Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061906 District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commls.ioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of June 19,2006 Chairman Phil Johnson called the meeting to order in the presence of Commissioner David W. Sullivan and Commissioner Patrick M. Rodgers. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: John Fischbach reported on the following items: · A draft Public Infrastructure Fund Ordinance will be reviewed at the County Administrator/County Commissioner's Meeting. · A No Shooting Zone Ordinance is being drafted using information from the Planning Commission's review and interviews with adjacent counties to determine their best practices. The draft ordinance will be available in 2 months. Critical Areas Ordinance Extension: Approximately 35 concerned citizens were present when the County Administrator reported that he was contacted by several constituents last week who are concerned about the mid-July deadline for the adoption ofthe Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). They feel that most property owners who will be adversely affected by the proposed regulations are not aware of the document and have requested more time for public review and comment. A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission on June 21. The Critical Areas Ordinance update is the result of an appeal before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board by the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) and a negotiated second settlement agreement between the County and the WEC. The agreement requires that the new ordinance be adopted by July 18. The Board agreed that the public needs to have a clear understanding of the proposed changes and this will take more time. Commissioner Rodgers moved to have legal counsel contact the WEC about a 90 day extension of the ordinance adoption deadline and to direct the Planning Commission and staffto leave the public record open for an additional 90 days. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of June 12,2006 as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19, 2006 Discussion and Possible Adoption re: Proposed Resolution Establishing Goals and Objectives for the 2007 County Budget: The County Administrator reviewed the 7 priority strategic objectives for the County from the draft resolution and noted that the seventh priority is new this year. · Supporting local law and justice programs · Addressing locally identified and defined public health issues · Protecting and enhancing natural resources · Investing in community infrastructure that encourages economic opportunity · Planning for long term capital facility needs · Operating within a business plan based on sustainable resources, measured performance, and outstanding customer service · Maintaining a professional County workforce that can meet the growing service delivery needs ofthe County This resolution will be included with the budget call that is sent out by the Auditor in early July. It is used as a guideline for Elected Officials and Department Heads as they prepare their budgets. When the budget is adopted, it will be balanced within available resources. He also reviewed the fiscal budget objectives as listed in the resolution. Growth in General Fund property taxes and Road Fund property taxes shall remain as close as possible to a 1 % limit, plus taxes collected on new construction. The strategic budget objectives are: · Support an effective economic development strategy for Jefferson County. · Support and maintain law and justice programs. · Support programs that identify and treat significant public health threats and gaps in programs offered, and if identified, make a determination to close them if practicable. · Support the following major projects: relocate Public Works to the stand alone building in the Castle Hill complex; complete the Courthouse Site Master Plan project; complete the Courthouse Clocktower project; continue the development and construction of the sewer system for the Tri-Area UGA; update the plan for the Gateway Visitors Center and reach a decision on a plan to reconstruct an improved facility; and develop a county-wide land use inventory and infrastructure database with accompanying economic analysis to guide future planning decisions. · Look for ways and means to develop opportunities to continue the development ofthe Larry Scott Trail linked to the Olympic Discovery Trail and the Tri-Area Urban Growth Area (UGA). He also listed the following internal activities that will be reviewed and evaluated: · Privatize and/or outsource services, programs, and functions where appropriate (such as animal services, etc.). · Consolidate programs or services where appropriate and seek additional funding through programs and grants. · Continue to monitor the permit process in Community Development to prevent unnecessary delays. · Continue to partner with other local agencies to improve service delivery and/or reduce costs. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006 '~'.""".". ~ .' ....~ +:" ,c~ 111)1'\'\ . Develop operating rules and guidelines for the staff to work with the Board to avoid surprises for both sides. Commissioner Rodgers stated that he wants Environmental Health included in the efficiency objective regarding monitoring the permit process in Community Development to prevent unnecessary delays. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that 1-747 has been found unconstitutional and that decision is being appealed. He stated that he is still inclined to retain the 1 % increase this year, although the cost ofliving is going up at a higher rate. He asked the County Administrator to outline a few other alternatives. Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 33-06, establishing the goals and objectives for the 2007 budget. