ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS – MINUTES OF MEETING
REGULAR SESSION - FEBRUARY 14, 2000
The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on February 14, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, William F. Thorn, member and Mike Shelton, Member, present. By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed the minutes from the meetings of January 10 and 24, 2000.
The following vouchers/warrants
were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board: Voucher
(War.) # 68481-68760………………………………..
$436,233.61.
The Board, after receiving a summary of proposed action, approved PAA #017/00, Public Works Department replacement, Jr. Civil Eng/Eng. Tech III pos.# #2250.01 effective 2/14/00.
Employee Department No. Years’ Service
James Wiaczek Public
Works/Roads 5
Sue Engstrom Community
Development 5
Kathy Dlugosh Community
Development 10
Ed Flitcroft Public
Works/Roads 10
Adele McCallum Public
Works/Solid Waste 10
Wayne Lewis Sheriff's
Office 30
Congratulations to Mary Welshans from the Assessor's Office on her
selection as Employee of the Month for
January.
By unanimous motion, the Board made two appointments:
E. T. Silvers, Oak
Harbor, Island County Planning
Commission for a 4-year term,
to
expire January 2, 2004.
Maxine
Cray, Oak Harbor, Island County Board of Equalization filling an
unexpired term to May 31, 2001.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved the following contracts with the various agencies who received approval December 20, 1999 for the 2000 Program Year projects and activities funded by the 2% Hotel/Motel tax revenue:
Camano Island Chamber of Commerce; Camano Island Innkeepers Association;
Cascade Loop Association; Central Whidbey Chamber of Commerce; Island
County Historical Society Museum; Langley Chamber of Commerce (2) &
North Whidbey Lions Club. [more contracts to follow at a subsequent meeting]
By unanimous motion, the Board approved two Health Department contracts, having previously reviewed and discussed same at a recent Staff Session with the Health Services Director:
Contract: St. Joseph’s Hospital, The Recover Center,
Island County, HS-03-99, $614,417.
Contract # 00-437-G, Employment Security
Department, Americorp Volunteer for Ropes/Challenge Program. $3,000.
As submitted by Betty Kemp, Director, GSA/Risk Management, the Board approved, by unanimous motion, the
Application for Washington State Association
of Counties Group Retrospective
Rating for Island County [Labor and Industries] Retro ID 130. [BICC 00-78]
The Board by unanimous motion, approved a contract between Island County
and Jeffrey Logan, Consultant, for the
South End Mapping Project [existing
electronic databases to be integrated into a
GIS for planning purposes; Freeland and Clinton are priority study areas].
[GMA doc. #5444]
resolution
#C-14-00 In the Matter of Transferring Funds within various budgets [Year end budget transfers]
As prepared, submitted and reviewed by Margaret Rosenkranz, Budget Director, the Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-14-00 in the matter of transferring funds within the 1999 Island County Current Expense Fund Budgets; Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Fund Budget; Developmental Disabilities Fund Budget; Election Reserve Fund Budget; Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund Budget; Mental Health Fund Budget; Motor Pool Fund Budget; Public Health Pooling Fund Budget; Public Works Fund Budget and Solid Waste Fund Budget,
representing year end transfers.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN
THE MATTER OF TRANSFERRING FUNDS WITHIN THE 1999 )
ISLAND
COUNTY CURRENT EXPENSE FUND BUDGETS, ALCO- )
HOLISM BUDGET, DEVELOPMENTAL & SUBSTANCE ABUSE )
FUND
DISABILITIES FUND BUDGET, ELECTION RESERVE FUND ) RESOLUTION C-14-00
BUDGET,
EQUIPMENT RENTAL & REVOLVING FUND BUDGET, )
MENTAL
HEALTH FUND BUDGET, MOTOR POOL FUND BUDGET, )
PUBLIC
HEALTH POOLING FUND BUDGET, PUBLIC WORKS FUND )
BUDGET,
SOLID WASTE FUND BUDGET )
WHEREAS,
all funds and department budgets are adopted and fixed by the Board of County
Commissioners for each fiscal year,
with expenditures listed in three general categories: Salary, Wages &
Benefits, Maintenance & Operation
and Capital Outlay, and
WHEREAS,
it is permissible to transfer between these categories only by resolution of
the Board, and
WHEREAS,
various departments have requested transfers of funds between portions of their
budgets, and
WHEREAS,
it is necessary to transfer between these categories in order to cover the
unexpected or heretofore unknown expenditures in one category from other budget category excesses, or from
budgeted reserves, NOW THEREFORE
BE IT
RESOLVED, that funds will be transferred in the 1999 Fund Budgets per
the attached Exhibit A.
