Island County Commissioners - MINUTES OF MEETING

regular session - APRIL 1, 2002

The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on April 1, 2002, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Mike Shelton, Chairman; Wm. L. McDowell, Member; and William F. Thorn, Member, present. By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed the minutes from March 25, 2002 and March 27, 2002.

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board: Voucher (War.) # 121,320 - 121,500. . . . . . .. . . $445,937.88.

Hiring Requests & Personnel Actions

As presented by Dick Toft, Human Resource Director, the Board by unanimous motion, approved the following personnel action authorization:

Dept. PAA # Description Position # Action Eff. Date

Assessor 022/02 Appraiser Trainee 109.01 Replacement 4/1/02.

Health Contract Amendment – San Juan Health District

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Amendment of Health Contract HD-06-00 Amendment 2, discussed at Staff Session on 2/6/02 and approved by the Board of Health 3/18/02 [RM-HLTH-00-0039], for Nursing Nutritional Services – San Juan Health District for amendment amount of $4,100.00 brining the new total amount to $11,400.00 for the period 1/1/02 - 12/31/02 .

Public Input or Comments

Tony Franz, Freeland, called attention to the creosote lining the beaches: Double Bluff, Ebey’s Landing, Admiral’s Cove, and all over. While the no spray issue is important to orca and salmon, it is also true for treated wood along the beaches.

PURCHASE ORDERS FOR Herbicide Program PRODUCTS

Some 100 +/- attended the public meeting to observe and/or take part in the Board’s decision making process under Public Works item “Roads-b” relating to proposed approval of purchase orders for herbicide to UAP Northwest and Wilbur Ellis. The majority of attendees were opposed to the County’s continued use of herbicide spraying on the roadsides and numbers of folk displayed signs “No Spray”. There were five audience members who indicated opposition to the County becoming a no spray county. The meeting was video taped for a school project of one of the attendees and her daughter.

Bill Oakes, Public Works Director, presented two purchase orders totaling $28,664.07, representing a significant reduction from 2001 purchase of herbicides. If chemicals are not used, road shoulders will have to be maintained by mechanical means and he gave assurance that the Department could maintain a safe roadway using mechanical means, though the cost would probably increase, exactly how much has been discussed at several staff sessions, and will require the purchase of mowers and managing staff, summer staff in particular, to a level to make that maintenance happen.

Chairman Shelton indicated that he would first ask for comments from the individual Commissioners. If the discussion results in a motion, after the motion is made and prior to voting, will allow some limited public input, mindful of today’s tight schedule with two advertised, timed public hearings.

Commissioner Thorn applauded the role of the Public Works Director and staff over the last several months regarding this issue. Although the additional cost to the County to move away from chemical treatment of the roadside is not known, it appears initially there would be some additional cost. There has been much discussion about the science on this subject; some good science and some bad science. His position consistently has been that the County should stop spraying based on personal experience with his family in the past where he felt the general proliferation of chemicals in the environment was not a good thing. While Public Works has done

an admirable job in reducing the amount of materials proposed for purchase, it is substantially more than he would like to see and his preference is that the County stop spraying and deal with the concerns that presents financially.

Commissioner McDowell acknowledged that the majority of people in the room wanted to see roadside spraying discontinued, the major reason put forth that it somehow is injurious to public health. He falls in the category that thinks spraying maybe is not bad based on the other side of the science. He offered an analogy for how he looks at this, which is the same way as those who think certain types of vaccines are not good for kids and by the same token, a much larger group of people who think vaccines are necessary and if there is a risk it is worth taking based on the health issues if kids were not vaccinated. That said, it comes down to the purpose of government which is to do the will of the majority of people. While those present today may not represent the majority of people in the County, information received over the last number of months tends to look like there is really only side of the issue. In looking at what the downside of not spraying could be, which is the cost, he agreed that could be dealt with. Therefore, he supported trying to do what he thought the lions’ share of the public wanted which was to stop spraying, though he did not think there is a health issue any more than there was a health issue with vaccinating.