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: The public has not had enough time to review the draft Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO); the proposed 450 foot buffers from wetlands require a report from a "qualified" wetland biologist paid for by the property owner and there are only a few wetland biologists in the County; a request that the WEC settlement agreement be posted on the County website; a property owner on the Hoh River stated that she just found out about these regulations that could affect her property from another Westend resident; environmental groups are taking private property all over the County; County government doesn't make any effort to keep Westend residents informed; even though the draft ordinance mentions grandfathering existing farms, if the slightest change in the use of the property is proposed, it will trigger the new rules; the County needs to have local people determine BAS (Best Available Science) and not use the State DOE guidelines; the CAO requires that strangers come on to private property to monitor critical areas; who is going to compensate people for the property they will lose because of buffers?; the County is already having financial problems, what will happen when 25% of the land value and tax revenue is taken away by buffers?; a property owner invested in land for retirement and won't be able to develop it because of the proposed regulations; who is the WEC and where are they from?; auto repair shops shouldn't be an allowable use for cottage businesses in rural residential areas; a petition was submitted signed by 95 people requesting that the Board hold a forum on the expansion of Indian Island; the Board needs to look into cutting programs instead of raising property taxes; the County Commissioners need to contact State Legislators about environmental laws that are being passed at the State level that restrict what people can do with their property; people in the County feel vulnerable right now about their property and their livelihood and they don't feel they are being represented by the Commissioners; and the Board needs to read legal documents and know the consequences before they sign them. Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19, 2006 ;~.,o''\ . - 'f.l" . ~~,. Jt,I'(' APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 34-06 re: Petition to Vacate a County Road; Harrison Street Located off of Cape George Road, Port Townsend; WeFore, LLC, Petitioner 2. HEARING NOTICE re: Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 16 Watershed Management Plan; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, July 3,2006 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners Chamber 3. AGREEMENT NO. E06-095, Amendment Are: Wireline E911 Operations; JeffCom; Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division 4. AGREEMENT NO. E06-096, Amendment A re: Wireless E9ll Operations; JeffCom; Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division 5. AGREEMENT re: Credit Card Processing System (Orion Payment System); Jefferson County Superior Court; Modern Payment Solutions, LLC 6. Advisory Board Resignation and Appointment; Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Resigning Member Chris Rehder and New Member Dennis Martin to Serve a Three (3) Year Term Expiring June 19, 2009 HEARING re: Unified Development Code Omnibus Amendment Package: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing. Rachel McHugh, Assistant Planner, stated that staffhas provided the annotation on the changes to the UDC that the Board had requested and has advertised the revised hearing notice to include all the changes (See February 21,2006 minutes). The Chair opened the hearing for public comment. Frank Kelley, Port Ludlow, thanked the Board for making the UDC changes more transparent to the public in the revised legal notice, although he feels that the description of the proposed changes could have been more detailed. His primary concern is the change regarding the nuisance issue of mining operations after 7 p.m. When the UDC was adopted this issue received a lot of public comment and consideration. The noise policy is a change and not a clarification. The meaning of the section that regulates noise disturbances after 7 p.m. is clear. DCD and the Prosecuting Attorney have used the standard in regulating other mining activities. It is clear that nighttime mining isn't allowed. From the time the UDC was implemented and the Pit-to-Pier application was submitted, there was a change in how the UDC was applied. NW Aggregates was clearly informed that nighttime mining isn't allowed but the Prosecuting Attorney offered specific examples of temporary exceptions that would be allowed. Neighbors of Lakeside Industries at Cape George complained about the operation's impact and the Director of Community Development mitigated the issues. Meaningful regulations are being eroded. Applying nighttime mining to the entire Hood Canal Tree Farm is not mitigation. The original intent of the section provides legitimate protection for adjacent property owners. Nighttime mining is consistent with a large volume operation and Jefferson County doesn't need that much gravel. During the 2002 Mineral Resource Land (MRL) process, Fred Hill Materials conceded Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006 .~'>'''.'.''.'. f ..-~ +. ~~ .fJi".(.\ that, 9 to1 there is more material exported than used in the County. It is a basic liberty for people to enjoy their property. If these code changes are made, a miner can apply for a permit without an MRL, work 24 hours a day, and increase the size of the crusher. The amount of noise from these operations needs to be recognized. The noise study at FHM was 123 decibels and that is consistent with the noise from ajet taking off at 200 feet. This is an industrial activity that should be located in an area that makes sense and it should have conditions that make sense. When the 3 conditions are put together, they are reverse engineered to allow a Pit-to-Pier operation and there will be impacts at Thorndyke and Southpoint. The Mats Mats quarry could propose a similar operation. Twice in the last five years they have put in a request to operate for 24 hours a day for special projects. The staff needs to enforce the code. Another concern is the intensification of mining activities and when a conditional use permit is required. The way the code is currently written, if there is an increase in offsite impacts, a conditional use permit will be required. That section ofthe code is being amended so that a Determination of Significance (DS) is required. For a DS to be required, a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate impact is necessary. This is inconsistent with the other threshold in that section that says that impacts shall be minimal. The County shouldn't allow mining operations to expand in irrational ways without any kind of process for mitigation. The mining section of the code needs to be reviewed line by line. The ground rules need to be the same for everyone rather than changing them to suit a particular interest. Dan Titterness, Glen Cove, requested that the Board clarify that an ADU becomes a "yes" use in certain areas on page 13, Section 18.15.040. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the change was noted in the revised legal notice and the Board agreed on it. James Tracy, Land Use Counsel for Fred Hill Materials, stated that there is no prohibition against nighttime mining in the current UDC or in the proposed changes. The only requirements that differ between day and nighttime operations are the applicable noise standards between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. For activities conducted during those hours, noise regulations are reduced 10 decibels from daytime standards for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. The citation is WAC 173-06-04 (b). The County needs a legal memorandum from DCD and the Prosecuting Attorney on what the existing code says or doesn't say regarding this issue. He submitted a comment letter dated January 11, 2006 at the previous hearing and is re-submitting it today that suggests convening of a panel, blue ribbon commission, or expert group to review the entire section on mining. The current section contains vague and ambiguous terms and potential conflicts in interpretation and application of the UDC. Regarding the nuisance issue, Jefferson County has 330,000 acres in commercial tree farms and mining is an allowed use on all this forestland under the existing UDC. To say that the whole Hood Canal Tree Farm could become a mining operation doesn't make sense when you know Jefferson County's planning and zoning regulations. A comment was made about how much material from FHM is used in Jefferson County and how much is trucked to other markets. Many basic consumer variables produced in the County are consumed in other markets out of the County. Noise reports that are done on the FHM operation are done at the request ofDCD by third party consultants which FHM pays. The County has to approve the professional competency of the report. A contested situation can never be resolved if a third party independent analysis can't be relied on. Nor can you ever rely on an accurate basis Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006 ~"'''''' ,-'" '..'1 "-- -.-' It.. - ...... $JIIl'O' to do regulation and comprehensive planning unless you have standards and criteria and competent, professional, objective third party analysis. It serves all interests. The record is full of information that is available on the website about current mitigation issues and activities that FHM is pursuing including the newly permitted inaudible backup systems. An Environmental Impact Statement is currently being prepared on the proposed Pit-to-Pier project. That process assumes that when material impacts are identified FHM and the County have an obligation of to determine reasonable mitigations of identified material impacts. The public will have an opportunity to participate in that process. Hearing no further comments, the Chair closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Al Scalf reviewed the process. He reported that the Board took action at the last public hearing to change the code and some ofthe changes haven't been finalized by ordinance. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez clarified that UDC Sections 9 and 10 have been revised and finalized by ordinance. Al Scalf suggested that the Board review the proposed changes in the sections they haven't addressed and take action to approve, deny, or remand back to the Department for further work. David Alvarez added that when the Board has finished their deliberations, the changes will be put in one ordinance for final approval. Commissioner Sullivan noted the change agreed upon by the Board during their previous deliberations in Section18.05 to eliminate the appellate hearing examiner from the process. Commissioner Sullivan had questions about the following: · Section 18.15, page 6: Can the term PFUGA be deleted because it isn't pertinent any longer? Al Scalf explained that the intent of the PFUGA was to show the general study area for the special study and it isn't important any longer. Commissioner Sullivan asked that the sentence be revised to remove the word PFUGA. · Section 18.15, Table 3-1: Why aren't food and beverage stands allowed in parks, preserves and recreation areas? Al Scalf noted that, in general, the location of temporary and permanent expresso and food stands are an issue because of the zoning. Many parks already have concession stands. Rachel McHugh referenced a Planning Commission memo to the Board dated December 6, 2005 that mentioned health and safety requirements regarding these businesses. Al Scalf discussed the current permit process for this type of business and possible changes to the permit type. The Board agreed that the Planning Commission needs to draft criteria for these types of businesses at a future date. The Board agreed to continue their deliberations on the UDC amendments at 2 p.m. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19, 2006 Discussion re: Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment: Al Scalf explained that a consolidated application has been submitted by Port Ludlow Associates for the amendment to the Development Agreement and a Shoreline permit application. Under the land use procedures, the Board can choose to have a public hearing on the consolidated application or send it to the Hearing Examiner to be heard. The Hearing Examiner would then make a recommendation to the Board and the Board would make the final decision for both the amendment to the Development Agreement and the shoreline permit. Commissioner Rodgers noted that the benefit of having the consolidated application heard by the Hearing Examiner is that it would separate the legal aspects from the political aspects. He would prefer that process. Al Scalf noted that this is also the staff recommendation. The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney recommended that the Board have the application go to the Hearing Examiner because he has expertise in legal land use issues and he can create a document that is well-founded in points oflaw and fact. Commissioner Sullivan moved to have the Hearing Examiner conduct a public hearing on the consolidated application submitted by Port Ludlow Associates. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Chair signed a hearing notice for the newspaper. Unified Development Code Omnibus Amendment Package Deliberations (Continued): The County Administrator suggested that the Board note what they are in agreement about and then they can estimate how much time and work needs to be spent on the other items. David Alvarez added that one ordinance will be drafted for the Board's final review with all the changes included. Commissioner Sullivan continued his question about the following section: · Section 18.15.123, page 29, Allowable Uses: He noted that churches/religious assembly facilities aren't included in the list of meeting facilities in the Master Plan Resort (MPR.) Commissioner Rodgers said that he thinks staff needs to look at the impact of a regulation and in many cases there are distinctions that are unnecessary. Commissioner Sullivan asked if churches should be included as cultural and educational facilities? Commissioner Rodgers stated that the size ofthe building and the occupancy rating should prevail. Commissioner Sullivan said that he would be inclined to include it. · Page 34, Mineral Resource Lands Nuisance and Noise Levels: Commissioner Sullivan noted that this isn't just about Fred Hill Materials. He thinks it is a problem to measure noise at night and limiting hours isn't necessarily a bad way to go. He is not aware of any other nighttime mining operations in the County. Commissioner Rodgers stated that FHM produces a world class resource on a different scale than most other operations. This resource is in demand and should be utilized. Commissioner Rodgers said that he agrees with the way it is written. Commissioner Sullivan noted that other counties have specific mining hours such as from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A suggestion was made that staff and the Planning Commission do a more indepth review on the whole mining operation issue. Al Scalf asked for policy direction from the Board. The discussion continued regarding other Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006 ;"'.... (O<':t ~1'i'~r"'('"\"'* aspects ofthis issue, including the State Department of Transportation's road work done at night and the need for the availability ofthe resource at night, the amount of traffic noise, how much gravel is used in the County of the total amount produced at FHM, and how far away the lights from a nighttime operation can be seen. It was noted again, that this isn't just about FHM. The County Administrator suggested that the Board may want to look at what constitutes an emergency and if it is in the public interest that nighttime mining be allowed in certain circumstances. Al Scalf gave an example of a road washout as an emergency. He stated that an emergency is only considered an emergency for the time that it takes to repair the problem. The County Administrator suggested that the Board put the mining issue on a list and move on to other amendments that can be resolved in a more expedient manner. The discussion continued about mining issues. Al Scalf suggested that the Board send the entire section on mining back to staff to be reworked or a blue ribbon committee could be formed to review the issues and make a recommendation. He added that several sections in the UDC refer to mining and the Board would need to indicate what sections they wanted reworked. The Deputy Prosecutor noted that if the Board alters the substance of a paragraph, another hearing would be required. The public would need a chance to review any new language and be able to comment. · Section 18.20.160, page 20, Forest Practices: He asked about the added language that "any proposal which encompasses a conversion from forestry to non-forestry use shall require a stormwater management permit from Jefferson County and be reviewed by the County for compliance." Should conversions to commercial, industrial, and residential uses also require proof of potable water? He explained that he doesn't want lots created where people have the expectation of building and they find that they can't because of water issues. Al Scalf replied that the stormwater permit deals with the impacts ofthe clearing. Stacie Hoskins, Development Review Manager, explained that this is a conversion from forestry to non-forestry. If the proponent wants to develop the property, another permit and process would be required. Commissioner Sullivan asked if that distinction should be made? Al Scalf answered that the statute for forest practices covers this. He added that the State passed a law that will go into affect next year that requires counties to take over the Class IV conversion permitting process which is currently administered by DNR. This issue will come before the Board next year. Commissioner Sullivan agreed that the language can remain as it is until the issue comes before them next year. · He pointed out that currently there is a moratorium on adult businesses. He suggested that a placeholder be set aside in Section 18.20 to address this issue at a future date. · Commissioner Sullivan had questions on Section 18.30.060, page 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Section 18.30.080, page 13, Roads and that were addressed by staff and left as written. David Alvarez suggested that, in the future, it may be better for the Board to deliberate in public on the changes suggested in the Planning Commission's recommendation and then advertise and schedule their own public hearing on the substantive changes they want to make. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19, 2006 Chairman Johnson asked about the following sections: · Section18.20.020, page 3, Junk Autos: In an ordinance that was recently adopted by the Board of Health, it states "three or more"junk autos are prohibited The current UDC says "13." The Board agreed that the UDC needs to be consistent with the new ordinance. David Alvarez noted that this would have to be renoticed and another hearing will need to be held. · Section 18.20.170, page 27, Cottage Industry; Auto repair: He reviewed the comment letter from Barbara Fisk. She had asked that Public Health inspect the property several times a year for violations and charge the owner for the cost of these inspections. Commissioner Rodgers stated that usually once the County has established that it is appropriate, unless there is a reason to check it, they don't. Chairman Johnson stated that he believes that the property is inspected by the State Department of Ecology on occasion. The Board agreed that everything in her letter was addressed. Al Scalf explained the boundary line adjustment (BLA) process to the Board. The proposed amendment in Section 18.35.060 (2)(c) states that a BLA is prohibited if it creates a non-conforming lot or increases any of the non-conforming aspects. Nor can an adjustment be made that crosses zoning districts. Rachel McHugh noted that in a memo dated May 22, 2006, staff proposed that the Board delete the amendment. Al Scalf cited a Court case in Seattle where the decision stated that there must be the same number of parcels in a BLA at the beginning and the end of the process. It doesn't change the zoning, it only changes the boundary line. Stacie Hoskins explained that when there are 2 lots and one is conforming and one is non-conforming, and a BLA is done, as long as there is a conforming lot and a non-conforming lot at the end ofthe process, it is allowed. Commissioner Rodgers moved to delete Section 18.35.060(2)(c) as recommended by staff. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday. All 3 Commissioners were present. From 10:00 until 11 :00 a.m., the Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator, Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Outside Counsel, the Director of Community Development and Community Development Staff regarding actual litigation. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday at 10 a.m. for the Board to continue their deliberations on the UDC amendments. All 3 Commissioners were present. Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006 ~< . ~/fr ",c., Continued Unified Development Code Omnibus Amendment Package Deliberations: Chairman Johnson asked about the following changes: · Section 18.30.150, page 24, Signs: He thinks the regulations were developed for the urban growth area and added to the general regulations on signs. It says "Illumination of signs shall be shaded, shielded or directed in a downward direction," then the following language was added: "Internally illuminated or back-lit signs are not allowed. Lettering, logos, or graphics on a plastic sheet may be internally illuminated provided that the background is opaque and only lettering, logos, or graphics are illuminated." Stacie Hoskins answered that most of the sign language came from the UDC Subcommittee from May 13, 2005. Subcommittee staffmade site visits and that research was used for the discussion. Most of the recommendations were made to the Planning Commission in November, 2005 and approved. The Development Review Division would also like to see this clarified. Chairman Johnson noted that a sign outside of a commercial or industrial property can be 64 square feet. Stacie Hoskins answered that this is the current standard. There was continued discussion about allowing backlit signs of this size in rural areas. Chairman Johnson also questioned the added language that signs mounted parallel to the building facade may occupy 10% of the facade. He added that he is totally in favor of painted murals on buildings. The discussion continued about the proposed amendments for different types of signs. The Board agreed to strike Section 18.30.150(3)( e )(iii) regarding mounted signs, "support mechanisms or arms for mounted signs must not be visible." Chairman Johnson suggested that there should be only one specification for the size of a sign. Commissioner Sullivan stated that it might be good to leave most ofthe changes, except those noted by the Board, in the UDC and have DCD revisit the sign section at a future date. Stacie Hoskins pointed out that the Board has the option of deleting the proposed amendments to the sign section. It isn't high priority because signs aren't a matter of health and safety. Chairman Johnson stated that he thinks it may be better to go back to the original sign ordinance. Commissioner Sullivan said that the amendment regarding political signs needs to be added because it needs to be consistent with constitutional law. Commissioner Rodgers agreed to use the original sign ordinance except for the amendments about political signs. Chairman Johnson agreed. There was a brief discussion about Section 18.30.170, Mining, Quarrying and Asphalt/Concrete Batch Plant Best Management Practices in Critical Recharge Areas. Stacie Hoskins asked the Board if this is an area that they would like to see reviewed by staff? Commissioner Sullivan pointed out one clerical error, but otherwise the Board was in agreement with changes to the section. Commissioner Sullivan commented on the following: · Section 18.40.360, Submission Requirements: Rachel McHugh stated that he had requested that the following be changed: "The Administrator may require that any request that seeks interpretation of more than four UDC sections be broken down into smaller requests, each requiring the standard fee. The Administrator may limit the code interpretation to what is deemed necessary to clarify the section and may decline responding to requests that are deemed excessive or onerous or those that ask hypothetical questions." She stated that this change was noted by staff in a memo dated June 5, Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19, 2006 although it hasn't been changed in the body ofthe document yet. Commissioner Sullivan agreed that the new language was an improvement. · Section 18.10, Definitions: He suggested breaking up the definition of surface mining into 1, 2, or 3 or a, b, or c and changing the punctuation to make it easier to understand. The other Commissioners agreed that it improved the meaning. There was a discussion on the definition of noise on pages 25- 26. The Board agreed that this is a philosophical issue because people having different tolerances for noise. Commissioner Sullivan suggested that specifying an amount of noise at this place and time is measurable and scientific. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that standards that are adopted need to be measurable in order to be managed. Stacie Hoskins explained that currently certain activities are meeting the State's noise standards and people are still complaining. She asked if the Board wants to adopt a more restrictive standard? After continued discussion, the Board agreed to accept the proposed change, deleting the "adverse psychological and physiological affect." Commissioner Sullivan added that an appropriate place to deal with noise would be a nuisance ordinance rather than a UDC definition. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the Board has agreed that the mining issue will be set aside and dealt with separately. Stacie Hoskins suggested that staff draft a memo for the Board identifying all the sections where mining is addressed. Staff could get the memo to the Board within a month along with the proposed UDC amendments that the Board has accepted and any changes that they discussed. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that staff highlight the areas in the draft document that have been discussed over the last few days. The Board agreed that they would like to see mining dealt with as a separate issue. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ", ~; Phil J ohnson ~hair V~~ David W. Sullivan, Member ~mber ? ~ rzqt/1-.ui) J C/Yl C Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board -J Page 11 ec:', 'beD lr {.)c lolc H~ .'r n n~' J,f'> . ~ ~,,\ ~''i/ ~ t: ,', , M ~..' /, ~ ., "',1 :i 1: ~ f' ",o;!1 <-', ~.....f ". \: 1 ''\ \;~ '~J,,;:;:' '~:'..$-';~'#)' Ii"\,D' ,.' " U ,t~ ~. ~\i\ d<;( . I......; ".y-' t t4 -~ ~7.':'tr-.o :3.r'-~.S. F--l St< ::;:'0 Bo:{381 Quiicene wa. 98375 Jefferson Count v Commlssloner~ 1/1i.)j\)CJ j~ ( ~ c~ When YOU are considerIng the prpposea additions to tne UUL regarding cottage Indus~rles. car reaalr snaps should not De Included where they would be located in rural residen~ial areas. If- 'Iou do accept the proaosa'! . sa'foe gu.2':\t~CJS mus'\: be In place to protect neighboring land owners. as 1 Isted beiow. , 1. Tne repair shop must have their own private drIve accessIng cou.nty or state roads. to protect close neignbors form noise and dust genera~ed oy traffIc from de~ iverv trucks and cLlstomer cars. L I mi ted nours of opef'at ion an,j screenea from adJoining propertIes Dy trees or fences. 2. There must be safe guaras to protect the landq water table ana wells on adJOinIng prooerties. from possib)e pollution caused by oil, antifreeze. clea,nlng solvent'5. cattery aCId and Ol! spills. J. The Health department must inspect property several times a vear for violatIons ana Charge tne owner for cos~s t:o tne county. 4. The land re-evaOi Llated a car business 1S locatea on Should to be taxed as bUSiness property. De 5. If you approve tne car repa1r shops as a cottage industrv. a'( i app"j lcat Ions mu::.t be i ooked at on eon individual biases. On site inspection to see if they meet a stringent criteria before permiSSion is granted. Tnelr operation snouid never be grantee ii neignbors protest a business near their' propel~tv'. tnat e'j:fects their' peace and quiet of a rural home owner who bought prooerty to be away from close neighbOrs and traffiC noise. Please 00 not approve car repair snops in a rural area. J(-&~t; . ~L ~~~ o-v~~ ~ ub/'d:/; ~ uuU/.{~~4/~ ~ bar'o2tt~8;~. #~ JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT )l"h."\~ \led bi ~-f(.,\\k Kril(.y 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Pebtury 17. 201M AI ScaIt, ~r Ron SumllW'S Glacier Northwest P.O. Box 1730 Seattle, WA 98111 H .R~~\~ p}; ..