ADOPTED
this 14th day of February, 2000.
Board
of County Commissioners
Island
County, Washington
Wm.
L. McDowell, Chairman
William
F. Thorn, Member
attest: Mike Shelton, Member
Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board
BICC 00-80 [Exhibit A is on file
with the Clerk of the Board]
Resolution #C-15-00 (R-07-00)
– Initiating CRP 00-01, Maple Grove Road/Doeskin Court embankment repair
As recommended by Larry Kwarsick, Public Works Director, and County Engineer, Lew Legat,
the Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-15-00 [R-07-00] initiating County Road
Project 00-01, 00-01, Work Order 295, Maple Grove Road/Doeskin Court, embankment repair
including retaining structure, drainage, guardrail, and asphalt pavement to restore Maple Grove to
the full roadway width, located in Section 23, Twp 32N., Rge. 2E., the project in the amount of
425,000.
Resolution #C-16-00 (R-08-00) – Initiating CRP 00-02, Maple
Grove Road/North Camano Drive
Again, having been presented and recommended by Mr. Kwarsick and Mr. Legat, the Board by unanimous motion, approved Resolution #C-16-00 (R-08-00)Initiating CRP 00-02, Work Order 296, Maple Grove Road/North Camano Drive, for field surveys and professional geotechnical engineering investigation, evaluation, and recommendation only for embankment and cut slope repairs, located in Sec 23, Twp 32N, R2E, the project in the amount of $44,000.
Intergovernmental Cooperative
Purchasing
Agreement WITH ADAMS COUNTY
An Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
(#RM-PW.0020.04) was approved by unanimous motion of the Board with Adams
County to allow that county to purchase off of Island County’s call for bids
for goods and services.
Grant Agreement (Department
of Ecology/Island County) – Island County Watershed Implementation Actions
Project
The County previously completed a watershed plan for North Whidbey. This is a second attempt to obtain funds from DOE which was successful, and since the program and activity involves the Health Department and Board of Health, Mr. Kwarsick asked that the Board authorize signature upon subsequent of the Island County Board of Health. This provides DOE grant funds in the amount of $250,000, with County funds to be provided in the amount of $83,333.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved Grant Agreement #G0000207 (#RM-PW0020-03),
between Island County and the Department of Ecology for a Watershed Implementation Actions Project contingent on review and approval by the Board of Health on February 28, 2000.
STORMWATER MITIGATION AGREEMENTS APPROVED: KOETJE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN HOLMES HARBOR GOLF AND YACHT CLUB
By unanimous motion, the Board approved the following Stormwater Mitigation Agreements with Koetje Construction consistent with requirements of the Island County Zoning Ordinance for single family residential building permits within various divisions of Holmes Harbor Golf and Yacht Club:
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement– Koetje Construction, Lot 26, Block 3, Holmes Harbor
G&Y Club,
Div
#6
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 3, Block 3, Holmes Harbor
G&Y Club,
Div #7
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 6, Block 4, Holmes Harbor
G&Y Club,
Div
#8
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 7, Block 4.
Holmes Harbor G&Y Club, Div #8
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 8, Block 4,
Holmes Harbor G&Y Club, Div #8
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 21, Block 4, Holmes Harbor
G&Y
Club,
Div #8
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement – Koetje Construction, Lot 22, Block 4, Holmes Harbor
G&Y
Club,
Div #8
Larry Kwarsick brought up an item not on the agenda but important to discuss at this meeting, which was Community Development Block Grant funds pre-application for a planning-only grant associated with the future facility grant application. Applicants must now pass an initial threshold before being able to submit a planning only grant. The pre-application involves an intergenerational neighborhood center for low and moderate income residents as well as special need populations, an attempt to look at and blend planning activities for the South Whidbey Youth Center and South Whidbey Senior Center. If the pre-application passes the threshold, an application will be submitted jointly by Island County and the City of Langley. As noted by Commissioner Thorn this is a fallout from the Youth and Family Summit two years’ ago. Mr. Kwarsick committed to make sure that the application to come, if pre-application passes, is for the Board’s signature.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved the CDBG Planning-only Pre-application grant planning only grant for the intergenerational center on South Whidbey and authorize Larry Kwarsick’s signature under Certification of Chief Administrative Official for this grant.
