Ricky Beach Road;
a Active Landslide Hazard Area immediately west of Ricky Beach
Road;
v Erosion Hazards within portions of the Ricky Beach Road
right-of-way, also south, east and west of Ricky Beach Road;
o Flood Hazard Area along the marine shoreline (PENA Zone A);
and
a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area adjacent or north of the
intersection of Ricky Beach Road and Shine Road.
{ Attachment D to Exhibit 1, staff Report
5 Petition for Vacation, Exhibit 2
E Attachment E to Exhibit 1, staff Report
Russell Tvask, Petitioner Page 4
Ricky Bench Road RIW
Findings. Conclusions
and Recommendation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
7. The road requested for vacation was dedicated in the plat of
Termination Point and recorded on November 6, 1961, and therefore is
not vacated under RCW 36.87.090.7
8. The requested vacation area was closed to traffic due to
landslide activity in 1997.0
9. The Transportation Team made the following comments:
1. This road has been officially closed to public travel since
January 21, 1997. The reason for closure was landslides
that occurred during winter storms.
2. The road is not necessary for overall traffic circulation.
- 3. The road does not provide direct access to a body of water.
10. The following -are summary responses by reviewing agencies:'
County Engineer
Recommends Approval with comments
Attach A
Transportation Planner
No Objection with comments
Attach B
Assessor's Office
Appropriate Compensation: $4,951.25
Attach C
Assessor's Office
Petitioner not sole property owner
Attach D
Community Development
Recommends Approval with comments
Attach E
•Sheriff/Emergency Services
No response
Puget Sound Energy
No objection
Attach F
Fire Prot Dist No 1
No response
PUD #1
No response
Owest Telephone
No objection
Attach G
WaDOT
No response
Park Advisory Board
INo objection
11. The petitioner has applications pending review resulting from a
Correction Notice by the County due to work without permits.
Jefferson County is jointly involved with State agencies including:
A. Department of Ecology [DOE], Water Quality Division,
involving a General Stormwater Permit as testified to by Petitioner's
consultant, Jeff Eckley;
9 Attachment A to Exhibit 1, 9 1
e Attachment A to Exhibit 1, 1 2
s Source references are to attachments to the Staff Report, Exhibit 1
Russell Trask, Petifloner Page 5 Findings, Conclusions
Ricky Beach Road R/W and Recommendation
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r-�
29
b. Department of Ecology, Shorelands Division, involving
shorelines compliance issues;
C. Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], involving a
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for work impacting the beach habitat;
d. Department of Natural Resources [DNR], in response to a
Forest Practices Act violation, determined that the County shall
impose a six -year moratorium on development. The six years began las
year and there are now five years remaining.
12. Barbara Cooper, owner of Lot 57 and adjoining Parcel #7210220002,
testified that Ricky Beach Drive is the sole means of access to her
property. Consequently, Barbara Cooper objected to the vacation."
13. Anthony Brenna, owner of Lot 7, testified and submitted a letter,
expressing concerns over possible consequences of the proposed
vacation. Mr. Brenna's main concerns are that he continues to enjoy
the beach rights belonging to residents of Termination Point, and than
the trees and land below his lot not be disturbed in any way that
would adversely affect the stability of their home. Mr. Brenna did
not object to the road vacation, but expressed continued concern that
the County maintains the ability to enforce required permits.
io See also Exhibit 5 and Attachment J to Exhibit 1
1z Attachment I to Exhibit 1
Russell Trask, Petitioner Page 6
Ricky Beach Road R/W
Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation
e
1 REVIEW CRITERIA
2 Right-of-way vacation petitions are subject to JCC Chapter 12.10, Road
3 Vacations, and in particular the review criteria of JCC 12.10.130,
4 which address the following seven topics:
5 1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
6 2. Effect on overall circulation;
7 3. Effect on emergency services;
8 4. Need for utility service;
9 S. Use for trails or pathways;
10 6. Abuts on a body of salt or fresh water; and
11 7. "The proposed vacation will not land lock any parcel of land."
12
13 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
-� 14 1. The Department of Community Development did not identify a
15 conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, any future
16 development must comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and would likely
17 result in an improved relationship with the Comprehensive Plan.
