ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS   -  MINUTES OF MEETING

REGULAR SESSION  - MARCH 24, 2003

 

The  Regular Meeting of the Board of Island County Commissioners convened at 11:30 a.m. on  March 24, 2003 in a roundtable session with County Elected Officials,  meeting in Conference Room #116, Courthouse Administration Building   Other agenda topics for the  Regular Session followed at 1:30 p.m.  as  outlined on the agenda,  including Diking Improvement District #4, that portion of the meeting  held in the  Law & Justice Facility, Department III (Courtroom 3), 101 NE 6th Street, Coupeville, Wa.  Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, William J. Byrd, Member, and Mike Shelton,  Member, were present.   By unanimous motion, the Board approved the  minutes from Regular Session held on March  17,  2003. 

 

Roundtable Meeting with Island County Elected Officials

 

In addition to all three members of the Board of County Commissioners, the following also attended: 

 

Elected Officials:      Tom Baenen, Sharon Franzen, Linda Riffe, Suzanne Sinclair

Department Heads:   Elaine Marlow; Dick Toft

Press:                       Nathan Whalen, Whidbey News Times

Others:                      Three audience members

 

Linda Riffe provided investment information having  read a synopsis by  Piper Jaffray that compared market activity during the Gulf  War in 1991 to now and the market reaction.  It seems  reasonable to expect initial positive market returns.  However, Dow Jones is down 300 points this morning. It is thought there will probably be some swing in the market for awhile.  Interest rates as of last week were:  for 3 months 1.17% and for 2 years 1.78%.

 

Suzanne Sinclair confirmed notification by Oak Harbor School District that the District plans to  run the levy issue on the May special election ballot.

 

Roundtable adjourned at 11:37 a.m; next  regular roundtable scheduled for April 28, 2003 at 11:30 a.m.

 

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

 

The following pre-audited bills and vouchers were approved  for payment by unanimous motion of the Board:   Voucher (War.) # 162021-162346 …………………………………………….…….. $552,407.18.

 

Appointment TO ISLAND COUNTY LAW & JUSTICE COUNCIL

 

By unanimous motion, the Board appointed James Valdez of  Oak Harbor to serve as a member on the Law and Justice Council of Island County, representing Commissioner District #3, for a term until 2-28-03.

 

STAFF SESSION SCHEDULE - APRIL 2003

 

The Board by unanimous motion approved the Staff Session  Schedule for April 2003 to be distributed.    The first staff session is a regular session  on April 2, 2003 beginning at 9:00 a.m.  The regular session for

16 has been  canceled and in its place, a special staff session  scheduled to be held on  April 30, 2003, beginning at 9:00 a.m.   Staff Sessions are held in the Courthouse Administration Building, Conference Room #116, 1 N.E. 7th Street, Coupeville.

 

LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS APPROVED

 

Having received favorable review and recommendation from Island County departments, the Board by unanimous motion approved the following liquor licenses:

 

Assumption of Liquor License #354674-3C by Robert J. & Candy Lou Raskoskie,

d/b/a  Bailey's Corner Store,  7695 S. Cultus Bay Road, Clinton

 

 New application for Liquor License #363753-3C by Robert M. & Colette W. Riggs,

 d/b/a Riggs LLC, for Trattoria Parma,  5438 S. Woodward Ave., Freeland.

 

Claim for damages (RD03-005CD) Howe, David

 

Per memo dated  February 20, 2003  from Betty Kemp, Director, GSA/Risk Management,  Claim for Damages (RD03-005CD) by David Howe was filed in the amount of  $951.44 alleging vehicle damage from county sanding truck  in the vicinity of Port  Susan  Terrace Road, Camano February 13, 2003.   County log confirms there was a sanding operation in that area on that day, although county employees do not recall the incident.  On investigation, the County Engineer pointed  out it was possible that the sander could have caused the windshield damage, but not bumper damages, inasmuch as there was no damage to the hood and claimant’s vehicle is a low rider.   Recommendation of both the County Engineer and Risk Manager is to pay the claim in the amount  $482.83 only, and deny  $468.61 representing damage to bumper.

 

By unanimous motion the Board approved the Claim in the amount of  $482.83 only, and denied  $468.61 representing damage to bumper.

 

Childcare Consultation CONTRACT #HD-15-02(1) -Opportunity Council

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Childcare Consultation Contract #HD-15-02(1) in the amount of $4,150 with the  Opportunity Council, which was  approved by the Board of Health on March 17, 2003. 