Chairman Shelton acknowledged that the Board had received more science on pesticides and herbicides over the last six months than he thought existed, from both sides; some that says

herbicides are very damaging to people and the environment; other that says herbicides can be safely applied and do not harm the environment or public. Island County has reduced herbicide application to those types of herbicides anyone can buy at the local hardware store; the County has the responsibility to control noxious weeds in rights-of-ways. In times gone by, the Commissioners have heard from the agriculture community that if the County stops spraying the result will be farmers have to use more herbicides to control weeds that infiltrate fields from road rights-of-ways. There has not been an issue in this county that has generated more public support than the no spray issue, and the Commissioners are elected to serve the desires of the people and he saw a strong desire for the County to become a no spray county. He made a trip to Jefferson County last week to observe some of those road rights-of-ways and what a no spray policy looks like on the ground, and came away with the belief that Island County can maintain its road shoulders without the use of herbicides and is the direction this County needs to move.

Commissioner McDowell stated that he had taken the time also to look at some of the roads in Jefferson County that had not been sprayed for 20 years to get an idea what Island County roads may look like in 15-20 years if spraying is discontinued. He found that vegetation grows right up to the edge of the pavement; the real impact will be that people walking on the road and it is a road without an asphalt shoulder, will find they are walking in grass so the question becomes for the average person walking in grass in a wet climate good or bad – when recently mowed no problem.

Commissioner Thorn moved that the use of chemicals for roadside vegetation management be permanently discontinued effective today. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McDowell.

The Chairman asked for limited debate on this issue, calling for two people in support of the motion, and two people in opposition to the motion.

Roger Sherman, Coupeville. The County made a real effort to comply in part with folks who want no spray, and more environmentally friendly herbicides were used and a real effort made to confine spraying to shoulders only. Two years’ after the policy changed, he sent photographs of the roadsides in Ebey’s Prairie showing weeds up to 4 feet high in ditches and on shoulders, and Canadian Thistle growing up through the asphalt on the edges of some roads. Since that time more mechanical mowing has been done to control weed seeds and roadsides no longer an insult to the surrounding farmland. He is concerned that the voice of the well-organized no spray coalition is what the Board is hearing, and he assured that the quiet majority thinks the attack on good road maintenance practices is without justification. He made the point that people do have allergies to pesticides and herbicides, and allergies to about anything, even milk. As a farmer he has used herbicides all his adult life and if used properly, is a good management tool. Knowing what machinery, machinery maintenance and labor costs, he thought it impossible for mechanical roadside control to be as efficient as spraying. Before reaching a decision he urged that the Commissioners review the report from the County Extension Agent dated November 21, 2001. It

was his opinion that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that herbicide or insecticides have affected any of Island County’s aquifers or nearshore.

Sally Goodwin, MD, Clinton, read part of the letter she wrote to the Commissioners with 20 other doctors on the Island who signed the letter urging that the Board make an important public health decision by stopping unnecessary roadside spraying of herbicides. Even when the EPA finds a health threat it can continue to allow the use of a chemical and pesticides classified as carcinogens i.e. EPA classified Diuron as a known likely carcinogen yet it has been sprayed along Island County roads. Those chemicals that have been tested have mostly been evaluated one at a time, yet often herbicides are used in combinations and allows unacceptable risk since most combinations have not been tested. There is evidence that the combined effects of chemicals are greatly multiplied compared to the effects of individual herbicides. The majority of testing has not taken into account the unique susceptibilities of children and developing fetuses; small amounts of chemicals can have greater impact when these young ones are considered. As stewards of public health those in the health care profession must point out that these factors are of significant concern.

Rufus Rose, Clinton, expressed disappointment in the process, first that before hearing testimony the Board came to a conclusion, which he believed violated State law; secondly, that Earle Darst, Reece Rose and Nels M. Konnerup would not be allowed to testify because of the time limit placed on the non-public hearing decision. He agreed very much with the comments of Mr. Sherman. He submitted for the record the following:

(1) Information from County’s Hydrogeologist [e-mail 1/30/02] pointing out that in although Roundup [glyphosate] likely falls in a plus one range and as such is about as risky as dying from eating one peanut butter sandwich everyday for a year. Includes EPA information regarding National Drinking Water Regulations concerning glyphosates, drinking water contaminants, applying perspective scale that charts what the likelihood of someone being harmed is.

(2) Article from Opinion Journal, from The Wall Street Journal, editorial page 3/27/02 by Pete Du Pont “Coloring the Data”

(3) Sign “Spray On Save Farm Animals from Noxious Weeds and Keep our Road shoulders Safe”

Dr. Konnerup asked Mr. Rose to point out that he had had a couple documents he was going to refer to which were: a special report on California’s proposition 65 which debunks almost everything on the other side of the issue; and the American Council of Science and Health.