The Board met in Executive Session at 11:00 a.m., to discuss with legal counsel potential litigation, as allowed under R.C.W. 42.30.110 (1) (i). The session lasted approximately one hour and no announcement was anticipated after the session.
v
Ordinance C-135-99,
PLG-042-99, Amending the Comp Plan and Development
Regulations to Comply with the Order of the WWGMHB Relating to Rural
Densities
in the Rural Area, continued
from 11/22/99 and 1/10/00
v
Ordinance C-03-00,
PLG-002-00, Amending Chapter l7.02 ICC Relating to Certain
Provisions of the County’s
Critical Area Regulations
As indicated on the Amended
Agenda for today’s Board meeting, no public testimony was taken on either
Ordinance. The Board by unanimous
motion, continued the hearings to March 13, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. [Notice
of Continuance: Ord. C-135-99 Gma doc.
#5451; Ord. C-03-00 Gma doc. #5452]
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance #C-124-99 (PLG-030-99) Amending
Chapter 17.03 Island County Zoning Code Regarding Signs & Lighting
A Public Hearing was opened at 3:00 p.m. to consider proposed Ordinance #C-124-99 [PLG-030-99], Amending Chapter 17.03 Island County Zoning Code Regarding Signs & Lighting, continued from 12/6/99, 12/27/99 and 1/24/00.
Attendance:
Public: John Graham, Citizens for Sensible Development
Jerry Hill, Freeland
Tom Roehl, Project Planning Services, Freeland
Staff: Phil Bakke
Hand-outs:
Proposed Amendment No. 2 [GMA #5445]
Proposed Amendment No. 3 [GMA #5446]
Mr. Bakke recalled that the Board at the last hearing reviewed proposed Amendment #1 and agreed language worked out with the Coalition [6/21/99 Amendments that changed 17.03.180R] should be incorporated into Exhibit A from the Planning Commission. Amendment #1 is superseded by Amendment #2.
Amendment #2 incorporates current 17.03.180R code language together with Planning Commission recommendations and as directed received at the Board last public hearing, December 6, 1999:
Added two definitions: Box Sign and Channel
Lighting.
17.03.180..1.f: change free-standing sign height to 18’ and
monument signs
to
10’.
Exempt
signs in windows [i.e. logos such as “open”, etc.] and do not count
toward
the total sign area.
General
Standards for Maintenance, Sign Area and Height Measurements - standardized throughout the County applied to all signs
Integrated
lighting standards for the rural area together with lighting standards for
non-residential zones of the county
and created new Section 4 “Outdoor Lighting
Standards”. Section a) lists lighting standards (i) through (vi). Exemptions from the
ordinance are listed in a) (vii) 1-4.
Section
5, Existing Signs and Lighting.
Provides that existing signage come into compliance when the business
and/or sign is relocated or if the sign is damaged beyond 60% current value. Existing
mercury lighting fixtures installed
prior to the effective date of the
chapter are exempt for 8 years.
Amendment No. 3 makes several technical corrections.
17.03.180.R.1.c) deleted [inadvertently left in – was
replaced by what is now
shown
as c]
Item
h) adds the words “per side” after 100 sq. ft. in area and 40 sq. ft. in area.
Same
change in 2.g).(i).
Grammatical corrections - 17.02.180.R.2.g)(iii)
Section
3, General Standards for Maintenance, Sign Area and Height Measurements in all Zones,
contains a wording change: “The display
surfaces of all signs shall be kept
neat
at all times”.
Section
5. Existing Signs and Lighting.
(i) The Business and/or s Sign is
relocated; or
(iii)
New language: If the plastic/melamine
panel of a Box Sign is no longer utilized
the replacement panel facing shall utilize a solid dark colored background
with light colored lettering,.