 

PERSONNEL ACTION AUTHORIZATIONS APPROVED

 

Approved by unanimous motion of the Board, as presented by Dick Toft, Human Resources Director, were the following Personnel Action Authorizations:

 

Department    PAA #      Description/Position No                      Action                        Effective

Sheriff            036/03        Chief Criminal Deputy 4002.00   Re-establish Position    3/24/03

Sheriff             037/03       Administrative Asst.     4006.00   Re-establish Position    3/24/03

Public Works  038/03       S.W. Attnd. Camano    2249.16   Replacement                  3/24/03

 

Annual Certification for Calendar Year 2002 – Annual Report

to County Road Administration Board (CRAB)

 

Annual Certification for Calendar Year 2002, the Annual Report to the County Road Administration Board  was approved by unanimous motion of the Board, as presented and recommended for approval by the County Engineer. 

 

Contract/Performance & Payment Bond #PW-0320-33-

Whidbey Island Pavement Repairs

 

By unanimous motion the  Board approved the Contract/Performance and Payment Bond #PW-0320-33 for  Whidbey Island Pavement Repairs under Work Order #100 in the amount of  $59,629.00 with  Krieg Construction, Inc.

 

PURCHASE ORDERS APPROVED

 

Presented for approval by Mr. Snyder, along with Jack Taylor, Maintenance Superintendent, were Purchase Order #5666  for four (4) 2003 Ford Super Duty F450XL Cab & Chassis Truck for purchase off  State Contract #05702,  15,000 pounds GVWR (4x4) from  Frontier Ford, in the amount of  $23,696.00 each plus title and fees  ($102,551.15), and Purchase Order #5667  for four (4) 2/3 yard Dump Body –11 foot  Body (off State Contract #04797) for Ford F-450 chassis from  Northend Truck Equipment, Inc., in the amount of  $12,576.00 each plus tax ($54,579.84).

 

Questions had been raised earlier about calling for bids to give an opportunity for local bidders to bid, and a chance to retain sales tax locally instead of purchasing from State Contract.  Mr. Taylor consulted with the owner of Frontier Ford, Anacortes, who also owns Whidbey Island Ford, who confirmed the State Contract is only with the Anacortes firm.   Bidding would open up the possibility of not only bids from out of the area but out of state as well, and would come at additional costs of advertising and preparing specifications  and mailing, etc. an additional cost of between $600 to $800,   Advertising is estimated at $300 since advertising is done locally as well as the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. The proposed purchase from State Contract is for 2003 trucks.  Local paper only would be about $150.   The other factor is timing; March 31 is the cut off date to build according to the State procurement  office to guarantee  2003 trucks built.

 

Commissioner McDowell saw the opportunity to bid locally and retain $8,000 to $9,000 local sales tax.  If the firm can give a price for state contract surely that firm can meet it for a private bid.     This is an opportunity to keep the purchase locally and the sales tax.   There is no assurance that anyone else can under bid what the state contract price is; however, since the local dealer is already  providing the trucks at  state contract price surely that dealer could bid state contract price.  If someone else  can underbid state contract price then the County would be saving money.

 

Although there are some local needs, Commissioner Shelton’s  opinion was that there is a reason for the state contract and he supported the purchase from that contract. Commissioner McDowell’s  scenario assumes purchase of  2003 models after going through the advertisement and bid process; there is that chance if the County cannot purchase the 2003 models that new models could end up costing more.  And Commissioner Byrd acknowledged that a bid process with advertising would take the date out to well after the March 31 build date; late in the  game and something that should have been determined before.

 

Commissioner Shelton moved that the Board  Sign Purchase Order #5666 for four 2003  Super Duty  F450XL Cab & Chassis Trucks  off  State Contract #05702 from  Frontier Ford, in the total amount of   $102,551.15, including sales tax.  Motion was seconded by Commissioner Byrd. 

 

Under discussion Commissioner McDowell urged going out to bid in order for an opportunity to bid locally. 

 

Motion carried by majority vote.  Commissioner  McDowell opposed for the reasons so stated.

 

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Purchase Order #5667 for four dump bodies from Northern Truck Equipment, Inc.  in the  total amount of $54,579.84 including tax.