18 Therefore, criterion 1 can be considered as met.
19 2. The record indicates that the right-of-way is not needed for
20 general circulation. Similarly, the agencies providing utilities did
21 not object. The right-of-way does not abut on a body of salt or fresh
22 water. Therefore, criteria 2, 3 and 6 are clearly met.
23 3. As noted in Finding 1 above, all lots within the Plat of
24 Termination Point hold access rights to the beach, for which testimony
25 indicated that Ricky Beach Drive is used as walking access to a beach
26 route —possibly across Lots 9 and 10. The Petitioner expressed intent
27 to honor such beach access, although a mechanism was not proposed.
28 Provided that continued beach access is assured by an approved
29 mechanism, criterion 5 can be met.
Russell Trask, Petitioner Page 7 Findings, Conclusions
Ricky Beach Road R/W and Recommendation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
4. A private road easement must be provided for continued access
Barbara Cooper's lot to prevent it from becoming land locked. Any l
easement should contain a provision that the easement can be
extinguished in the future by the substitution of a public road
providing equal or better access. An approved private road easement
is necessary to meet criterion 7.
However, the remaining platted lots would each become land
locked. While a private road easement could technically address the
issue, if such an easement is used, it must be conditioned that
individual lot sales are not allowed until both the county's building
moratorium and the DNR initiated moratorium are each removed. A
better solution may be to consolidate all the lots as recommended by
the Department of Community Development.
The subjects of lot consolidation and/or legal access were
discussed at length in the public hearing without resolution. The
subject is complex, and the Petitioner appears to be addressing issues
one step at a time. The significant critical area conditions on the
site are valid concerns that justify resolving the road vacation
petition now rather than waiting until ultimate plans are developed.
Approving the vacation now also recognizes the Correction Notice and
the building moratoria in place. A condition of right-of-way vacatior
should make clear the County's right to inspect and the applicant's
obligation to work only under approved permits.
Noting that all departments recommended approval of the road
vacation, and with the above considerations addressed, criterion 7 cai
be met.
�5. The mechanisms discussed in Conclusions 3 and 4 should have
negotiated before the public hearing. If satisfactory mechanisms
cannot be found, the Board should remand the matter to the Examiner.
Russell Trask, Petitioner
Ricky Beach Road R/W
Page 8
Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions above, the Hearing Examiner
recommends that the requested vacation be APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall perfect a mechanism, subject to County
approval, to assure continued beach access for the benefit of all lots
within the Plat of Termination Point in accordance with Conclusion 3
above.
2. A private road easement to assure continued access to Barbara
Cooper's Lot 57 in ..accordance with Conclusion 4 above, and subject to
approval by the County, shall be recorded.
3. Conclusion 4 contains an analysis of the problems of platted lot
remaining after a road vacation. A resolution of the problem could
not be reached in the.public hearing, but can be settled as a
condition of the vacation. Possible solutions include a consolidation
of lots as suggested by the Department of Community Development, or a
Memorandum of Agreement between the Petitioner and Jefferson County t
address the issues raised in Conclusion 4 above. As an alternative,
the Board may elect to remand the matter to the Examiner as noted in
Conclusion 5 above.
4. Petitioner shall remit the compensation for the right-of-way as
calculated to be $4,951.25 in Attachment C to Exhibit 1, and noted in
Finding 10.
DATED this 13`ti day of August 2001.
Iry Berteig
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
ib
Russell Trask, Petitioner
Ricky Beach Road R/W
Page 9
Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
NOTICE:
A copy ❑r notice of this Decision and Appeal Instructions was
transmitted by the Jefferson County Permit Center to the following:
Date Transmitted:
Russell Trask, Petitioner, POS 10652, Bainbridge Island, WA, 98110
Anthony and Elena Brenna, 110 Harbor View P1, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Barbara Cooper, 5101 271h Ave West, Everett, WA 98203
Jeff Eckley, 710 Ericksen Ave - Suite 201, Bainbridge Island, WA 9811(
Beverly Ardobain, 4525 67`h Ave NE, Marysville, WA 98270
Russell Trask. Petitioner
Ricky Beach Road RIW
Page 10
Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation