Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 May COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING VITAL STATISTICS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HEALTH EDUCATION - JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 802 SHERIDAN PORT TOWNSEND, WASH. 98368 (206) 385-0722 HEALTH BOARD Minutes: May 20, 1986 BOARD MEMBERS: STAFF MEMBERS: B.G. Brown, Chairman John L. Pitts, Member Larry W. Dennison, Member Randall M. Durant, R.S. Charleta Handly, P.H.N. J. Peter Geerlofs, M.D. David Goldsmith, Adminis- trator CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Ison *********************************************************************** ********************************************************************* All staff members were present when Chairman B. G. Brown called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners John L. Pitts and Commissioner Larry W. Dennison were also present, as well as Prosecuting Attorney John Raymond and former Health Officer Dr. J. E. Fischnaller. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the April 16, 1986 meeting were approved as read by motion of Commissioner Pitts, seconded by Commissioner Dennison. PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE REPORT: Public Health Nurse, Charleta Handly reported the following nursing activities: * Various members of the nursing staff were involved with the following groups: Head Start Health Advisory Board, the Library Consumer Health Resource Center, Jefferson County Task Force on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Activities for Youth, Jefferson County Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, Chain Links (for Youth Providers), and the Interagency Council. Page: 2 Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 * * * * Two nurses attended the InfectioUs Disease WorkshoP for School District Employees, sponsored by the state Office of public Instruction. The contracts for school Nursing services are being re- negotiated and the nurses and Dr. Geerlofs have been looking at the Nurses role in the school, what the state recommendations are, and how nursing services to the schools can be increased. Two nurses participated in a washington state University Training session for support groUP leaders. One nurse attended a training session for state grant recipients because next year programs under contracts such as the MCH grant will be consolidated. * There was a local training session provided for the staff regarding the state crippled Children Services, since next year the implementation of this program will be done locally. The grant was amended to allow 50% funding from the state for this program instead of 20%. * Mary Tudor and Charleta HandlY attended a two day conference put on by the University of washington and the state regarding the programs throughout the state and nation on earlY intervention for "at risk" children. Mary Tudor's nationallY known pilot project was done in Jefferson County. * A nurse from the Children's orthopedic Hospital SIDS (sudden Infant Death syndrome) Center gave the staff the latest information available on SIDS. * The Health Department has been administering medicine to a man visiting from Everett. who is on T.B. medication. * The various clinics sponsored by the Health Department have had about average attendance during the past month. Since all of the school screening has been completed, the nurse has been able to do some health education in the schools, as requested by the teachers. * More information was received about the increase of measles cases in British columbia, canada. Last year there were about 1,700 cases of measles in B.C.. In the first 16 weeks of 1986 there have been over 5,000 cases. This is of concern because of the people who will be traveling to EXPO. people are being encouraged to make sure they have had their immunization and if not to get immunized. The "at risk" population is persons under 15 months of age; persons who have never been vaccinated, ~ Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 3 or persons who were vaccinated for measles at 12 months of age. * Chlomydia testing: The Health Department has worked out a program to do the Chlomydia test at the same time the other STD testing is done and the Jefferson General Hospital lab will take care of processing the tests through the laboratory they use. The Health Department will collect, up front from the client and the lab will bill the Health Department for the testing. This testing will cost $27.00 * A mother and daughter were hospitalized because they had flu like symptoms and diarrhea for a week, which turned out to be a case of salmonella poisoning. The nursing staff and the environmental health staff worked on this case. Follow up is being continued, though the source of the salmonella was never found. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REPORT: Randy Durant, Environmental Health Specialist, advised that his written report is self explanatory, but did make the following report about the radiation testing that is being done. The Health Department is submitting rainwater samples and the City of Port Townsend is submitting drinking water samples (three samples per week until further notice) to the State for radiation testing. The results on the samples are as follows: First rainwater sample taken off the roof of the Hospital: 5,300 pico curies (10,000 pico curies is the level of concern with 100,000 pico curies having an impact on health). First drinking water sample submitted last week: No detectable trace. Two samples are being collected: one prior to chlorination at City Lake and the one out of a tap in Port Townsend. Commissioner Dennison asked how this testing is being coordinated by the State? Randy Durant reported that the initial contact for sampling was made by Olympia. After that the Governor's office called and requested that rainwater samples be collected. A week later the request for drinking water samples was made. The State laboratory will test drinking water for concerned individuals for a fee of $45.00. HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR: Health Department Administrator, David Goldsmith, reported that the Senior Citizens Foot Care Program should be moving to the Port Townsend Community Center as soon as next Wednesday. The privacy screens have been purchased. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 4 The application period for the position of Director of Nursing will close at the end of next week. No applications have been received yet. This advertising is costly and the advertising budget for the year has been depleted. Since this is such an important position, the Department will, with the Board's concurrence, run the advertising budget in the red and expand the advertising coverage area by advertising in several selected journals. HEALTH OFFICER REPORT: Dr. Geerlofs reported that the Department has set a priority of increasing the Health Department's exposure in the schools. A meeting is being arranged for the middle of June with the three school district superintendents. A list of services that can be provided to the schools has been developed and will be presented to the Districts, as well as a list of what these services will cost. The clinical Health Department staff retreat will be held July 1, 1986. The day will be spent in developing a needs assessment which will look at all the possible roles the Department can play in the community, prioritize those roles, establish what the budget will allow and come up with an overall plan. Waiver Request to Ordinance 2-77 Section 4-lA; Juanita Bunch, Port Townsend Cookies, 227 Adams Street: Randy Durant reported that Ms. Bunch is requesting a waiver to the public restroom requirement of the Food Ordinance (Ordinance 2-77 Section 4-1A) for her cookie shop which will be located at 227 Adams next to the China Restaurant. There will only be three window seats for customers to wait while their take out orders are prepared. Single service coffee and milk will be served as well as cookies. An "Employees Only" restroom will be provided. Randy Durant recommended that the Board approve the waiver. Glenn Ison moved and Commissioner Dennison seconded the motion to approve the waiver as requested by Juanita Bunch. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of the Board. Remanded Rehearinq of Appeal; Ernest Criez, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 Paradise Bay Estates: Mr. & Mrs. Criez, their attorney Mr. Joe Ladd of Taylor and Taylor, Prosecuting Attorney John Raymond, former Health Officer Dr. J. E. Fischnaller and several other people were present when Chairman Brown stated that since one of the reasons this rehearing was remanded by the Court, was that the record was not clear for the previous appeal hearing, and he asked that anyone who speaks state their name. The Chairman then asked Randy Durant to give background on this matter. The following is a verbatim transcription of the balance of this appeal rehearing (Page 5 through page 30): Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 5 Randv Durant: What I've provided here is a cover listing of the main events from the time of the site evaluation in 1980 to the today's date. Also attached are some of the items listed in that order, along with the Minutes of the three Board of Health meetings that involved this review. In 1980, initially there was a site evaluation performed by the Health Department that found it conditionally acceptable. In December of 1983 a permit application was made by a buyer of the property. That application was acted on December 14, 1983, at which time I was on site, to evaluate the site and the soil conditions. At that point a letter was sent noting that the site would not be approved as per Jefferson County Ordinance 2-77 and State Board of Health WAC due to high water table and lack of a usable area. That letter is attached just below the application for permit and dated December 21, 1983. On January 4th there was an appeal hearing with Dr. Fischnaller and myself, the owners and Ed Haycock. We were again on the site in January, (13th) John Eliasson of the Health Department, to evaluate the high water levels in the soil logs that we had observed previously. This information, to date, was presented to the Board of Health on January 18th. Those minutes are attached on the bottom of the packet. Later on then, from that meeting Mr. Criez contacted Pac Tech Engineering and at this point on February 7th, myself and John Eliasson met Dennis Hanburg of Pac Tech on site to evaluate a preliminary proposal for a mound system. In March of '84 we were again on the site to evaluate water table levels. March 21st Board of Health meeting, the items were again reviewed. At that meeting it was decided that the Board visit the site. On the 27th of March, the Board members at that time, and myself made a site visit. At that point the Board requested that Dr. Fischnaller, the County Health Officer, and myself also look at the site. That occurred on the 4th of April, 1984. And at that point Dr. Fischnaller made a written recommendation to the Board which is the second letter in the packet dated April 4th which, at issue at that point in time was the setbacks from the beach. Mr. Criez made a request to the Board and the Health Officer to allow installation of a septic system closer than 75 feet, which would be the absolute minimum in the State Board of Health WAC's. Dr. 's recommendation was that he was opposed to such a waiver request to the State Board of Health. And that issue, that letter was taken up at the April 18, 1984 Board of Health meeting and that's the last minutes that are attached at the very back of the packet, where the final decision of the County was made. That involved some discussion and at that point, in, later on in May, excuse me, May 16th the Health Department received a copy of Application for Writ and from that point on, to date, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office has been involved. As you are aware we did receive an order recently from the Superior Court remanding for further review by the Board, which put us to today's meeting. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 6 Chairman Brown: O.K. does anyone have any further questions of Randy before we ask the proponent for their re-statement? Dr. Fischnaller would you like to add anything before we ah.... Dr. Fischnaller: (Unintelligible)....I feel that I . ............ there are many of ................ Chairman Brown: Then I would ask you, Mr. Criez, to present your proposal for the re-hearing and re-consideration. Mr. Criez: I'll be represented by Taylor and Taylor. Mr. Joe Ladd: My name is Joe Ladd and I'm here with Mr. Criez. I didn't have the benefit of seeing the entire package that was submitted by Mr. Durant. I had recently sent him copies of some things that Mr. Criez felt were part of the record previously and didn't appear in the Superior Court files. One is a letter from Dennis Hanburg to Mr. Durant dated March 23rd 1984. Unfortunately I only have one copy of that, I didn't know if that was a part of the package or not. And another was, apparently at one of the hearings, Mr. Criez had in addition to testifying orally had submitted some written testimony that apparently didn't appear in the record and I'd like to submit that as well. And finally, I had ah.. Chairman Brown: Could you tell us what date this was ah... Mr. Ladd: Do you recall what hearing that was Mr. Criez? Mr. Criez: At the appeal. Mr. Ladd: At your appeal hearing. Mr. Criez: Right Mr. Hanburq: So if we could refer to the ah, either that or the March 21st meeting or the Chairman Brown: The back letter on here, it says ah Dear Dennis, you are who Dennis is? Dennis Hanburq: Unintelligible Mr. Ladd: Let me separate part of this. Mr. Criez: Only a portion of that was submitted as the testimony. Mr. Ladd: I'll separate that and hand that to you. The final matter that I had requested of Mr. Durant. I sent him a letter recently. And I realize that most of the people involved in this matter have been out to the site at one time or another, ah, I'm not a professional on waste disposal systems. I discussed the case though, with a man that I, one of the people that I consider to be professional, that's Mr. Hanburg. He felt it would be appropriate to meet again with the present Health Officer, with Mr. Durant, hopefully with one or more of the Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 7 Commissioners at the site with the Engineer, so that he could explain the system that he is proposing for that piece of property, and answer any questions ah, that anyone might have regarding the installation of that system. He is here today, I think the bulk of what's going to be said today from Mr. Criez's point of view will be presented by Mr. Hanburg. I would like to request that the Board consider adjourning the hearing and meeting at some point. I realize it's difficult to juggle all these times and the position and all these people together at the site. I think it's the most appropriate way to view the site, the system that's being proposed and have the questions that I'm sure you'll have about the system, answered. I think an important part of the history of this case, it occurs right at the beginning, in August of 1980 when the site evaluation was conducted. And I realize that on the original site evaluation there's a little red stamp that says, this is just an evaluation, this is not an approval. But, I think the people that have heard this case before know, and those that haven't I'll state it now, Mr. Criez went to great pains to contact people in the Health Department about this piece of property. He didn't purchase this piece of property for at least a year after the time that this site evaluation was conducted. He had ongoing conversations and discussions with people in the Health Department about the viability of building on that piece of property. He was very prudent in what he was trying to do. He didn't just go out and buy an piece of property, he checked with the people that he thought would know about the viability of building on that property and he followed the assertions that were made to him, both on this piece of paper, and in some other letters and conversations that he had with people in the Health Department. He's only asking that people be reasonable in terms of, and he's willing to be reasonable in terms of building on his property. He's accommodated people in the past. He's willing to do just about anything that the Board of Health deems appropriate in terms of establishing a system. He's invested his life savings in this property. He's unable to retire from his employment right now, because all the money that he has is tied up in this piece of property. And the property as it stands now, is basically not sellable. So, we're asking that you keep those matters in mind when you listen to the presentation that will be made by Mr. Hanburg. Dennis Hanburq: My name is Dennis Hanburg and I'm with Pac Tech Engineering. I became involved in this site in January of 1984, is approximately a month after the denial was made on the site. first thing that I did was to contact the Health Department and with Randy as indicated in the notes. We prepared a drawing to mound system or enhanced treatment system that could be used to minimize the amount of area that we're taking up on the site with the drainfield system and still allow us to build on the property. We ran into ah, and I have a drawing here of what I presented, once again I only have two copies, but you're welcome to them. This was done in the location of the soil logs that were viewed in December of 1983. They which The meet show a Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 8 were cleaned out at the time that I investigated the soil logs. They show two ah, the drawings show several things. First off it shows a arc going through the rectangular box which is the mound system, indicating a 75 foot setback from the bulkhead. At the time there was a problem with the bulkhead, as part of it had collapsed over time, eroding the land behind the bulkhead and much of the testimony that went on at that time had to do with the repair of that bulkhead to bring the, to regain that land that was lost by the loss of the bulkhead. The second line on there, the second arc, is an indication of what was identified as a mean high tide. We were discussing the State regulations that were in effect at the time, that required a setback of 100 feet from the mean high tide. That line was established as best as could be done through tide tables and investigation by Mr. Criez and, I don't recall the other individual at that time. That data was brought back and put onto my drawing which is indicated as an estimated mean high tide line. You can see that that's different from the bulkhead line and with that information we propose that we could put in a mound system to support a one bedroom, single family residence. The ah... Mr. Ladd: Excuse me Dennis. This is an aerial photo of the property (unintelligible). Mr. Hanburq: Our initial work on the site was to review the drainfield area. During the time that we reviewed it, in January and February, we did not find as high a water table as indicated by Randy in previous examinations. In fact, I have some photographs of.. Commissioner Pitts: Excuse me that was in January? Mr. Hanburq: January, taken by Mr. Criez on leave these right now right. Ah I have some photographs that were the 17th of January indicating, I'll go ahead and also.. Chairman Brown: 17th of January of what year? Mr. Hanburq: Of 1984. Which would have been about a month after his inspection of the site, indicating approximately, at least a two foot separation based on the two rulers that were taped together in these photographs. We recognize that there was water in the soil logs, the soils were sandy and we felt that we could alleviate some of that problem by putting a curtain drain up along shore drive. In addition to that the main things that we had submitted a request for, ah variance for, was the setback requirements. There is a creek to the south of the property, which we indicated on our drawing, and then there was also the setback from the mean high tide, and we have requested a variance of 75 feet in both cases, primarily because the site was an existing lot of record platted long before the current regulations that are in effect or that were in effect at that time as well. Also, due to the fact that putting in a mound system that would provide better filtration of the sewage effluent by filtering the Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 9 effluent down through the sand composite of the mound prior to encountering the soils and moving laterally through the soils, laterally and downward through the soils towards the water or the creek. We had, as you can see by the drawing, we show a one bedroom or a two bedroom mound system. From my conversation with Mr. Criez, a one bedroom is satisfactory to him and that is the darker box that we were showing at that point. We also see within that box a smaller rectangle, which is outside of the 75 foot radius of both the creek and the mean high tide line that was established. That is a primary area of the drainfield, itself. That's where the bed and the standard gravel and pipes have been located. The rest of that rectangle represents a mound of medium sand that the sewage effluent would pass down through. So in essence, the bed portion of the system would meet a 75 foot requirement easily and in my drawing I've also shown a majority of the sand meeting that requirement as well. That somewhat brings the record of the meeting that I attended up to date and what I was trying to do with the site. Commissioner Pitts: I just have a question in regard to, you keep referring to the 75 foot requirement, isn't it 100 feet? Dennis Hanburq: That was, but my request was for a reduction to 75 feet and that that be reviewed either by the County or by the State to grant a variance in this case due to the fact that it was an existing lot of record and that we are providing enhanced treatment that would alleviate this, the 100 foot setback. Chairman Brown: that I saw where foot setback, is I thought somewhere back through the correspondence that a variance had been asked for even from the 75 that not, that wasn't a fact? Dennis Hanburq: That could have been, the initial variance could have been for a two bedroom home which portions of that mound system are outside of that, or would have had to be over the 75 feet. Chairman Brown: Infringed on the 75 foot setback. Dennis Hanburq: Right, right. The modification for the one bedroom home was made at a later date. Chairman Brown: Because, yeah, here it says a waiver to allow the mound system drainfield closer than 75 feet from the stream and the beach, would have to come from the Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services. Mr. Hanburq: Right. The initial intent was to attempt to put a two bedroom home out there as was originally reviewed the site evaluation and was modified to a one bedroom. Chairman Brown: Thank you. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 10 David Goldsmith: And you made that from you said, ordinary high water? Mr. Hanburg: From mean high tide was the definition that was established in the 1976 Blue Book of State regulations. David Goldsmith: Do you recall what that tidal elevation was? Dennis Hanburq: No I don't. I did not get involved in the elevation, other than what little information was provided. David Goldsmith: That's mean high tide. Mean high or high tide or.? Dennis Hanburq: Mean high tide. Chairman Brown: Do you have anything else to present Mr. Criez, or Mr. Ladd? Mr. Ladd: I don't believe so, Mr. Criez. .I'm sorry, Mr. Criez has indicated to me that at one point Dr. Fischnaller had ah offer, I believe, that the 75 foot variance was appropriate in this case. I guess we should clarify that the one bedroom mound system that's being proposed by Mr. Hanburg, would fit within that variance of 75 feet, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Hanburq: Yes it would. Chairman Brown: So that you are in fact, not asking for a variance from the 75, but asking from, to have it back down from the 100 foot, which is required, to 75, but nothing less than that. Mr. Ladd: And it's his professional opinion that he can construct the system there that will meet that 75 foot requirement. Randy Durant: May I add, the point at which is being measured from in Mr. Hanburg's proposal, is at a point that we do not agree with as far as the point to measure from to determine the setback. Chairman Brown: I think that I remember that there was some discussion about that at that time because of ah, of the bulkhead and the condition of the bulkhead and some portion of it that was falling down or something. Randy Durant: In your packet there is a letter, directly below the main events description, from David Lenning, Wastewater Management Specialist from DSHS dated May 23, 1984. Where, if (unintelligible)..perhaps you should read that because this is really the ah ... Chairman Brown: The letter that Randy is referring to is the letter of May 25, 1984 which was received by the Health Department and written on May 23rd by the Department of Social and Health Services that is in answer to a letter that you had sent previously? Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 11 Randy Durant: In answer to confirmation Jefferson County, been measuring the ah the old regs as well as the new regs. of the manner which we had, in 100 or 75 foot setback, under End of Side A of Tape 1. Chairman Brown: Reading from DSHS letter dated May 23, 1984 -- "The existing regulations, June 1974, state that the measurement be made from the mean high water line. The new regulations, July 1983, specify the measurements be from the ordinary high water mark. The change in terms was made to be consistent with other State law and with what had been practiced. The 1974 regulations do not give a definition for mean high water. In practice, however, the setback measurement were made from points that are consistent with the definition from ordinary high water mark. This is the interpretation that has been given from this office and that has been consistently applied throughout the State. While the terms are changing, the points from which the setbacks from surface water are to be measured remain the same. The points are those contained in definition of ordinary high water mark." I think that ah, that this is what Randy is referring to that he based his decision on where the 75 feet should start being measured from and that there's a difference of, ah, I don't know if that was the designers interpretation of the high water mark or if that was yours, Mr. Criez. Whose definition of where the mean high tide was? Mr. Criez: The mean high tide? I called the United States Coast Guard and asked them what their definition of the mean high tide was or of the ordinary high water. I also asked Randy and he said that it's the vegetation line in this case which is exactly where our position is, the new rules say vegetation line. The old ones say high tide, mean high water level. Chairman Brown: I think Randy's point was that even before it said vegetation, that was the measure that Jefferson County had traditionally used. Is that not true Randy? That was what we did in the past. Mr. Criez: I believe that's what he said and when asked if that is the ordinary high water mark, I was told no, that's the vegetation line and due to the condition of the bank it would be clear back up to the first growth which, nothing grows in salt water, so it would not allow any beach. Dr. Geerlofs: I'm confused by mean, it says mean high water line versus mean high tide. Are those separate things, I'm confused, water line versus tide. I don't... Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 12 Randy Durant: What he is referring to in the old rules and regulations they talk about setbacks from surface water, they used the terminology of mean high water, terminology. In the new regulations under definitions, they have a definition of ordinary high water mark. They don't even talk about mean high water any more. And that is basically defined as where you see a change in vegetation. And what Mr. Lenning's letter is saying is that, there is really no difference in how these were applied between the old and new regs, but here it's just further clarified. Dr. Geerlofs: The intention all along had been this, but it wasn't clear until to my knowledge. Randy Durant: Right, and if you see the site, the line at which it is proposed on the map, you're on the beach I don't know how many feet. Mr. Criez: adjacent to was. . We're right in line with the County bulkhead which is it. If its' attached to an illegal bulkhead, I'd assume it Chairman Brown: For the length of time it's been there it could or could not be legal under the guidelines today. If it's been there for. . Mr. Criez: I don't know if there's a permit required or what? Chairman Brown: I'm not sure either, or what length of time its' been there or what kind of regulations were in force at that time. Mr. Criez: Well one thing on the ? that you could have. The southern most point of that bulkhead is actually the only point. That was supposed to be the property line which was where the mean high tide was originally platted. From that line over to the County bulkhead is the (unintelligible)..spot of land across the.. But actually when the tide is up to that southern most point its' out on the beach quite a ways beyond the bulkhead. The only change on the regulations that I can see was a change in terminology from the designation of high water to vegetation line. Chairman Brown: Well, and it's my recollection that the County had always used the change of vegetation from water vegetation, from salt water vegetation to fresh water vegetation as our means of determining where the high water mark was, and you know, I think that's, you ask Randy what's, I mean Peter, what's the difference between high water mark and high tide? (Dr. Geerlofs: That's why I asked the question) Well, I suppose that you could argue that to some degree but we just generally use where the salt water grasses stopped, if there was salt water vegetation, and where the fresh water grasses began, was our high water mark. As far as talking salt water, the regulations even talk of fresh water, now, in that situation I'm not sure how it was interpreted as far as the creek would have went because that's freshwater. You have to be talking about any kind of vegetation, I guess, there, Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 13 because where the water goes traditionally all the time why, there is no vegetation. So I guess that I, really don't know that I can give you any better explanation than that, maybe someone else can. Mr. Ladd: Okay, I think the point that Mr. Criez made is well taken, that nothing grows very well. And obviously the mean tide is the high tide which is the average, it's not designed for the highest possible tide, it's the ordinary tide or the mean tide. Dr. Geerlofs: Well, I guess what I'm concerned about is that, that tide is used here in the drawing, but I don't see it here in the WAC. (Several people talking at once). Tide or water? Randy Durant: Mean high water. Dr. Geerlofs: Is that the new or the old? Randy Durant: The old. David Goldsmith: call up the Coast different. Mean high tide is a calculable situation, you can Guard and get mean high tide. Mean high water is Dr. Geerlofs: That's what it.. it seems like when you say a mean high water line, that what you're talking about is something that you look at and see kind of a line as opposed to a calculable, wait at a certain time of year to grow. David Goldsmith: But even so, it would be interesting to find out what the mean high tide was for that particular area in March '84 because we could probably get an idea where on the beach line that thing is going to, the average of the high tide will be. Mr. Hanburg: Part of the work that ah I believe they did was to look at some tide charts between Port Townsend and whatever, you know they don't have those at that exact beach, and try to interpolate between them and based on that indicate where the mean high tide is. David Goldsmith: Then they'll ...(unintelligible) beach. Commissioner Pitts: Your firm did that? Dennis Hanburg: No, we did not. Commissioner Pitts: Who did that for them? Dennis Hanburg: Mr. Mr. Criez: Haycock and myself. We did a couple of things, that takes, that was with tide books just trying to estimate as best we could. We also took the line on that bulkhead that I was telling you about, the southern most point, one day we waited for the tide to come to that point, and sighted down the tide line on the beach. It came awfully close to the same area. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 14 Commissioner Pitts: So Mr. Hanburg.. Commissioner Dennison: But the engineers didn't do any calculation at all on the line? Dennis Hanburq: We did not follow through any of the ah, we were not asked to do anything on the mean high tide. Commissioner Dennison: But isn't that pretty important to your calculation? Dennison Hanburq: Ahm, that line is important, yes. Commissioner Dennison: Critical. Commissioner Pitts: So in other words, you adopted their data and applied it to your technical drawing. Dennis Hanburq: That's right. Commissioner Pitts: Okay. Dr. Geerlofs: The second area that I wanted to ask you about it and, Randy maybe you can help me with this, I think an important point was brought out that, that if you look at the mound system, the actual system within the mound system. Okay, it's the smaller rectangle, is there any guidance that you know of, in terms of really where do we have to measure the 75 feet from? Randy Durant: From the toe of the mound. Dr. Geerlofs: So it does say specifically, where that mound system Randv Durant: Well, I don't think it says that specifically that's why we've been advised by Dave Lenning's office. That is part of the septic system and the measurements are from the septic system itself. We measure from the toe for setback. Dr. was was Geerlofs: And then the mean high water the distance to the what was the difference between what you line and this estimated mean high tide? single car, or single bedroom? felt What Randv Durant: At closest point, I believe it was from this point, from the pipe, wasn't it from that pipe, Dennis? (Dennis Hanburq: That's correct. That would have been the second arc.) 52 feet. Mr. Criez: The pipe is on the bulkhead itself. Randy Durant: Correct. That was used as a point of reference. David Goldsmith: The bulkhead line is the, wouldn't it have a water mark? Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 15 Randy Durant: It appears it would have been. David Goldsmith: That's where you were.... Commissioner Pitts: Isn't it ah, this is my memory, this is back to 1984, it's two years ago, isn't there some indication where there's a breach in this bulkhead. The water certainly has gone past that and there is some erosion of the soil and vegetation hangs over that, and there's a bank there as I recall, isn't there? Dennis Hanburg: The bulkhead has been repaired and established to the ah, well it's been pulled in at that point where you can see that it's been broken. Mrs. Criez: This is a recent photo. Commissioner Dennison: I think the point is though that the breach in the bulkhead, something had to breach it. Mr. Criez: Winter storm, as a matter of fact my mother-in-law was there when the thing went out. It was one of these horrible New Year's Day storms that broke that bulkhead. That, plus the fact that they allowed that boat ramp to be put in there. Which necessarily lowered the beach about two feet, and this damaged the footing that was over there. Commissioner Pitts: So this was your mother-in-Iaw's property? Mr. Criez: This is the Bunny cabin. Commissioner Pitts: I'd like to ask some questions of Mr. Hanburg about mound systems. What's the minimum amount of soil that it takes for a mound system to work? Dennis Hanburg: The minimum table that the State has allowed has been ah, 24 inches in the past, we could reduce that to 18 in some, on some sites. P..(unintelligible) would be in is at least a foot or so. The State requirement, as I said a few minutes ago is 24 inches. Commissioner Pitts: Why have they reduced that to 18 inches? Dennis Hanburq: They found the system has been acceptable as a filter medium to ah, to allow a reduction and allow a mound system on a site with lesser soils. Commissioner Pitts: So that's a site by site variance to 18 inches? Dennis Hanburq: No I don't, do you know anything further on that? Steve Wecker: No. Steve Wecker also with Pac Tech Engineering. They ah, the State is right in the process of finishing up a revision of the mount guidelines through the technical review committee, and they are Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 16 looking at some major changes to the mound system. Basically the original guidelines, that have been in use since they were promulgated, have been put in to survey and they're looking at, one thing they're looking at installing mounds on steeper slopes. They're looking at installing some mounds in shallower soils. There's another a, a number of other Counties installing them on less depth. Probably one of the bigger counties that's doing them is Pierce County where they're looking at 24 inches of soil, and they're looking at only 18 inches to a water table. And they're doing, routinely doing installations on that type of a depth. So is San Juan County, which is using one of theirs which is looking at approximately 13 inches, but also being on new sites around the 18 to 24 mark. The regulations, the State regulations have always been that they would like three feet of soil between the bottom of the trench and an impermeable layer of the water table, and then they come back and they say but that could be reduced by the Health Department to one foot. And that's kind of been the magic number, as looking somewhere between one foot and three feet, and I don't envision them going down to one foot and varying in the future, but they're getting closer and closer to that level, so we're dealing at 18 inches right now. Commissioner Pitts: Are you two soil scientists or are you engineers? Dennis Hanburq: Registered Sanitarians. Commissioner Pitts: Does that mean that you're soil scientists? You're not. Steve Wecker: We're both former Health Department employees. I was a past Director of the San Juan County Health Department, and worked in Clallam County before that and have been in the profession for 10 to 12 years designing sewage systems, mound systems, conditional systems. Commissioner Pitts: So your Sanitarians and not either Engineers or Soil Scientists, correct? Steve Wecker: Right. Commissioner Pitts: Thank you. Dr. Geerlofs: And what was the soil depth at ... Commissioner Pitts: I think Mr. Hanburger said at least two feet with some water in the soil within that two feet. Is that a correct... Mr. Hanburq: Below that two feet. Commissioner Pitts: Below that two feet. Dennis Hanburq: As indicated on those pictures taken the 24th, the 17th of January. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 18 soil, it may be the fact that there are no potable sources of water around or that its a minimal amount of pollution or the potential is really low. The regulations, my understanding is they're promulgated to reduce the health impact. So, the fact that I could have a stream nearby, and in this instance that close, is also a non water source and is now entering into the salt water, may be an optimum condition. The other thing that we, if we're proposing some alternative to enhance the treatment prior to disposal into the ground, which is what a mound does, or pressure distribution, um, the instance Dennis said about water sources nearby. We've done that reduced down to 75 and even in some extreme cases down to 50 based upon the fact that the well is being well protected. So you're looking at the impact on the pUblic's health and that's usually what's expected in the rationale. They're saying we're using this based upon these being the reasons why. Commissioner Dennison: And what you're saying in this case is that what we held is endangered as a result of this setback? Steve Wecker: I think that's what we feel is our position because in going through it looking at the fact that the well in the immediate area, or the creek is not a source of potable water. The salt water is not a source of potable water. In response your offering a mound system compared to a conventional system, so we're providing enhanced treatment prior to disposal into the soil. In looking at all those factors, the slopes that are flowing onto it, that we're not dealing in our, in very porus native soil below the drainfield. So, we're not expecting to see sewage or components of the sewage system, chemical or bacteriological in nature, travelling to a great extent. We're looking at what the soil is doing, both the soil in the mound and the soil that's natively there and what actions its going to have on the sewage. And it's our conclusion again, that that is, those are mitigating enough circumstances to allow a reduction to 75 feet. Commissioner Dennison: Are potable water sources the only public health problems that we have? I mean the fact that the public also uses the beach and the salt water with everything else, sometime they drink it before it can be to a certain extent, is that a fact or does that enter into the equation anywhere? Steve Wecker: No. They obviously are not and that's one factor, again. . . Commissioner Dennison: Well why would they have the set, well why would the setback be from salt water then? Steve Wecker: Dealing with porosity in the soil, the type of treatment system. Commissioner Dennison: Well I know, but what I'm saying is that if that, if there's no public health factor involved there then why even bother with a setback from the salt water if people don't drink it? Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 19 Steve Wecker: But they're also, like you say, if it's going to result in surfacing on top of the beach when you've got trafficking going through there. Another gross example would be, when we're standing by a fairly steep bank, not considered a bank, yet fairly steep, and our drainfield's going to located 25 feet back from mean high tide, which puts it 10 feet away from this sloping site, so when we've got a system in say Class 21 soils, very poor soil, you end up having sewage travelling out from the permeable layer down below, surfacing and coming down the bank and entering on top of the ground and it's a public beach area, you could see that there would be enough other consideration there. It's a, again, it's a judgement call and it's dealing with public health and that's why rather than a soil scientist or an engineer you may be dealing with someone like a sanitarian who is trying to look at not just potable water, but obviously the impact on ____ moving through it, the impact on the soil and what's going to happen when that sewage does surface up on the ground? There is a point and what are the current public health impacts dealing with something like this? And that's why it becomes more or less a judgement call. Commissioner Dennison: And who's responsibility it is, if the judgement call is wrong, and that's sort of the way I have to look at it. If there was some way to assign you fellahs the responsibility once it's done and something happens, then perhaps we can look at a different story but, when I know that regardless of how good you are, or whatever, if something goes wrong, here's where the responsibility sticks. Randy Durant: I might point out also that as far as treatment from the soil, is that on four different occasions that we went on the site we saw the water table fluctuate from nine inches just below the surface, to as low as 52 and then back up to 8 inches over a period of four visits from November of '83, I mean December of '83 to March of '84. Steve Wecker: Once again we propose in our drawing to put a curtain drain on the upper side of that, so that would definitely show the permeability of the soil, and take the curtain drain and take that drainage coming from the other side of the road and also off of the road and run it around the site and by placing the mound on top of that we would expect good percolation down to the mound system into the soils. Commissioner Dennison: We just got, we have, I don't know, let me run this by everybody. But just not to long ago, what was the guy's name out there that lives right over here and water is coming down that hillside and its' knocking his bluff loose. Chairman Brown: last spring. It washed the soil, it washed a big chunk out of there Commissioner Dennison: Haakenson. He lives right over here. Right there. Okay. You know this slopes up and there's a house right here Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 20 and the County just got through building, I don't know how many thousands of dollars worth of ditch work on this side to try and improve the drainage. And we don't have any idea whether we've done, whether we've done that, as a matter of fact our engineer basically stated that he didn't think it was going to do much good, that the water that was coming down through the soils, was not necessarily surface runoff but subterranean and that's within, that's within 50 feet of this lot that that kind of a problem exists. They... Mr. Criez: might point top of that There are, there are four lots out Haakenson's place is built is just laying there. between the two. Also I on lava rock. The soils on Commissioner Dennison: Yea but the thing about it is, it's not Haakenson's property that's generating an incredible amount of water movement. Underground water, and it was determined by our Engineer that, I mean, they've talked about curtain drains and all kinds of things up there and none of them being feasible for the amount of water that was coming down off that hillside. Chairman Brown: To my recollection they felt that even though we, see we, the work we did we did on the opposite side of the road. They felt it was, it would still be necessary for Mr. Haakenson, but in this case this person could put a curtain drain on their side of the road to try and do something with that too, because there's still going to be a certain amount of water.... Commissioner Dennison: And the only reason I bring that up is because, and I've been out there to the site, to see the amount of water that is coming through there and there is a lot of water coming through the ground out there. And it brings into question whether or not, or you know, how effective, how effectively you can abate that that amount of water that is coming through there. Dennis Hanburq: I would expect that the work that you've done could have helped this site, however, I wouldn't rest any, any guarantee on that without putting in some sort of a drain ourselves. Primarily because the closer you are to that, the zone of influence of that curtain drain, the better off you're going to be. We're talking about putting one up and then being legally down slope of that. Commissioner Dennison: I wouldn't be a bit surprised, it wouldn't surprise me if, if part of the reason for the breach in that bulkhead might have been migration of the soils on the upland side. And I've got no way of proving that, but we know that there's a, there's a real problem there and the problem seems to, doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot better. Mr. Criez: I just ah, when the bank was there we put the rock back in to keep the winter storms from washing it out, that bank was absolutely dry, at all times. Low water and no streams running through there, the rest of Haakenson's water running down on the beach from their Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 21 property. And where the stream is south of us, that bank was just powder dry all the time. It was a puzzle to us when we did find water in the holes that we dug for the Health Department. But, we went up every week and my Realtor kept track of it every day during the same period of time Randy was there and it did fluctuate, but it's funny that neither of us ever saw it as high as Randy did, but there were some horrendous rain storms during that same period of time, to where it washed out my mother-in-Iaw's driveway, coming down Alder Road there which is, and went into the stream and broke the water main up along the road. And water running down that road into the stream. So there was an awful lot of bad weather during that period of time and I can see where it could fluctuate just from surface water. Commissioner Dennison: And of course, we have to plan for the worst case because they do happen and unfortunately, in this day in age, when we've got, we don't have nearly as much ground cover as we used to have and. Mr. Criez: The pictures I took were what we saw during the same period of time. So, apparently if it did fill up it must have absorbed it very rapidly. Commissioner Dennison: Obviously somebody has lived out there for a long time. Any idea what caused a breach in the sea wall, in the bulkhead? It had to come from one side or the other on either side causes me some concern because it.. Mr. Criez: It was, yeah, we had witnesses to water was breaking clear over the top of it. the top of the bulkhead. what happened to it. The The waves were clear over Commissioner Dennison: That sounds like high water. Mrs. Criez: This was a bulkhead that was not installed properly. Commissioner Dennison: Well, and the only point that I would make at that point, is that, is that it seems like to me the reason, one of the reasons at least that you build a bulkhead is to keep salt water from washing out your property. Mr. Criez: That isn't the case. Previous owners a long, quite a long. . Commissioner Dennison: The point, the point being you don't, you're not going to build one too much further above what you expect, where you expect the water, the high water to come. Mr. Criez: Well you can see right adjoining it there... Commissioner Dennison: And it seems like to me that our regulations are built around that, whatever that high water mark is. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 22 Mr. Criez: I don't know whether that picture shows, but the adjoining bulkhead is lower and we've never had water storm over that, that was just a strange storm. Plus at that time, that I mentioned that that exposed the footing of that bulkhead which was a bad deal. Dr. Geerlofs: I-d just like to comment, obviously the fact that we have two opinions, we've had two opinions about this tells me that to some degree this is a marginal situation. Would you agree? I mean it's not a clear cut, everyone walking into the situation would say one or the other, I mean there's points for both sides. So, it's one of the classic dilemma's of you know, rights of the individual versus rights of society in terms of protecting society and that's what the Health Department's all about. I'm just wondering, if given the fact that it is marginal and so far the Health Department has been uncomfortable of dealing with the liability associated with and O.K. on a, what it sees as a very marginal situation, do you see, is there any solution or potential solution in what you could do to the property that would make it less marginal prior to actually coming up with a decision? I was thinking, I don't know if this makes any sense, but for instance if a curtain drain has potential for changing the water table considerably, and that, would it, does it make any sense to do the curtain drain and reassess the property and come up with a decision then? Obviously there is cost and risk involved, in it. Dennis Hanburq: That was brought up. The ah, the problem with the curtain drain was that it ah, we felt that we had two problems here, one of them is setbacks and one of them is water table. If there was not going to be any agreement on setbacks then there was no point in pursuing the curtain drain. I agree with you it should be installed and that's quite an expense to put in if the setbacks are still in question. Dr Geerlofs: The problem is the setback, especially, I mean, you know we're talking about somewhere between 75 and maybe as low as 50 feet depending upon whose interpretation you're using, represents a fairly, it's really a judgement call. I mean it's really, I'm sure you could find experts on either side who are going to say yeah it's going to be safe or no it's not going to be safe. It's a judgement call and I don't see, what I'm hearing is so far the Health Department has been uncomfortable with it, especially with the 50 feet, that judgement call. So I don't know how the Health Department could at any point ever guarantee a setback until you have soils that make it less of a judgement call. Steve Wecker: Is the Health Department concerned about a 75 foot setback? Commissioner Pitts: Under the circumstances that you have outlined and been outlined by the water samples, yes because I'm concerned about the depth of the water and the bottom of that system to the water and not knowing whether this curtain drain will in fact help. Again it seems to me that it's a lot easier to give setbacks and variances when the Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 23 optimum conditions exist as opposed to the minimum conditions that exist. And we're trying to add not only to the minimum conditions for a normal system would, in creating an artificial system to meet the standards. So, it makes it very difficult to make a decision knowing that a variety of storm systems occur from land and from sea, and this is a very small lot and that the proximity of two sources of water. It does make it extremely difficult to. Dennis Hanburg: I guess my question is back to, it's still two items, one is water table and one is setback, and if, as long as I can speak in terms of If right now, if the water table can be reduced and shown to be below the minimum requirements, then is the 75 setback, the 75 foot setback acceptable? The 75 foot setback on the bulkhead. Chairman Brown: It occurs to me that at least Dr. Fischnaller inferred to some degree that the 75 foot setback might be permissable, but the big problem came when it was interpreted, at least by the Health Department, that your mound system was only about 50 feet from the salt water and I think therein lies the problem, there lied the problem before, was that, and you know I, it seems to me that it was acceptable, the 75 foot was acceptable, at some concern to people but from where that the Health Department measured, it was less than 75 feet, from where that you interpreted to measure it was 75 feet. So I think there's, therein lies a problem. Dr. Geerlofs: That has to be solved. That has to be resolved. You know that's the first thing that has to be resolved really, is where.. Commissioner Dennison: It's, you know there are so many different problems that exist altogether that it's really difficult for us to say yeah well if you can, because really when you talk about a variance, I think, I agree with John, you know you can, you can vary a certain amount or certain degree when you have an optimum situation. But to say we need a variance from the setback and we need a variance, somehow, we need to somehow mitigate a water table problem, and of all that we're going to put in an alternative septic system, that's putting us in a bind. That really puts us in a corner. on top is, I mean. Commissioner Pitts: May I ask a question? Is there a possibility of having a third party to define what the mean ordinary water whatever the currents, will the State come out and determine what in fact they designate as that point? Randy Durant: DSHS who would Departments.. I can, someone, it probably would be Dave Lenning from do that. From the standpoint of by Health Commissioner Pitts: It seems to me that I would be more willing to say, I would certainly consider 75 foot if I knew from which point we were dealing with and whether it is, in fact, a 50 or 75 foot point and also, like you say, it would be easier for me to know that, in fact, this curtain drain does have a positive effect on the water table. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 24 Once we know, and those points in this formula are determined, then it's easier for us make an exception and get it over with. Dr. Geerlofs: I think it needs to be step wise, I mean I think the first step is to determine the point and if we can agree that the point is 75 feet, (Commissioner Pitts: Yeah, I think that's then we can give a much greater assurance if you do that) cause what I'm hearing is that, Dr. Fischnaller said that even with existing water table that 75 feet is possible. Even without the curtain drain, Joe, or is that with the curtain drain, your, when you were saying? Dr. Fischnaller: Well that was without a curtain drain, ah as a matter of fact we saw, we had that 50 feet in my mind as I recall, and that absolutely knocked it because I was not going to put my signature on that without the State, they would have thought I was nuts. Dr. Geerlofs: Okay, so when you were saying the, when you had comfort with the 75 was that comfort, assuming that the curtain drain was put in? Dr. Fischnaller: I was not comfortable with it, I would have liked 100 feet, but that was absolutely impossible and one of our jobs is to help the landowner do anything he darn pleases, if we can do it legally without hurting his neighbors. Dr. Geerlofs: So is that with or without the curtain drain that you were saying that, you know you weren't completely comfortable with? Dr. Fischnaller: No, I didn't even consider a curtain drain because ah. . Dr. Geerlofs: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is if we could establish 75 feet. If we could establish that it was 75 feet, there's. . Dr. Fischnaller: Well the Health Officer may in his wisdom decree that it be 75 feet. Dr. Geerlofs: No what I mean is, if we'd establish the distances are indeed 75 feet as opposed to, if we can make certain that the distances are, the big question then becomes, that's step number 1, the big question then becomes, to what degree can we say well if you do this curtain drain yeah. We need, obviously you need to have objective criteria. We need to say, if this happens we will say yes, if this happens we will say no. Not we'll look at it and kind of think about it at the time. So, the question is can we come up, you know the first step is to determine the distances, cause if the distance is less than 75 feet, I don't know that may knock it out of the water or, I don't know, we have to look at it at that point. Can we come up with. . David Goldsmith; Yeah, I've got one point of clarification, what happens if the distance is less than 75 feet? And I guess that I, Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 25 because the WAC's do not allow local interpretation below 75 feet under these circumstances, it shall not be less than period. Chairman Brown: Then it has to go to the State Department of Social and Health Services. David Goldsmith: And then they have the option of.. Chairman Brown: Then they can say the same as we, yes or no, depending on the circumstances. Dennis Hanburq: The Health Officer would not pass this on to the State we ask for. David Goldsmith: Right, and then there has to be a proof of an extreme hardship involved with that. Dr. Geerlofs: That gets back into judgement, if there's less than 75 feet then you're back to where we are now. Commissioner Pitts: Well, obviously we're at a standoff in regard to this one point, so far. Where in fact do we measure from to determine the 75 feet to which we can grant a variance. I think that since the State is the one who sets this criteria, ah, I would hope that they would be able to interpret the criteria and establish that line. Has that been, have you done that in the past? Have we asked? Randy Durant: Not in that, not in that instance, no. To date, what we have is a letter from Dave Lenning. Chairman Brown: Okay, I guess that I see in this particular situation, since there is absolutely no veget, to my recollection there's no vegetation anywhere down there, how in the hell are you going to change to decide whether it changes from salt water vegetation to fresh water vegetation, if you're going to, in fact, use that as your criteria of the high water mark. It's not there. David Goldsmith: Well, it's the same way we deal with the shorelines. Ordinary high water mark is the line of where the transition is between vegetation types. If there is no vegetation on the beach because it's a gravelly, sandy beach that vegetation doesn't grow there, as soon as you hit the first non water, non salt water kind of vegetation species, and that's, that's the line. It's pretty easy to find, you can try to, you can get within that close to it on the ground just by. Chairman Brown: If the bulkhead, in fact, was in there and the ah, was filled behind the bulkhead, you could put grass there and it would grow right out to the bulkhead. David Goldsmith: And that's the, that's the line of order anyway. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 26 Dr. Geerlofs: Because if it's been changed because of the bulkhead, that indeed may change. David Goldsmith: In fact Commissioner Dennison: They don't just put bulkheads in for the Chairman Brown: Then in fact David Goldsmith: Bridgehaven is a good, a prime example Dr. Geerlofs: Holland has done it for years. (Chairman Brown: Pardon?) I said Holland has done it for years. Chairman Brown: Okay, but the thing about is that, that the situation really, to my recollection, and maybe you can substantiate this or not John, really has changed since we were there and looked at it because the bulkhead was down, the soil had washed out of there and in fact your line of vegetation would have been further back by quite a bit, because the bank sloughed off. The vegetation that was on it went with it and it was gone. And then there was a hole behind the bulkhead, is that not right John? Commissioner Pitts: That's exactly right. Chairman Brown: So that would have, would have automatically moved it back, by that criteria, you know, we got to say where we are here because there is no vegetation. You know, if your talking about a beach period without a bulkhead, it's fairly easy. You go out there and you, and there's vegetation here and it's the salt water type and five feet away it's fresh water type and you say right here's the line. But on a bulkhead, where, to my recollection there there was absolutely no vegetation of any kind, and the bulkhead was damaged. It was breached, a big hole had washed behind it. When a hold washed behind it, it had naturally eroded back towards the area that their wanting to put, it eroded from here back. So, if you're measuring from the vegetation, the first vegetation was up there at the top where. Commissioner Pitts: you are measuring it correct? Well I think in fact that the pipe, the pipe that from is from the edge of the bulkhead. Is that Randy Durant: As it, I assume is still... Mr. Criez: It's still there. Dr. Geerlofs: Mean high tide is in front of the bulkhead. (Randy Durant: No) it's here, it says here. Randy Durant: bulkhead which considered, we This measurement from the pipe was from the existing Dennis has said has now been filled. We already took a measurement prior to the fill, okay, and that was Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 27 52 feet which didn't leave us the room. (Dr. Geerlofs: Yeah, so that's what I'm saying.) The point at which someone likely measured from is out here. We already measured from where the bulkhead is. That was 52 at one point. Commissioner Dennison: So the question is can we stretch the meaning of high water to somewhere seaward of that bulkhead? Chairman Brown: Okay, so the bulkhead is not the point that they're wanting to, your point of high, of the mean high tide is considerably out in front of the bulkhead right? Steve Wecker: It's here, it's the dotted line instead of the bulkhead. Commissioner Dennison: That's, but that's an estimate based on these guys taking their tide books out there and saying okay, it's here, this at Point Wilson and it's this. Steve Wecker: This was all by question, that's you know. Mr. Criez: It wasn't quite that, we measured from a known mark on the monument which is that bulkhead. We also did that so it isn't just quite as sloppy as you... A lot of effort, a lot of wet feet. Commissioner Dennison: Right, and I didn't mean to infer that you guys didn't know what you were talking about, I'm just saying that, that we can't look at this line on this map and say this is the, this is the line. Dr. Geerlofs: But that is the line that's being used to say 75 feet. Glenn Ison: The property owners interpretation of the line. Commissioner Pitts: And the engineering firm's point of reference and data, from the applicants survey. Commissioner Dennison: Yeah. Dennis Hanburq: Based on the applicants information. Commissioner Pitts: Based on the applicants measurement. Well, I think, I don't know if a motion is in order here to ah. This is for. Mr. Ladd: Excuse me, may I have, Mr. Criez wanted to mention another possibility that you might consider in terms of the ability to move it back 75 feet from the salt water. Mr. Criez: The picture there, well the stream itself, runs in tile onto my mother-in-Iaws property. It just makes a little quick whip and then goes way over to the neighbors property. She has offered to allow us to tile that, whatever method need be done, so that the stream isn't exposed to any of this at all until it arrives on the neighbors Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 28 property which would, I think it's 15 or 20 feet that it just runs out onto ours and right back under. It goes under his cabin. Commissioner Pitts: house. I recall that stream ran right under someone's Dr. Geerlofs: So that would allow further setback then we. Mr. Criez: That whole bed is grandfathered. Commissioner Pitts: Is this allowed Randy to encapsulate a..? Randy Durant: We haven't to date that I recall. I think sometimes a stream is a stream. Commissioner Pitts: Again, like you say, a broken water main in a storm and how will he maintain this tile? Mr. Criez: Well this stream will all be covered, just like it goes under the roadbed there. Dennis Hanburq: It would continue the culvert that goes underneath the road, we also talked about, we discussed that at that time and the water passing through then would be in this culvert. Commissioner Pitts: Who would be responsible for maintaining and keeping it cleaned out and sediment and ah? Dennis Hanburq: Ah, based on the speed of the stream through there, I don't think that would be a big problem. (General background discussion among various people in the room) Commissioner Pitts: Well I think that that can be a consideration but again I don't know enough of the factors that are involved with who's going to maintain the culverts, whether this is a problem, or whether the stream might overflow the culvert and then act as a stream itself, creating a different sort of a problem, ah I don't know. Dennis Hanburq: I can't fully speak for Mr. Criez as his consultant here, but we would be more than willing to meet with a third party, if that's what it took, to discuss both the mean high water, the culverting of the creek as an option and also our alternative, our enhanced system. If that would help to reach some sort of an agreement, that's what I proposed to begin with to ah the attorney's to try to hammer this out on site with the appropriate people rather than, than just spending another hour here and coming back to the meeting. Commissioner Pitts: And who do you feel are the appropriate people from your perspective? Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 29 Dennis Hanburg: Dave Lenning would be acceptable to me. I know Dave personally, I know his background. We would like him there as an objective person that he would be present also and that would be acceptable to us. (End of side B of Tape One) Commissioner Pitts: So someone Tape 2 Side A Chairman Brown: to come to some kind of conclusion on the re- hearing. If there's ah no more comments from the proponent or his representatives, are there any questions from the Health Officer, or the Sanitarian, or the Prosecutor? John, Larry? Okay then we have a lot of things to consider, I think that there's, there is some, maybe some things that have shed some different light on here since the last time we considered this, that we may in fact want to take another look at it on site or have all three parties, including a neutral party go to the site and look at how they measure from the high water mark, what could be done with the stream, if anything, and if, in fact, the setback could be met, that the proponent would be willing to put in a curtain drain, of the assurance that the curtain drain did what it should for the water table, that then, they would have some fair assurance that they would be able to put in the system as designed so I ah, but I think there's a lot of ifs getting from here to there. And we really just need to sort out what mechanism we want to use. Or if we still feel that, based on what we looked at before and based on what was in the record and even with what Mr. Criez put in the record that he thought should have been in it before, we could still come to a conclusion at this time. Commissioner Pitts: Well in my estimate, Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed in regard to the information that we heard back in 1984. There's still a question about from what point we're measuring. Which was a major question, which would allow us if we did grant a variance to at least 75 feet, I'm not sure that we know what that point is and without that point I cannot make, I cannot grant a variance or setback. So, I feel that we need to have someone who will establish that point from which to measure. After that point is established, if it is within the 75 feet, then the questions as you state, arise in regard to the creek or the stream, the water table, and at this point I don't know whether it's most appropriate to table this recommendation and ask for additional information in regard especially to the point and have someone from the State who is qualified to establish that point and while he's here it would be appropriate if our Health Department and the representative of the Criez's would like to meet with them on site I have no problem with that. Is the motion to table changed? (Chairman Brown: It's that, that's where we're at) okay, I would move then to table the Criez's re-hearing until we find out the information in regards to the point by which to measure that water mark and allow the Sanitarian representing Mr. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 30 Criez, our Sanitarian, and the State to meet on the site to evaluate the property. Commissioner Dennison: Second. Chairman Brown: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we table it and let the Health Department and the representatives from, for Mr. Criez and ask a third party from the State, who is acceptable to both parties, to be present on the site to determine the point of high water. So ordered. Thank you ladies and gentlemen and we'll move on to the next item. Appeal of Disapproval of Mound Desiqn: Edsal Short Plat: Eight interested persons were present, including Mr. & Mrs. Greenwalt and Mr. & Mrs. Kirkum, John Floyd of Jefferson County PUD #1 and Steve Wecker of Pac Tech Engineers, when Randy Durant updated the Board on the activities on this matter since the Board's visit to the site. Randy Durant reported that since the Board's site visit, a mound system design was submitted by Pac Tech Engineers. A re-evaluation of lots 1 and 2 of the Edsal Short Subdivision where the proposed mound system was to be installed, was made on April 3, 1986, by Randy Durant. The site conditions observed were the same as when the Board had inspected the site. Additional soil logs were not provided, the house and the mound locations were not staked, nor were the proposed well sites. On April 14, 1986 a letter was sent to both property owners explaining it was found that the site could not be approved due to poor to unacceptable soils, indications of and actual high water table, and lack of sufficient usable area. Recommendations were made again, Randy Durant reported, to have an attempt made to look off-site for an area that may be suitable and could be utilized for a septic system. David Goldsmith, Administrator reported that he had a meeting with the Greenwalts after they had received the denial of their mound system, and that he had personally followed up on two off site parcels and confirmed that there are none available. The soils were unacceptable due to the texture, as well as lack of usable depth, Randy Durant then added, noting the conditions on each lot as follows: Lot 2: (Michael J. & Suzanne Kirkum) Initially evaluated in October 1984. Four soil logs were observed. The usable depth in three of the logs was described as gravelly, sandy loam at 22, 20 and 26 inches. Below that depth in all three holes was either a dense mottled, silt/sand, gray cemented hardpan with the last layer being hardpan. Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 31 Lot 1: (Jack Greenwalt) Evaluated by Randy Durant on November 5, 1985. There were six logs observed. Soil Log 1: 0 to 27 inches-gravelly, sandy loam; 27 to 29 inches-mottled silt-sand and till. Soil Log 2: 0 to 24 inches-gravelly, sandy silt/sand; 24 inches - till. Soil Log 3: 0 to 26 inches-gravelly sandy silt loam; 26 to 31 inches-mottled sandy, gravelly loam. 31 inches-till. Soil Log 4: 0 to 18 inches-gravelly sandy silt loam, compact; 18 to 38 inches-mottled till like material. Soil Log 5: 0 to 6 inches-loam; 6 to 18 inches-mottled gravelly, sandy silt loam, compact; 18 to 28 inches- mottled till. Soil Log 6: 0 to 16 inches-gravelly sandy silt loam; 16 to 47 inches-mottled till. The short plat was approved back in 1981, David Goldsmith stated, and the Greenwalt's made application for a sewage disposal permit that was subsequently denied. That denial was appealed to the Board of Health at which time it was noted that the plat would require some kind of a designed sewage disposal system which had not been provided. Now, that that has been accomplished, the designed system has also been denied. Mr. Roy Robeck, Realtor introduced Mr. & Mrs. Greenwalt from Monroe, Washington and Mr. & Mrs. Kirkum from Utah as well as Steve Wecker, Pac Tech Engineers and Pat Thompson, Realtor. Mr. Robeck read the following statement: "Gentlemen we stand before you again asking you to make a decision on a parcel of property which the County and the Health Department by virtue of short plat have already approved once, and now deny because the conditions are unfavorable. The Engineers have recently designed a septic system which could overcome the perceived problems and it's subsequently been denied. We wish reconsideration. This has been going on since October 1985. When will the expenses and denials end? We have the technology to place a man on the moon, but we can't seem to put a septic system in the ground in Jefferson County. The Neanderthal attitude of it can't be done, it can't be done, and all of the good soils are already used, is almost unamerican. If our fore fathers had had that type of attitude the U. S. wouldn't extend beyond the Mississippi and we would all have outhouses. On T.V. last night Senator Slade Gorton said and I quote There's isn't a single problem in the State of Washington we can't solve. Let's show him he can include a septic system in Jefferson County, in that statement. At this point everybody is damaged. Although the Health Department is still profited by its' reinspection, the County is losing on tax dollars and most importantly, credibility. The parties damaged have all been seen in an effort to work towards a positive and safe solution at great expense. Mr. Pitts, in our last meeting, after I's made a presentation as to how this lose/lose situation should be a win/win situation, and that the County was losing valuable tax revenue by it's Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 32 continual denials, stated the Commissioners were charged with the health of the community. I agree with that. I feel also you are charged with the economic health of the community as well as credibility with the people of this community. My office is directly below these properties, if I was concerned with health, I would be protesting not asking for approval. We ask you to approve the sites today without further delays. Continued denials of this short plat opens the possibility of denial for all other short plats. Let's put this to rest before it gets totally out of hand. Prove to us the County can be relied upon to stand behind its' word of honor. I'm optimistic you gentlemen have the capability to make such a decision. Thank you." Mr. Kirkum added that he has a substantial investment in this property. When he bought the property the indication he was given was that the plat had been approved and would perc. He further stated that he is more than willing to work out a compromise because he wants good health conditions to exist also. In response to Commissioner Pitts question regarding who told Mr. Kirkum the property would perc, he stated that he has a letter signed by Mr. Durant that indicates that the plat was approved for the septic. Commissioner Pitts then said that on the face of the plat there is a stamp that says that the plat has conditional approval for septic. Mr. Kirkum read the statement on the face of the plat "Conditionally acceptable. The soil and site conditions are acceptable for installation of a sewage disposal system as request above, under existing conditions: maximum drainfield, partial fill, pumping sewage as necessary, and low water usage recommended." Pat Thompson stated that this was a short plat that was given a conditional approval and now that property owners are ready to build on these two pieces and they have been denied the conditional approval