 

Resolution #C-29 -03/PLG-004-03 Incorporating  Service Area for  Elger Bay Water Association into  IS. CO.  Water System Plan

 

Resolution #C-29-03/PLG-004-03 Incorporating the Service Area for the Elger Bay Water Association into the Island County Water System Plan was approved by unanimous motion of the Board, as presented and recommended for approval by Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development Department.

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

IN THE MATTER OF INCORPORATING                  )

THE SERVICE AREA FOR THE ELGER                    )

BAY WATER ASSOCIATION INTO                          )           RESOLUTION C-29-03

THE ISLAND COUNTY COORDINATED                  )             PLG-004-03

WATER SYSTEM PLAN.                                            )

                                                                       

WHEREAS, the Elger Bay Water Association was established in the 1950’s; and

WHEREAS, the Elger Bay Water Association has an approved water right for 22 connections of which 20 are currently in use; and

WHEREAS, the Elger Bay Water Association is not proposing to expand their water system service area rather it is proposing to incorporate the existing service area into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan; 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 Elger Bay Water Association service area  is hereby incorporated into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25 day of March, 2003.

BOARD OF  COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William J. Byrd, Member

Mike Shelton, Member

ATTEST:

Elaine Marlow

Clerk of the Board

                                [Exhibit A placed on file with the Clerk of the Board ]

 

Resolution #C-30-03/PLG-005-03  Incorporating Service Area-PORT Susan Terrace ASSN. into  IS. CO. Coordinated Water System Plan

 

Resolution #C-30-03/PLG-005-03  Incorporating the Service Area for the Port Susan Terrace Association into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan was approved by unanimous motion of the Board, as presented and recommended for approval by Mr. Tate.

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

IN THE MATTER OF INCORPORATING                  )

THE SERVICE AREA FOR THE PORT                      )

SUSAN TERRACE ASSOCIATION INTO                                                                              )           RESOLUTION C-30-03

THE ISLAND COUNTY COORDINATED                 )                       PLG-005-03

WATER SYSTE PLAN.                                               )

                                                         

WHEREAS, the Port Susan Terrace Association was established in the 1960’s; and

WHEREAS, the Port Susan Terrace Association has an approved water right for 44 connections; and

WHEREAS, the Port Susan Terrace Association is not proposing to expand their water system service area rather it is proposing to incorporate the existing service area into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan; 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 Port Susan Terrace Association service area  is hereby incorporated into the Island County Coordinated Water System Plan.

 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this  24 day of March, 2003.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman

William J. Byrd, Member

Mike Shelton, Member

ATTEST:  Elaine Marlow

Clerk of the Board                                             [Exhibit A on file with the Clerk of the Board]

 

CLOSED RECORD APPEAL  -  APP #046/03, Jane Seymour Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on PLA 025/98, Bonaci, Type III Decision

 

At   3:15 p.m. as scheduled a closed record appeal was held on Appeal #046/03 by  Jane Seymour, appealing the Hearing Examiner’s decision on PLA 025/98 by Paul, Gordon, Alan and Robert Bonaci.   Notice dated February 20, 2003 provided  the date, time and place  of the closed record   appeal hearing to applicant, the appellant and to all other parties  of record [Exhibit #1]

 

The Board  previously  received a  complete copy of the Hearing Examiner’s Exhibit Log [Exhibit 2].   In addition, the Board’s  packet for the closed record appeal today contained:  Appeal filed by Jane Seymour received dated and received February 7, 2003;  V. Anne Smidt rebuttal dated February 18, 2003; and  Paul Bonaci letter to Jane Seymour dated March 11, 2003;  and the Hearing Examiner’s decision  January  24, 2003.  [Board Packet Exhibit #3] .

 

Appellant:   Greg Seymour, Christi Seymour, Brenda Seymour and Haley Seymour; Greg Seymour and 

                     Jane Seymour, Co-Trustees of the Seymour Family Trust, represented by Jane Seymour,  

                     Attorney at Law, Freeland, Wa. 

 

Applicant:              Paul, Gordon, Alan and Robert Bonaci

 

County Staff:         Phil Bakke, Planning & Community Development Director

                         Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development

 

As explained by Chairman McDowell, the  hearing was a closed record appeal pursuant to ICC 16.19.170 and the Board’s Procedure to Hear Closed Record Appeals from which he read   [Exhibit #4].  With regard to Item #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” Chairman McDowell indicated that the Board’s decision would be announced on April 14, 2003 at 10:30 a.m.