PUBLIC INPUT
Jerry Hill commented on
the proposed amendments, noting that
lighting problems with neighbors are
not uncommon occurrences and the best
job that can be done on code provisions
would mean less complaints that have to be handled. With regard to freestanding sign heights he
previously asked to have that moved back to 16’ yet it is now proposed at
18’. To find out what is currently the
common sign height, he measured every sign on South Whidbey and found there
were only 3 or 4 signs out of compliance over 16’, most very old signs. Monument sign height is proposed to be raised from 8’ to 10’. He could not find a monument sign over 8’
existing on South Whidbey now; most are
around 7’ tall. Regarding Section
5.a)(ii) past discussions seemed focused on 50% and not 60%. When this says beyond, it is not a small measurement and it should
be a reasonable percent and his recommendation is 50%. Section 5.b) Recommends language be changed to: “Existing lighting
fixtures installed prior to the effective date of this Chapter are exempt for a
period of 7 years from the date of enactment of this Chapter.” In talking to an illumination engineer in
Freeland he learned the standard light fixture lasts 7 years and “or until
replaced”. The issue is not
necessarily with the technology of
mercury vapor but with the design of
the light fixtures [displayed s brochure showing a series of light
fixtures recently used in Oak Harbor
last year]. When installed the lights
were not shielded and upon complaints, the owner purchased little metal shields
and no complaints since. The biggest
issue is that all lights need to live up to the standard of full-shielded cut-off light fixtures. Good example of one just installed which
does not comply is the new Post Office in Freeland. there are a number of good
examples on South Whidbey of light fixtures [not mercury vapor] that fit in to
the character [Windermere Realty and the
Port of South Whidbey; Hansen’s Lumber Sign] The Red Apple Market sign on the
market is more visible, but fluorescent bulbs are exposed to the highway; the
old sign by the highway includes a
reader-board sign that reaches around 16’ high, a small sign with a picture of a shopping cart, a small
structure on top of that, making it reach 22’ high.
Education is important and Mr. Hill proposed that a brochure be prepared that the County can hand out explaining the changes. Mercury vapor lights are a tremendous energy drain. Also he remembered that the Sheriff discussed the fact that some of these types of light fixtures not fully shielded were a problem to his police officers when approaching residences; therefore, he suggested including a statement from the Sheriff in the brochure to educate folks about what is really security, and talk about fully shielded motion-activated and placement of light fixtures.
Commissioner Thorn clarified to note that in the case of the Sheriff’s Department, it was the character of the light at issue and the contrast between the lighted area and the unlit areas in the shadows, specifically attributed to mercury vapor lighting.
John Graham, President, Citizens for Sensible Development (CSD), the group who submitted the original amendment, entered for the record a letter dated today providing comments on the new Signs and Lighting Ordinance contained in Amendment No. 2 [GMA #5447]. He is a board member of the Economic Development Council and recalled the last meeting dealt with what kind of a theme does Island County have to retain the businesses here and attract new businesses. His thought was there is a theme: “We Are Island County – We Are Not Them”; this is not Leavenworth, Aurora Avenue or other places on the Mainland. A number of businesses on South Whidbey have done a good job on signs and lighting that are “island” scale and night sky is a key part of the island feel. Neighbors’ property rights is a difficult issue but he thought that the language of the text now came close to a good balance.
Mr. Graham’s specific comments using Amendment No. 3 were:
R.1.f The original number of 16’ should be retained for freestanding signs and 8’ for monument signs. It would not destroy the county to have it raised to 18’ and 10’ but it comes back to the theme of the County; the further above 16’ the further it goes toward Aurora Avenue and away from Island County. Clarification: in his submittal although he stated 16’ and then monument signs up to eight feet he wrote out eight but put 10 in parenthesis and that should be 8’ in parenthesis.
Consider placing a period after the word sky so that (v) reads: protects the night sky. Heading the Citizens Growth Management Coalition when the agreement was reached as Mr. Bakke noted earlier, he this would be fine to do so.
Page 6, under a) (vii) (2). Agreed with the proposed language.
As far as Existing Signs and Lighting, Mr. Graham referred to his letter, noting there should be some kind of retrofitting requirement for lit signs. Out of compliance signs are much more of a problem than out of compliance non lit signs. He would not ask anyone to chop down a sign because it is two feet too high but would suggest they put black melamine or paint in the space of 10 years. For lighting fixtures themselves, his suggestion is: “Existing lighting fixtures installed prior to the effective date of this Chapter are exempt for a period of three years from the date of enactment of this chapter, unless: The fixture became inoperative except for bulb replacement; or The fixture can be retrofitted at the time of bulb replacement to come into compliance with this Code.