which means that there is an entire short plat in which every piece of property is worthless. Mr. Greenwalt noted that he purchased this property because he is going to retire and would like to live on the property. The property was short platted and approved as a short plat and he assumed, naturally that he had a piece of property on which he could build. He has made many trips between Monroe and here and now the property has been denied. Mr. Greenwalt further stated that he does not understand why something is denied after it is approved once. As far as the site having no further holes dug or being staked for the house, he stated this was not asked for, or it would have been done. Regarding the designs, Steve Wecker of Pac Tech Engineers, stated that the concern is two fold: 1) depth of soil and 2) the water table. They agree with Randy regarding the depth of the different soils and feel that a mound system can be installed to accommodate the soil depth. It is hoped that through the use of a curtain drain the water table can be diverted down. The mound system designed would have a 2 foot depth Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 33 instead of the standard 1 foot depth, to provide an added degree of filtration and treatment before the effluent enters into the native soils. Because of the large size of the lots, it is Pac Tech Engineers opinion, that the exact location of the house is not as much of a concern and basically the houses will be located downhill of the mound. Well location, will not be much of a concern and it will be 100 feet away from the mound as required by the regulations, Mr. Wecker added. Contours on the site are approximate, because it is the nature of a mound system that the property where it is installed will be renovated anyway. The Pac Tech Engineers proposals have attempted to try to mitigate the health concerns and the concerns with the site dealing with shallow soils and the water table. In response to Commissioner Pitts query as to how much improvement in efficiency and functioning of a mound system would be gained by increasing the soil depth from one foot to two feet, Mr. Wecker stated that basically most of the research on sewage disposal is based on filtration through three feet of sand. The mound system could be made to be three feet deep, but this design is specifying 18 to 24 inches and will be relying on some filtration in the native soil. Mound systems consistently, in this State, deal with a one foot mound where you've got 24 inches of native soil. Other techniques can be employed on this site such as increasing the downslope, which will increase the amount of area below the filtration. This design is putting emphasis on the curtain drain to lower the water table. The water table has to be lowered to provide the necessary treatment. The discussion continued about the research that has been done on the amount of soil necessary for filtration to provide the necessary purification. David Goldsmith interjected that one other issue that came out of the denial of the design was the size of the area for initial and reserve drainfield, and this needs to be addressed. Mr. Wecker stated the the designs that have been submitted by Pac Tech Engineers are based upon both the size of the primary and reserve drainfield and are in conformance with the State guidelines provided that the water table can be kept down and the depth of soil is present, which it is. The Pac Tech Engineer's proposal, Commissioner Pitts added, is based on the fact that the curtain drain will work. The next logical step would be to install the curtain drain and see what it does to the water table and if it does what is expected then there should be no problem with proceeding with the rest of the project. If this were a system which required no additional technology, such as a sand filter system is, Commissioner Pitts continued, where everything was optimum for a normal septic system, then the additional installation of a curtain drain would not have the impact that it does on this decision. The problem Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 34 comes in the fact that there are marginal soils at best on this site and the absolute minimum requirements are being compressed even further based on what this curtain drain will do to lower the water table. Randy Durant made the point that the State Technical Review Committee (TRC) is meeting the 29th of May to possibly adopt new guidelines for mound systems. Utilizing an 18 inches original soil depth versus a 24 inch depth as in the current guidelines is being considered. These new guidelines along with control of the water table (installation of a curtain drain which is then evaluated during the wet winter months to assure that it works) would provide a positive point for the mound system installations on these lots. The issue of the reserve area would still need to be resolved. The critical thing in this instance is lowering the ground water, Commissioner Pitts reiterated, in order for the mound system design to work. This is an expense that the property owner will have to bear in any case, and if the curtain drain and the mound system are installed and the curtain drain does not work then you have a mound system that does not work. Mr. Kirkum asked what the criteria are that have to be reached? The State guidelines have to be met, Mr. Wecker advised, and the exact amount of water table reduction which is necessary to make the system work is a hard thing to define. Randy Durant restated the two issues: 1) The water table, for which the State's absolute requirement is 24 inches at the worst time of year. The Technical Review Committee may change this to 18 inches at their meeting at the end of the month. 2) The total area on each parcel that has acceptable soil depth. There needs to be an area of sufficient size on both parcels for initial and reserve mound, that has (in the worst case) 18 inches of soil (if the new guidelines are adopted). Commissioner Pitts asked Mr. Kirkum if it would be acceptable to him to abide by whatever the new State requirement is after the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, and if he would be willing to invest in the installation of a curtain drain prior to a decision being made on the approval of the mound system. This would allow the curtain drains effectiveness to be determined. Mr. Kirkum answered that he is willing to do, within reason, whatever it takes to make this work. The concern he has, Mr. Kirkum added, is knowing what the standard is because his understanding was that this was once approved and he has already made a substantial investment in the property. The discussion reverted to why these steps were not determined when the short plat was approved. The Board advised those present that the issue of dispensing with site evaluations and requiring septic tank . Health Board Minutes: May 20, 1986 Page: 35 permits was discussed in a meeting with members of the real estate community a few years ago. They indicated that they did not want to do away with site evaluations. A site evaluation is just an indication of the type of soils on a piece of property on a given date, which is not a guarantee that a septic permit will be approved on that site. Based on the criteria that is finally accepted by the State's Technical Review Committee on the 29th of May which may be a reduction from 24 to 18 inches and possibly testing of a curtain drain at the highest rainfall time of the year, Commissioner Pitts moved that these would be acceptable to him to apply to this proposal. The appropriate step is to install the curtain drain first and assure that it lowers the water table. Randy Durant advised that no formal action (motion) is necessary by the Board to allow the applicants to install a curtain drain on their property. Should the applicants wish to install a curtain drain and if that curtain drain lowers the water table to a depth that meets the State guidelines for mound systems, which could be 24 or 18 inches (to be established at the May 29th TRC meeting) and if sufficient soil depth is found for the initial and reserve mound on each parcel, then mound system designs that meet the State guidelines, would be approved. Steve Wecker stated the State guidelines do not direct how many holes to put in the replacement area, however the County regulations do require a minimum number which has been provided. Randy Durant is saying he wants to see more holes in the reserve area, and this means that either the applicants will have to provide additional holes or somehow juggle the system to get it back within the area where the holes have been dug, Mr. Wecker advised. Commissioner Pitts restated that the goal is to meet the basic, minimum State standards which includes either the 18 or 24 inches of separation, the evaluation of the curtain drain during the winter season (between January and May) and 100% replacement area which the Health Officer can reduce. Commissioner Pitts withdrew his motion per advisement by Randy Durant. In order that the property owners have some assurance that if they meet the criteria established they will be allowed to develop their property, the Board agreed to the fOllowing: A consensus regarding water table will be developed between Steve Wecker and Randy Durant based on what the State Technical Review Committee establishes at the Technical Review Committee Meeting on May 29, 1986. Meeting Adjourned JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ~) B. G. Brown, Chairman John L. Pitts, Member Affidavit of Publication I STATE OF WASHINGTON) " COUNTY OF JEFFERSON) FRANK W. GARRED~ being sworn, says he is the publilher of the Port Townsend leader, 0 weekly newspaper which has ."'"0 been established, published in the English language and cir- culated continuously os 0 weekly newspaper in the town of Port Townsend, in said County and Slale, and for gen.,rcl cir- culation in laid county for more thon six (6) mOnths prtof to.the dale of the first publication of the Notice hereto onached, and that the Said Port Townsend Leader was on the 27th cloy of JUI'\8 19.41, approved os 0 legal newspqper bylhe Superior Court of said Jefferson County, Dnd thot annexed is true copy of the ~._' 'JI-' . ". ''-c-' -~"_ ',l_m .,.;-"'- ,.,..!",.,..;f'!Jl8 for, , t!l!,Juq.~g of. the, J.....eiI.'fe..... _..... .....~.". -.1. 'iia.. reI j'_ - " '"." ," -;..,~ I !of......~.~j'\~.nl chcmged.1o 10:OQ.o.m.1 on June 17, 1986. - , Th.~ wilt bel held in the basement Conferen.,. Room of the! ~ County Multi) . Services Building, 802 Sheridan, Pori Town':!' ....11, w A 98368.~ eh""g8 o~ ~,Jo! th,.tune ;1W6IliI!tli<g. I Jl;tf~ltSQl\ICOUNTY . ~".9" HEALTH lJ.-Q..i'lIl))lii'.lI, Chairman . ~-. 12026-11 Jefferson County Board of Health Public Notice Change in meeting time as it appeared in the regular ondentire iUue of wid paper itself ond not in 0 supplement thereof for (l period of one 11th June day of consecutive. weeks, beginning on the 86 19~ end ending on the 1 .1 t- h day of Llune L '0'. "~.-:. Subscribed and sw/rn lo~fore-~thi$'" ;1. 11 doyof ::: . ~ -. ....../. .-::. JunPtM:~;;:/~:?PL /JII' fl. .. . i'rolcily-l'Ubii~-Jn-o.naiDl''>l.e Stol.oI W~hinQton,.reUdihg D!,I'ort Townsend