 

Staff Statement

 

Mr. Tate  posted maps on the wall during the closed record appeal to provide a visual of what was happening.

 

                Map:  Current Lot Configuration   [Exhibit 5]

 

            Existing number of lots

                Existing lot lines

                Current number of houses

                Potential number of houses

                Current road network and access points

 

Green circles represent  lots that are part of the plat of Saratoga Beach Division  #1; lots 10, 11 12 13 and 14.  Lots 12, 13 and 14 are served by Kevin Court in the plat of Saratoga Beach Division #1; lots 10  and 11 are served by Harbor View Drive also in the plat of Saratoga Beach Division  #1.  There is an 1.84 acre piece of property not in the plat of Saratoga Beach Division #1, but is an adjacent unplatted lot.    He pointed on the map the location of the plat of Baby Island Heights

 

Map:  Proposed Lot Configuration   [Exhibit 6]

 

            Proposed Lot Lines

                Proposed Number of Parcels

                Potential Number of Houses

 

Map:   Plat Alteration Map 025/98   [Exhibit 7]

 

                 Map is a  part of the application.  If the proposal were to be approved this is the map     

                 that would be recorded. 

 

 

 

 

This is a plat alteration  that would amend  some boundary lines and some easements within a  subdivision; 5 lots within the subdivision and an adjacent unplatted lot not in the subdivision.   Applicant proposes a plat alteration to adjust the boundary lines of those 6 lots to create 5 lots, all of which now would be in the plat

 

of Saratoga Beach Division #1.   The unplatted 1.84 acre piece would be absorbed into the 5 lots within Saratoga Beach Division  #1.  This would  expand the outer boundary of the plat of Saratoga Beach Division  #1 to include this piece of property.  Existing Tract A has a main house  and a cabin and the property is   served by Baby Island Way.  The  proposal would take the cabin and put it on one piece of property and the main  residence on another piece of property, both of which would be served by Baby Island Way.

 

Current situation [refer to map exhibit 5 ]:   6 parcels, 2 residences with potential for 5 more, or potential for 7 homes as it stands.

 

Proposed lot configuration [refer to map exhibit 6]:    put cabin on one piece, main on another; then have three remaining that could have single family homes, i.e.  5 parcels, 2 residences that already exist with potential for 3 more so there is actually a net reduction in the number of homes that can be built as a result of this plat alteration.

 

Mr. Tate briefly summarized the eight points from Appellants appeal dated  Feb. 7, 2003 [see Exhibit 3].

 

Next, he  referred to the Bonaci Plat Alteration (PLA) 025/98 Timeline of Events  beginning January 16, 1998 through March 24, 2003  [Exhibit 8]  which was faxed last week to Appellant and copy provided to the Board.  He highlighted a few of the more significant dates:

 

            1/16/98                                                                         Application submitted  [returned]

                2/24/98                                                                                       Application resubmitted

            5/1/02                                                   Island County Health Department preliminary approval PLA 025/98

8/27/02                                                 Island County Public Works preliminary approval PLA 025/98

            8/27/02                                                 Staff Report recommending approval with conditions

            9/19/02                                                                 1st  Hearing  Examiner Public Hearing

            11/21/02                    2nd Hearing Examiner Public Hearing 

            1/16/03                                                                   3rd Hearing Examiner Public Hearing

            1/24/03                                                          Hearing Examiner approved Plat Alteration

            2/7/03                                                                             Appeal filed in a timely manner

 

Mr.  Tate provided the applicable sections of code that have been referenced:

 

                RCW 58.17           Plat subdivisions and dedications 

            ICC 16.06                         Land Division   and dedication

            RCW 36.70B                          Local Project Review

            ICC 16.19                           Land Use Review Process

            ICC 17.03                                          Zoning

            WAC 197-11         SEPA  environmental review 

           

Responding to a question from Commissioner Shelton, Mr. Tate confirmed that lots 10, 11 and 12 are the three southern lots.  What access would look like, it would come up to lot 12; stop on lot 12.  Lots  13 and 14 would continue to be served by Baby Island Way.

 

Appellant Presentation

 

Jane Seymour, Attorney at Law, 1638 E. Main Street, Freeland, Wa., represented the Seymour Family as well as being a property owner next door to the proposed project,  presented the  appeal.  Appellants are not opposed to the applicants doing what they want to do; but are opposed to the procedure and means by which the applicant is s going about this, the  damage applicant has done along the way and damage that will occur in the future if applicant is not required to mitigate the damages that have already been done and damages  potentially there. 