Someone with an out of compliance light fixture can either buy a new fixture, line it with an opaque material or paint it, but in no case is it a big deal and therefore three years more than enough time for people to bring lights into compliance. An example, the mercury vapor lights at Lagoon Point within three years would have to either have opaque insert material installed, replace with another kind of light, or paint it. His recommendation again is: for an unlit sign – no requirements; a lit sign that is out of compliance – 10 years; and for a fixture, 3 years.
Tom Roehl, Project Planning Services, and Island County Property Rights Alliance, urged staying with current numbers of the heights. The problem is not as severe if the section on existing situations is dealt with properly. His focus has been on two areas: one, relates to getting in to residential lighting and the other has to do with lighting standards in commercial areas such as Freeland and Clinton. UGA is currently under way for Freeland and Clinton and things may change there. For example, if Freeland is a UGA and more density is to be encouraged there could be higher buildings or other things as development occurs.
Many of the issues within the ordinance will naturally evolve; the market place is already taking care of this, and thought this would occur with many of the home owners as well. He agreed that section 5 should be deleted so there is no prohibition of mercury vapor lights; the problem is not mercury vapor lights, rather the shielding. He thought this an issue of regulating aesthetics and reminded there are nuisance laws on the books already. Ken’s Korner sign is monument style and has one of Glen Russell’s carved paintings, which should not count as a sign towards the 100 sq. ft.
In that case, Mr. Bakke pointed out that that would fall into 17.03.180.R.1.a); flexibility built in to do that for a complex or a project. He verified that for the 100 sq. ft. it should be total area not the words “per side” deleted.
Mr. Roehl referred to section 2.d)(v) and recommended wording be: “protects the view of the night sky” and did not object to deleting “in a rural area” as proposed. With regard to Amendment #3, page 6, he asked that mercury vapor lights not be made illegal. Since this section applies in all zones there needs to be an exemption for school football fields, sports arenas, equestrian centers, County fair grounds. Also an exemption if a property owner has acreage and has their developed area such that whatever lighting installed will not be visible from the neighboring property owners. Protecting someone’s view of the night sky so that it is absolutely black at the expense of someone else is too much in his opinion.
But Mr. Graham pointed out that a light on a barn could be pointed straight up. A barn light he thought could be shielded and pointed down.
Mr.
Roehl next proposed Existing Signs and
Lighting section, 5.a)(i) read: “The sign is relocated; or”. On 5.a)(ii) to not use “current value” and
should say instead:
“more than 60% of the sign is damaged or replaced”. The sign should not have to conform unless either more than 60% is being changed, replaced or remodeled
or 60% or more damaged. He agreed with
Mr. Hill’s wording under the last item and agreed not to ban mercury vapor
lights. He suggested perhaps a new
section to say that any existing lighting installed prior to the effective date
of this change are exempt for a period of 8 years; and another section to talk
about shielding.
Commissioner Thorn did not propose to include density at all. This proposal sets up standards for an area, neighborhood or individual site. If there is a nuisance factor involved it is a totally separate issue.
Jerry Hill agreed with Mr. Graham’s language about existing signs and lighting that shielding be within 3 years. With regard to Mr. Roehl’s comment about potential UGAs in Freeland and Clinton, he thought the provision emphasized the idea of incorporating signs into buildings therefore eliminating the need to raise pole sign heights when those types of densities happen.
On behalf of CSD, Mr. Graham offered help at no charge to write a simple educational brochure to explain and defend if necessary the new regulations.
BOARD ACTION:
Commissioner Shelton proposed the following changes, using Amendment No. 3:
Page 2 R.1.(e) concur with the Freestanding signs up to 18 feet in height and monument signs up to 10 feet in height
Page 3 R.1.(h) delete “per side” after “(100) square feet in area”
Page 3 R.2.d) (v) to read “protects the view of the night sky.”
Page 3 R.2.g) (i) after “Only one (1) on-premise Sign not exceeding nine (9) square feet in area” add the words “per side”.
Page 6 4.a).(v) Eliminate (v) entirely
Page 6 4.a)(vii) Add to the exemptions public athletic fields, fair grounds, temporary special event lighting.