~ ~.. "D l,ft 1 to t/' j,\ Ib. ~',f :U f\. .,;:, BB: Y.............,.. .,.......,.. ...QwItry DelrY'r. .II'~ Thank you for your letter dated Febroary 6, 2004 regarding a proposal tor accelerated extractIon of ma.teriaI at your Mats Mats Quarry to bid on the Port of Seattle's third runway project. This proposal would include removal of approximately seven mllIion cubic yards of matertals over a two year period include operating 24 hoUlS a dJJ.yn dJJ.ys a week. Based on the potential to increase off-site impacts we have concluded that Type ill zoning conditional use permit would be required (See Section 4.24(7)(a) of the UDC attached). This is based on the potential increased of off-site impacts including: noise (crushing, transport, barge); lights from night time operations; vibration from increased number and m~itudc of blasts; groundwater with accelerated excavation not providing adequate time to identify problems; changing the subsequent use of the property and how the property is reclaimed. The proposed improvements for a conveyor loading system would occur within a section of shoreline designated Suburban by the Shoreline Management Master Program. This facility would be considered either industrial/port facilities or piersJdocb, which both require a Secondary Use in the Suburban Shoreline designation. If the value of the proposed improvements exceeds $5,000 a Shoreline Substantial development permit would also be required. Finally, the Washington State DNR would have to make a SEP A determination whether your recent proposal dated Febmary 6, 2004 has more or less impacts than the proposal addressed in the FEIS completed July 17, 2003. If your recent proposal has more impacts then what was analyzed in the PElS then additional environmental review may be required. i> ?,..... "''';''''''~ _ BuiktingYennitslln$pections (360) 379-4450 Pevelooment'ReviewDt(jfion Lonu Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend. WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director Madrona Planning and Development Services 1256 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 August 3, 2001 Dear Ande: In response to your August 1, 2001 letter as to the activities at the Lakeside Industries batch plant on Hastings Avenue, please be advised that I conducted a site inspection at 6 a.m. this morning. I observed the start up operation with the two person crew. This includes opening the plant, performing maintenance and feeding material to the hopper prior to the batch plant being started at 7 a.m. Following a conversation with George Peabody this morning, Lakeside offers a solution to the concerns with the backup alann. Lakeside will install a noiseless optical back up alann on the front end loader by the end of next week. I reminded all parties of the UDC requirements for operation standards. We continue discussions with Lakeside over mining standards and I will infonn you of our progress in this area as the meetings continue. Should you have further questions, please contact me at 379-4493. Sin1RJ. ~ e Director of Community Development Cc: Charles Saddler, County Administrator David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Building Permits/ Inspections Development Review Division Long Range Planning .. ..'#'- , Josh Peters From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: AI Scalf Friday. August 03. 2001 7:29 AM Charles Saddler David Alvarez; Josh Peters Lakeside Inspection Report AI Scalf arrived at the Lakeside Plant on Hastings Ave at 6 am Friday August 3, 2001. The two man crew was mobilizing the site at this time. One foreman and one operator/laborer. I talked with the Foreman regarding the operation hours. He stated that the plant doesn't start until 7 am, however they perform maintenance and load the hopper before that time. I asked the Foreman if the Front End Loader had a back up alarm and he stated this was correct and equally mentioned this was a state L&I requirement. I informed the Foreman that the neighbors had complained of noise before 7 a.m. I told him that the operation hours were 7 -7. The Foreman said that the trucks come after 7 a.m. and he doesn't hit the switch on the plant until 7 a.m. Followup Action: DCD to contact Lakeside and review the definition of operation per UDC section 4.24.6 "All extraction and reclamation actMties that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, unless extended hours of operation are authorized for emergency purposes by the Administrator. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, electrical interference to the detriment of adjoining property or the persons having the quiet use and enjoyment of that adjoining property. " I will review the operation standards with Lakeside to determine if the hopper can be filled prior the the crew going home at night and not before 7 a.m. in the morning. AI Scalf 1 -. 'It' ~...... -;--... ~ ',/i,'.]/ J'e '. - (:L': \ JC U \; "-'- II H.. .; r i\ orA r.1:\ ~ r1"1$'l. fIr;. .Ii"~.~ "C" , ~at ~, :.', ,'I: ~ v; ,:; ..;:. 