Laurie Keith, Langley, President, Whidbey Island No Spray Coalition (WINS) , thanked the Commissioners for listening and was encouraged that this form of government can work, and the people have a voice and perhaps in this case make a change she believes will be for the betterment of the environment and families. Much information has been provided; there are petitions with over 1700 signatures, some 200 letters, in addition to phone calls and e-mails to the Commissioners. It comes down to what the people are asking for. Spraying is not the norm around the world or nation. Four of the five no spray Washington counties are 100% no spray and the fifth is 99% no spray. If no spray can be implemented thoroughly in a way that includes learning plant species, developing native plants that then crowd out the noxious weeds, in the long run it will cost less and be more beautiful for people to walk along and attract visitors. The whole idea of working with the environment is a movement that needs to continue. She applauded the positive step taken here and encouraged home owners, industry, farmers and schools to look at alternatives that are life promoting and work with the balance of nature.

Motion, as made and seconded, carried unanimously.

Earle Darst, Central Whidbey, questioned then what the county was going to do about four noxious weeds: scotch broom, tansy ragwort, Canadian thistle, cat tails. The Chair indicated that would be a matter for discussion with Public Works staff.

HEARING HELD: Franchise #30, Lee Enterprises NW, Inc. – Sewer Distribution system, Gough Drive and Wagner Road, Camano Island

As advertised for 10:20 a.m., the Board held a public hearing that began approximately 10:40 a.m. because of the length of previous agenda item. The hearing was held for the purpose of considering Application for Franchise #30 by Lee Enterprises NW, Inc., for sewer distribution

system lines in County right-of-way known as Gough Drive and Wagner Road on Camano Island; Sec. 31, Twp. 31N., Rge 3E.

Mr. Oakes confirmed recommendation of approval as outlined in Memorandum dated March 19, 2002, from Dick Snyder, County Engineer. No comments either for or against approval of the franchise were made when the Chairman opened the hearing to public comments.

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Application for Franchise #30 by Lee Enterprises NW, Inc., for sewer distribution system lines in County right-of-way known as Gough Drive and Wagner Road on Camano Island; Sec. 31, Twp. 31N., Rge 3E.

CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HEARING, APP 083/02, Gerald Steele for Cameron-Woodard Homeowners Association, Appeal of Hearing Examiner decision regarding PLP 183/00

As scheduled and advertised, a public hearing was held beginning at 10:45 a.m. on Appeal #APP 083/02 by Gerald Steele for Cameron-Woodard Homeowners Association, appealing the Hearing Examiner decision regarding PLP 183/00, seeking to reverse the Hearing Examiner’s decision and deny application PLP 183/00. The hearing was a closed record appeal hearing pursuant to ICC 16.19.170. The Board had previously been provided with a copy of the Hearing Examiner’s Record.

Appellant: Cameron-Woodard Homeowners Association (CWHOA)

Applicant: Swan Enterprises

County Staff Attendance: Phil Bakke; Jeff Tate; Debra Little

Chairman Shelton read the Board’s adopted Procedure to hear closed record appeals:

The following procedure is established to provide a consistent and understandable process for hearing closed record appeals of a quasi-judicial nature coming before the Board of Island County Commissioners.

1. Under the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, a closed record appeal is an administrative appeal to this Board based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner. No new evidence or information will be allowed at this stage. The burden is on the appellant to show that the Hearing Examiner’s decision either is not supported by substantial evidence or that the Hearing Examiner made an error of law. Please refer to specific numbered Hearing Examiner findings of fact or conclusions of law clamed to be in error when arguing that the Hearing Examiner made a reversible error.

2. Staff will present a concise statement describing the nature of the appeal, the hearing

history to date, the relevant facts and statutory constraints.

3. The appellant, or designated representative, will be provided an opportunity to state

the specific basis of the appeal and the action requested of the Board of Commissioners.

4. The project applicant, or designated representative, if different from the appellant, will

be provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the argument of the appellant and argue the basis for upholding the Hearing Examiner’s decision.

5. Other members of the public will be provided a reasonable opportunity to state their arguments in favor or opposition to the Hearing Examiner’s decision.

6. Staff may comment on the arguments made by the appellant, project proponent and

members of the public.

7. The appellant, or designated representative, will be provided an opportunity to reply to arguments of the project applicant, members of the public and comments of county staff.