Page 6. 5.a)(i) Add “The” so it reads “The sign is relocated; or”.
Page 6 5.a)(ii) to read: “if more than 60% of the sign is damaged or replaced; ”
Page 6 5.b) as written now eliminate and insert John Graham’s recommendation to allow 3 years to shield or retrofit those lights: in 3 years people have to comply with 4.a)(i): within 3 years all lights need to be shielded. Accept John Graham’s 2-14- 00 letter with proposed wording under 5.c make that for the purpose of this ordinance, 5.b. referring to fixed light fixtures –
“Existing fixtures installed prior to the effective date of this Chapter are exempt for a period of three years form the date of enactment of this chapter, unless:
The fixtures became inoperative except for bulb replacement; or
The fixtures can be retrofitted at the time of bulb replacement to come into compliance with this Code.”
Commissioner Thorn’s suggested changes were:
Page 2 R.1.(e) will defer to fellow Commissioners on the Freestanding signs up to 18 feet in height and monument signs up to 10 feet in height
Page 3 R.1.(h) agree delete “per side” after “(100) square feet in area”
Page 3 R.2.d) (v) agree with language “protects the view of the night sky.”
Page 3 R.2.g) (i) agree that after “Only one (1) on-premise Sign not exceeding nine (9) square feet in area” add the words “per side”.
Page 6 4.a).(v) Not agree with eliminating (v) entirely. He felt it was entirely within the purview of the County to prevent the sale or use of mercury vapor lights.
Page 6 4.a)(vii) Agrees to add to the exemptions public athletic fields, fair grounds, temporary special event lighting but include “not to exceed ____ days [Planning Director to fill in the number of days].
Page 6 5.a)(ii) agree with the change to read: “if more than 60% of the sign is damaged or replaced; ”
Page 6. 5.a)(i) Add “The” so it reads “The sign is relocated; or”.
Page 6 5.b) Replace 5.b) with the two provisions John Graham proposed in letter dated 2-14-00 - his item 5.c):
Existing lighting fixtures
installed prior to the effective date of this Chapter are exempt for a period
of three years from the date of enactment of this chapter, unless:
The fixture became inoperative except for bulb
replacement;
The fixture can be retrofitted at the time of bulb replacement to come into compliance with this Code.
Commissioner Thorn also recommended that the Board adopt Mr. Graham’s item 5.b) in the 2-14-00 letter, modified as follows: “All existing lit signage shall come into compliance with the provisions of this section within ten years, except structurally.”. Commissioners McDowell and Shelton did not agree.
Commissioner McDowell agreed with all changes proposed until page 6. He was surprised no one mentioned anything about what he thought was the biggest impact, good or bad, no more white signs, rather all dark with white letters, an intrusive form of government. He looked at the newer signs at night time and agreed they truly give a different flavor to the area with the dark sign, that is the one item that over the long run that will change the County the most. As far as the proposal to come into compliance within a number of years, he did not buy into because of circumstances of those with small businesses for example Norman Barnett who has invested a substantial amount invested in a sign in Clinton. He is not interested in telling folks they have to redesign all signage in 10 years.
The issue of shining into the night sky and mercury vapor lights were the obvious gripes of folks at the last hearing. He has a problem outlawing a whole line of lighting. From an energy standpoint it makes no sense to continue to mercury vapor lights but for the person on a budget and has to buy it one is quite a bit cheaper, regardless of energy saved.
As far as 5.b alternate language proposed and agreed to by Commissioners Shelton and Thorn with respect to coming into compliance in three years using item 5.c (i) and (ii) of John Graham’s letter, Commissioner McDowell agreed.
By unanimous motion, the Board directed the Planning Director to incorporate the amendments discussed and agreed to by the majority of the Board today into Exhibit A of Ordinance #C-124-99 (PLG-030-99) amending Chapter 17.03 of the Island County Zoning Code regarding Signs and Lighting and continue the public hearing until March 6, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. [no amendments; all to now be incorporated into Exhibit A]. (notice of continuance GMA doc. #5448]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m., to meet in Regular Session on February 28, , 2000, at 11:30 a.m. [February 21st is a County Holiday].
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
______________________________
Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman
_______________________________
William F. Thorn, Member
_____________________________
Mike Shelton, Member
ATTEST: _______________________
Margaret Rosenkranz, Clerk of the Board