1../.' J ' f ~'.';' '.) g,,,,!: 'l:" i g ~~;i JUT> I,,}' 'V f\'-{ THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. TRACY ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW OLYMPIC PEAKS BUILDING 18887 STATE HWY #305 NE - SUITE 500 POULSBO, W A. 98370-7401 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 January 11,2006 DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE Jefferson County Board of Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, Washington In Re: Omnibus UDC Amendment Proposal Gentlemen: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the above referenced proposal. The difficult work undertaken by the Staff and Planning Commission in this periodic review of Jefferson County's Development Regulations is a thankless task, but one which will hopefully produce a code which is more user friendly, less vague and ambiguous in content, and more reflective of the mandates of the Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Specifically regarding the changes proposed to UDC Section 18.20.240, the initial Commissioner's public hearing on the proposed changes clearly demonstrated that several citizens were mistakenly interpreting language developed to clarify UDC Section 18.20.240(f) as modifying the status quo to expressly allow mining 24/7. This mistaken impression on the part of those testifying was purposefully fueled by the similarly incorrect information promulgated by the Hood Canal Coalition in their recent fund-raising appeal. Unfortunately, despite their clear attempt to generate public hysteria by alleging that this supposed "new" allowance of 24/7 mining was directly related to the economic viability ofFHM's pending Pit-to-Pier application, the HCC neglected to tell the public that any change to the UDC would not impact either FHM's MRL designations or the Pit-to-Pier application - a double misrepresentation, and doubly irrelevant to the question before the Board at this time. Concisely stated, no prohibition of night time mining operations exists in either the existing UDC or the proposed UDC amendments. The only requirements in either the existing or proposed code that differ between day and night mining operations are the applicable noise standards between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. which are reduced 10 dBA from daytime standards for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. (See WAC 173-06-040(b)) Page 1 of 2 , :,-- Further, FHM must observe that the current Section 18.20.240 proposal contains terms of such significant vagueness and ambiguity as to render the proposal virtually impossible to administer (or defend). For example, the use of the term "minimal adverse impact" on "surrounding areas" is clearly a vague and ambiguous basis upon which to determine "reasonable performance standards" for non-MRL mining operations. (See 18.20.240(1)) In addition, many critical terms are undefined and/or so relative as to be unsuited to a regulatory function, making an informed reading of the applicable requirements impossible. (See, for example, "to the extent possible", "appropriate to protect 'adjoining' lands", "unreasonable", '''detriment' of 'adjoining' property owners", "quiet use and enjoyment".) The proposed UDC amendments to Section 18.20.240 should not be adopted by Jefferson County in their current form. Despite the hyperbole and deliberate misinformation generated by the HCC in their continued opposition to FHM's Pit-to-Pier application, an opposition that is not based upon fact since the EIS has not yet been published, FHM has and will continue to participate in communication with the surrounding community which can lead to reasonable measures that will further decrease the impacts our operations have on the community. FHM pursues this "Good Neighbor" policy despite the obligation of the County to protect natural resource lands and processing activities from encroaching incompatible development. FHM believes that with a well informed and cooperative effort, more precise, balanced, and meaningful local regulation of mining operations is possible and will benefit all concerned. To that end, FHM requests that the County Commissioners convene an advisory panel, composed of Jefferson County staff, Planning Commission, industry, and community representatives, to review applicable law and standards, regulatory approaches of other Washington jurisdictions, available technology and best practices, actual operational performance and impacts, and then to deliver for your consideration a thoughtful, informed, and balanced approach for regulation of mining activities for inclusion in the UDC. Treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves will undoubtedly produce a better product for Jefferson County's citizens. FHM looks forward to working with you in that effort. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information. erely, Page 2 of 2 J ':r i:'. nAft?,..I~'I'" rkt...lflllt(:~nD H,';.;t '!. ~\ ~T d ri;I" ~'1j! It /.~ . !i I 11\' . ~ r"",k~: " i & 'i'l'\.f \ ~ ,1m ...,~f.' V I ~ .. .. ""V 111.Io\CU9 nq.J:1 ~ B ClO 'I30IP-" !-IOd p.. ;Jt.PlHMl .. 8 ~;; ~ oou......""'" ~ Z u~.aJ3IlI P" SUI3A"d 'q"-d .. ~ tllfJ-IIUI .itO" o 7' t8 (.lII;J!f"'_;j pu,aua.O) Su",1lP8J8D1IW 11I'J.I15"1 pta" (3.\0:) a~o} ~JI.p111 ",it, :e i IMO.) U"'~) 1 IlIp....WO:)/lIl.IJI;.po l'lI1tl ... ]'Wf.llSlIllIIl J>>Mf8~"-;}lI "O.lSMU:) ,W"3D;}!) \J <::::P :i plO.lll5C11':> "OI!5l.WOOq.lllq""~N ~ Us El p.QlliS....:>;):Iu~a"'.o.:> c U f ..3tu.a.)~j.,\ .....lJ .. llll A>>V OffJl() I 'ii e ~"3\, 0 IIflO I :sa j f Al3V ~flO I Ii ~ lulPlDqUI pow :; ,....lJ lVJ:l.1-O.:>- $.IO.!! ..:l ~ .. i ~ '1r.101 P'" ;)QI!oId - 1....'IR.1!o1lJV ~ ~ = ~ ..:l ... ..:l ~ ; t5 ~ U U U , = N ,;.; = = ~ ... = III ,;.; = ~ ... U :! .. "l:l ~ :; ..:l ~ ~ !E! l~ ~ .;;t i '-J III -- U G :sa -!:L j '"" .~ " ~ P 'J H f ~ '~ (j '-t '01' ~u~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~ '^ ~ - ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ :!~:! :!~:! '" '" '" ~~~ ~ :!~:! :! .. ~~~ ~ :!~:! ~ ~ ~~ M - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ (;) Z ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ (;) 0 Z Z (;) (;) Z Z o Z ~ .. ~ o 0 zz o Z (;) Z '" ~ o (;) zz ~ ~ ~ (;) (;) zz ~ ~ :! :!:! :! ~ '" ~ :!:! '" ., >- ~ :!:! :!:! :!~ .. :s ~>- :! ~ :! ~ :! ~ :! o .,U"!o ~~~~ .... ,-, Q I:;> tlO ~ .~ ~.5 .~~ ~ >. i:l;ii : 1 e- ~.5 r~ ~ ., all..I!lZ8~o:.o'''-8 ~ III ~ = tiil "l:: ...= ~ 8.- e ,-, 'Wl ,ElCl~.!l ~2 .s.I!l~ ~ j ~ .~ e :g .~ '!iJ "0 1$ 51'~ 1) -5 .g ~ e.! e]J .g, .,g j ~ .~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i ~ .~ !' ~ r: I:;> ~ .5 .s ~ ~ J!l ~ ~ :s e (;) , ~ ]I ~ ~ .... "-;E >< ~ ~ !j~~~J~Jj!g]J all .S .. = ~ b i l! - ~ 't;, ~'" Cls;::: ~-. ~~