8. Unless otherwise indicated during the hearing, a decision will be announced at public

meeting within 14 days based on the record of the Hearing Examiner’s hearing and applicable laws. The Board’s decision will include the vote of individual Commissioners and a brief

statement as to the basis for the decision.

9. After the Board’s decision, the Planning Director will prepare a written decision for

signature by the Board of County Commissioners. A copy of the decision will be provided to the appellant and project applicant by the Planning Department.

STAFF STATEMENT

Ms. Little summarized that this was an appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to approve a long plat application for 24 lots on 9.65 acres located on the west side of Woodard Avenue and south of Highway 525, in the Freeland area. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on October 18, 2001, and issued his decision February 15, 2002 to approve the application. That decision was appealed March 1, 2002, and today’s appeal is a closed record hearing.

APPELLANT

Gerald Steele, 2545 N.E. 95^th Street, Seattle, 98115, represented Cameron Woodard Homeowners Association in their appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Written Statement of Appeal [Exhibit BOCC #1] points out that the vesting law requires a preliminary plat decision to be made under the ordinances existing at the time of original application, the key being that relevant ordinances are those in existence at the point applicant is preparing his application. The Hearing Examiner’s decision would have been denial if he would have used ordinances in existence when the application was submitted. Mr. Steel asked that the Board reverse the decision and deny it.

He cited the reason for the Hearing Examiner’s approval to be a complex history. His view was that coming forward after a month or two was a proposal to change ordinances so that at the end of the process and the Board adopted new Ordinance #C-159-01, this project should then be approved. Mr. Steel believed there was an appearance of fairness violation and asked before closing the hearing Commissioners disclose any conversations or communications they may have had with staff or anyone else regarding this subdivision in the last year outside a public hearing along with the nature of the communication. He suggested had the Commissioners been familiar with land use law in the State, they would not have adopted Ordinance #C-159-01 which he believes is an illegal ordinance, and once so declared, it will be a matter he will ask in Court that the project be denied.

He reviewed his understanding of the fundamental premise in land use law having to do with non conforming uses and non conforming uses being discouraged. This project is a non conforming use no longer allowed in that area. He thought it worth pointing out that for the mass majority of the United States, the view of what the law should be is different than what it is in Washington. The vesting law in Washington State is that when a complete application for a preliminary plat has been submitted it is judged under the laws to effect at that time. The Commissioners changed the rules and adopted an illegal ordinance to affect this project and he contended, it was not a morally right thing to do nor legally correct. He asked that the Commissioners save the public money, rethink their position and rescind the illegal ordinance. Should the Commissioners rescind that ordinance, particularly the retroactive part, then the laws in existence are no longer debatable and would have no choice but to follow the Examiner’s language and deny the project.

To give a sense of what is proposed in the subdivision, Mr. Steel commented that it proposed

collecting stormwater on site and infiltrating it into the sandy soil so that the stormwater would not run down onto neighboring properties. He pointed out to the Hearing Examiner that the drainage design approved could only hold about a third of the water that applicant’s engineer calculated it had to hold. The Hearing Examiner agreed and stated that would be picked up in the final approval of the subdivision. Had that error not be shown to the Examiner Mr. Steel expected that design would have gone through in the final approval in the same manner it went through in the preliminary approval. The Examiner also addressed the issue of non conforming use; three times the density of the surrounding uses, or could be even five or six times the density of the surrounding uses. Compared to allowed surrounding uses Mr. Steel contended it was fifteen times what could happen around the project in the future and the Examiner dealt with that with a condition. He was pleased with what the Hearing Examiner did; not pleased with the Board in having passed an illegal ordinance violating the principles of land use allowing a non conforming use fifteen as times as dense as is allowed in the

surrounding area.

The written statement of appeal also challenges a statement made at paragraph D at page 10 of the decision that states: “ No further analysis of the material submitted by Swan on June 27^th was made.”. June 27^th the application was submitted and the record shows that a technician took

the application and checked off that all pieces were there, but the technician did not have the skills to decide whether the pieces of paper were meaningful and actually contained the information on a complete application. There was a two week delay period from the time the application was first received until it was considered fully submitted and deemed complete and that was when a notice of complete application letter was sent to the applicant. Staff had 14 days to review the application and send out the notice. The project vests to the ordinance in place when that notice of complete application was sent. In this case they sent it out after the 12^th day; if they had not sent it by the 14^th day it would be deemed complete.

The Commissioners adopted an ordinance on June 5^th effective June 30^th so when this project came in on June 27^th applicant was subject to the June 5^th ordinance plus the ordinance that said with respect to vesting staff had 14 days to review the application before determining it was complete, so they vested it something like the 9^th or so of July and at that point the phase in schedule for the 1 per 5 acre zoning had come into place, which was why the Hearing Examiner said this project could not be approved. The ordinance was in place from June 5^th; . the application came in on June 27^th, vested on July 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, and at that point was not consistent with the zoning. Had the applicant submitted the application on June 15^th ten days’ after the ordinance was adopted the 14 days would have run and applicant would have vested under the 3 unit per acre zoning. Whether or not there was analysis done is staff’s option; the law in place provided the opportunity for them to do analysis rather than just have someone who has no skill determine if the application was complete. The law provides that it go to a planner to review the application and decide if it was in fact complete before it vested. But in this case the person was not qualified. Before a planner wrote the letter that it was a complete application, he or she had to do some analysis of the application. Again, he asks that the sentence stating there was no further analysis of the material submitted by Swan on June 27^th was undertaken, be stricken.

He asked that in Paragraphs D and F on page 10 the sentence be struck that says that the Examiner finds that it constituted a completed application on June 27^th because the Examiner goes on to state that under state law the plat application vested when a complete application was submitted on June 27^th. It is Mr. Steel’s contention that the Examiner was not qualified or authorized to interpret state law, only local ordinances. Similarly the paragraph beginning on page 13 and ending on page 14 of the decision should also be stricken in the same vein for the same reasons.

He advised that the Board has the right to rescind the illegal ordinance since it has a retroactive affect. If rescinded it’s back to the ordinance the applicant was actually reading when application was submitted, with interpretation of those ordinances, and in this case then, follow the recommendation to deny the project. Should the Board decide to rescind the ordinance and reverse the Examiner, Mr. Steel asked that they change the finding of facts made by staff and adopted on page 7 of the decision that are inconsistent with Mr. Steel’s proposal for the Board’s decision.

APPLICANT

Carolyn Cliff, P. O. Box 925, Langley, representing Swan Enterprises, indicated that Wayne Tippery could not attend today due to a personal obligation elsewhere but noted that Jerry Morrison from the survey firm of Thatcher and Morrison was present. Swan asks that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner’s decision, and further commented based on her written statement [Exhibit BOCC #2].

The “main event” she said occurred back on October 18^th where following adopted rules based on the Regulatory Reform Act, she asked: (1) did the Hearing Examiner make an error of law; or (2) is the Hearing Examiner’s decision not supported by substantial evidence. The answer she thought was clear: the Hearing Examiner’s decision should be upheld; the Hearing Examiner made no error of law, and Cameron-Woodard Homeowners Association [ CWHOA] conceded that their letter written before the decision was issued (Exhibit #59). While CWHOA contends that the Board made an error of law in adopting the amendment to the vesting ordinance, the Hearing Examiner, County Prosecutor and Swan do not think so. Appellant is not entitled to come before the Board in its quasi judicial capacity and ask the Board in its legislative capacity to rescind the ordinance.

Appellant’s written statement argues there was no evidence in the record for the finding that the Hearing Examiner made that said nothing was done to determine if Swan’s application was complete after it was accepted for submission on June 27^th and the time the notice of appeal, the

notice of complete application was dated on July 10^th. The Hearing Examiner has written in his decision what he believes happened at the hearing; Applicant’s written statement contains what they believe happened at the hearing, and it is Appellant’s burden to show that the Hearing Examiner’s decision was not based on substantial evidence if that is what they claim; how they can do that was beyond her without having a transcript prepared. She can show in the existing record that the Hearing Examiner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, with Exhibits 8 and 6 which she provided copies of at this time pieces of the application that was actually turned in on June 27^th [Exhibit #3 BOCC and Exhibit #4 BOCC respectively]. She read from the top third line of the printed material: “All blanks under applicant use below must be filled in for this application to be accepted as complete for review. The items listed in the following checklist are the minimum requirements that must be provided and complete at the time you submit your application to the County or the application will not be accepted”. The right hand side shows the check marks that the applicant checks off showing he has all the pieces, and the left side shows check marks by staff identified as “MB” who went through the application on June 27^th to determine that it was complete before accepting it. Staff did not check off sub items for the individual items on the plat map but no one is suggesting there was something incomplete about the plat map when turned in on June 27^th and CWHOA does not point to anything in the record that suggests someone looked through the map in that two week interval. It also does not have a check mark for the fees but Exhibit 6 of the Hearing Examiner’s record, 2^nd page, contains a receipt number for the $4416 fee Swan paid on June 27^th. The printed material in bold states: the application packages must be submitted in person to the Community Development Division, and the words “in person” underlined. The submission process takes place on the day application is handed in, done in person because applicant has to wait while the County determines if they will accept it or not. There is no question that under the Regulatory Reform Act that regulations can be set up so as to take up to 28 days to determine whether the submittal is complete or not; that time can be shortened which is what Island County has done - 14 days. If an application is submitted and reviewed, and staff finds on day 13 it is not a complete application, it does not vest either on day 13 or on day 1. If the application is submitted on day 1 and the County determines on day 13 it is a complete application, state law requires that it vest not on day 13 but on day 1 when it was handed in for a division of land.

The Board on January 7, 2002 adopted an ordinance to conform to the requirements of State law, not to change laws retroactively in a way inconsistent with State law, rather to bring the County Code into conformity with what State law requires. Island County Code 16.19.190 requires when appealing a Hearing Examiner’s decision to the Board a statement of what the basis is for that appeal so those who are responding have an opportunity to be heard before you intelligently. Ms. Cliff was not prepared to address issues advanced by the appellant not contained in his written statement of appeal, and did not believe the Board should consider anything not contained in their written statement of appeal. She was not prepared to address issues about appearance of fairness. There was nothing about that in the statement of appeal and she gave no credit to that argument and did not believe Appellant should be allowed to expand the basis for their appeal in oral argument. Ms. Cliff submitted that the Appellant had not shown either that the Hearing Examiner made an error of law or that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

STAFF COMMENT ON ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT, APPLICANT, PUBLIC

Responding to a question from Commissioner Thorn about the sequence of acceptance of payment – does staff identify that an application is complete before payment, Ms. Little confirmed they try to, and have created application forms with very extensive check lists. Applicant comes in with the application and copies; applicant then meets usually with a planning technician, sometimes a planner, to go through the whole application and checklist. If staff determines all documents and information are there according to the checklist, then the application is taken, fees collected and receipt written. At that point, with very few exceptions, usually an administrative person writes the notice of completeness, prepares notice for the newspaper and a public notice sign. Staff would not take an application at the counter if incomplete.

Responding to Commissioner McDowell, Wm. L. McDowell, Ms. Little confirmed that the Exhibits handed in today for the Board by Ms. Cliff that had all the check marks on it was checked like that on June 27^th.

APPELLANT RESPONSE.

Mr. Steel registered an objection to new testimony by Debra Little in response to questions from the Commissioners, contending that this hearing did not allow her to provide testimony unless she can quote it from the record. He characterized her testimony non responsive testimony. In response to the appearance of fairness issue, he explained there was no issue with appearance of fairness before the Hearing Examiner and therefore was not raised before the Examiner. It is raised here and again asked that according to State law the Commissioners disclose if they had any conversations or communications with anyone outside of public meetings, if so, what it was, and he then be given an opportunity to respond.

As far as Ms. Cliff’s exhibits, neither item addresses the time period between June 27^th and July 10^th; both address the moment of the application being given to the technical person. The issue is whether after the application was given to the technical person was anything done and Mr. Steel contends that he provided the evidence of the notice of complete application letter that he believed had to have required something done or the letter could not have been sent. Therefore, it justifies removing that statement from the Examiner’s decision.

There was a statement by Applicant about what this Board did when it adopted Ordinance #C-159-01 about bringing County Code into conformance with what State law requires. While there is no doubt that the statement in the new ordinance as it applies to the future tracks more closely the language in State law but Appellant’s complaint is not with the change made to the ordinance from that point and forward, the complaint is with the change made to the ordinance from that point and backward because they do not believe that the County ordinance complied with State law.

Mr. Steel requested that the written decision include the owner and or applicant, name and address, in the decision to simplify the method of filing the appeal.

HEARING CLOSED; DECISION SCHEDULED

With that, the Chairman closed the hearing, and scheduled the Board’s announcement of a decision in 14 days, April 15, 2002, at public meeting, based on the record of the Hearing Examiner’s hearing and applicable laws. The Board’s decision will include the vote of individual Commissioners and a brief statement as to the basis for the decision.

HEARING SCHEDULED: Ordinance #C-25-02 (PLG-004-02) Amending ICC 17.03.210 to consolidate recently adopted site coverage variance provisions and height variance provisions into a single ordinance

For purposes of the Board scheduling a public hearing, Phil Bakke introduced Ordinance #C-25-02 (PLG-004-02) Amending ICC 17.03.210 to consolidate recently adopted site coverage variance provisions and height variance provisions into a single ordinance.

By unanimous motion, the Board scheduled the public hearing for April 22, 2002 at 2:35 p.m. [GMA # _______]

Resolution #C-26 -02 (PLG-007-02) Amending service area for Camano City Community Club Water System, reducing service area and incorporating amended service area and creation of Kodiak Water System into the Coordinated Water System Plan

Jeff Tate, Comprehensive Plan Manager, presented for approval, Resolution #C-26-02 (PLG-007-02) Amending the service area for the Camano City Community Club Water System by reducing its service area and incorporating the amended service area and the creation of the Kodiak Water System into the Coordinated Water System Plan.

For all the water systems that were created in the past it is not uncommon for a service area to have 100 lots but when the water system plan is developed to only build it for 50, and it would require significant infrastructure improvement and expense to connect the other 50 lots. The CWSP provides for someone in a service area to either get water service from the water purveyor within 120 days or is allowed to go elsewhere to seek water. In this particular instance the water purveyor stated up front it cannot provide water to this parcel. For this piece of property, the

property owner desires to subdivide into three parcels. The service area has to be established and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

By unanimous motion, the Board, as staff recommended, approved Resolution #C-26-02 (PLG-007-02) Amending the service area for the Camano City Community Club Water System by reducing its service area and incorporating the amended service area and the creation of the Kodiak Water System into the Coordinated Water System Plan.

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE )

SERVICE AREA FOR THE CAMANO )

CITY COMMUNITY CLUB WATER )

SYSTEM BY REDUCING ITS SERVICE ) RESOLUTION C-26-02

AREA AND INCORPORATING THE ) PLG-007-02

AMENDED SERVICE AREA AND THE )

CREATION OF THE KODIAK WATER )

SYSTEM INTO THE COORDINATED )

WATER SYSTEM PLAN. )

WHEREAS, parcel R23114-242-3000, is currently located within the service area of the Camano City Community Club, Inc. water system; and

WHEREAS, parcel R23114-242-3000 is a 2.35 acre Rural Residential parcel that allows for a density of 2 dwelling units per acre; and

WHEREAS, the owner of the property desires to subdivide this parcel into three separate lots pursuant to Chapter 16.06 ICC and Chapter 17.03 ICC; and

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2002 the Camano City Community Club has indicated that they are unable to provide water to the property owner for the proposed three lots, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the owner of parcel R23114-242-3000 desires to establish a new water system service area boundary that will act as purveyor of potable water to the proposed three lots; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(4)(b) appropriations of 2,250 gallons per minute or less of ground water are exempt from SEPA review, NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Island County Commissioners that the service area of the Camano City Community Club water is amended to remove parcel R23114-242-3000, and the service area for the Kodiak Water System, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby incorporated into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 day of April, 2002.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

William F. Thorn, Member

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

ATTEST:

Elaine Marlow

Clerk of the Board

[Exhibits on file with the Clerk of the Board]

Contract #RM-PLAN-02-0025 - Hearing Examiner Contract Renewal

By unanimous motion, the Board approved #RM-PLAN-02-0025, Contract renewal between Island County and Michael Bobbink for 2-year contract to 3/31/04 for professional services as Hearing Examiner, in the amount of $38,556.00/Yr., exempted from competitive bid solicitation as allowed under Island County Code 2.29.030.B.12, any service contract waived by the Board of County Commissioners on a case by case basis.

Budget Workshop - Auditor/Election Reserve/Auditor’s O&M

A Budget Workshop was held beginning at 1:30 p.m. to review the 2003 Auditor/Election Reserve/Auditor’s O&M budgets. The Budget Director, and a several Elected Officials, Department Heads and attended.

Presentation by: Suzanne Sinclair, Island County Auditor

Hand-out: Budget Discussion 2003 10 page hand-out

Ms. Sinclair started off with the assumption that this was a conceptual meeting and took the opportunity to review what the Auditor’s Office does, how it has been moving, and statistics as

outlined in the hand-out.