 

To give the Board an idea of the location, she showed quarter section maps  reminding them where Holmes Harbor and Baby Island are located, the plat, and the relationships between  the properties, and the unplatted acreage and then lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the plat of Saratoga Beach Division #1.  Baby Island Heights consists of  110 lots served by  Baby Island Road, an extension of Saratoga Road until it gets to Baby Island Lane, very narrow, very densely packed.  East Harbor Road  accesses this whole area;  in order to get to their lot, Bonaci’s   go all the way through and past  110 properties  to the very end where there is no emergency turnaround, very  narrow, very crowded, where Bonaci’s want to and currently are using it for two residences.  At the very end that is a 30-foot right of way with about 17 feet asphalt surface.    It is a very old development, developed in the 1930’s.    She pointed out Kevin Court access, 60 foot  wide, very large, very modern, paved, built out, emergency turn-around.  The Plat of Saratoga Beach  affected directly and legally; the Plat of  Baby Island Heights directly incidentally.   Would the applicant be allowed to subdivide the 1.88 acres into two and have two residences off Baby Island Road she thought the answer would be no because they do not have septic to do that and do not think they can get it, nor do they have the land to do it.

 

Appellants object  to the means by which Bonaci's have gone about the process.  They started pre-1998 taking a small-unpainted one-room cabin and tried to remodel it.  Applicants received an enforcement order to get septic, etc. which  they did but in doing that they  procured their  building permit by fraud and defrauded the Island County Health Department, discovered by some of the residents near this project.  Ms.

 

Seymour  researched it herself and obtained all of the documents that show how it was done and her  dated 11/26/02 to the Hearing Examiner detailed this fraud.

 

Contrary to what Mr. Tate stated in his summary of timeline of events, there were not three hearings.  There were 3 scheduled times for hearing but there was a single hearing.  It was in January when they finally had a hearing and  asked  Jeff Tate his position on her 11/26/02 letter and his answer was basically that it was irrelevant and not his job.  He did indicate at that time he would turn over that letter to the Health Department,  yet as of this Friday according to Tim  McDonald and Keith Higman he has not done that.  She asked that the Board not  perpetuate that and make sure this is  looked into and adequately addressed. 

 

The issue of the  septic permit is that it is within 20 feet of the shore and basically discharging raw sewage into Saratoga Passage, and is a serious health problem.  Appellants ask that the County   look at this more closely and do more supervision of this development so as to not have continued violations.   There is adequate evidence that  Mr. Bonaci  violated the Bald Eagle Management plan.  Mr. Bonaci  logged and graded without a  permit which he admitted, and still does not have a permit, and the eagle and heron habitat has been destroyed with  no mitigation  indicated in the Hearing Examiner decision.

 

The whole matter  because of the way it has been handled,  piece-mealed  instead of in a consolidated manner as the legislature intended, one hand does not know what the other is doing.    There is  no SEPA checklist that should have been done because it is not a mere plat alteration; it does not fit the definition RCW 58.17 and it is an  error of law on the part of the Hearing Examiner. It is a new plat and substantial development on the shoreline.  There are slide issues, destruction of habitat and sewage problems going on now that are being ignored.  She strongly stated that the weight of the evidence in the Hearing Examiner’s hearing was that all of  these violations had  gone on and continue to be a problem and are  not being dealt with appropriately by the County.    Appellants do not ask that the whole thing be stopped, rather suspended until it is all straightened out as required  by law. The appropriate response to illegal activity such as presented at the hearing and in this appeal is for permits to be revoked or suspended.   As far as timeline of significant events that Mr. Tate presented, she  pointed out did not list her  letter of 11/26/02.

 

It is an error of law in not addressing the shoreline substantial development permit required  by  RCW 58.17.060 and WAC 197-11-800.  It is an error of law on the part of the Hearing Examiner incorrectly interpreting ICC 16.06.040 as a plat alteration  relying on 58.17.215 when that  RCW talks about a change within a recorded plat which would be the Plat of Saratoga Beach; it does not do that, it takes property unplatted outside the plat and pulls it in and a shoreline substantial development permit is required.

 

With regard to the lack of responding appropriately  to the fraud issue,  ICC 17.03.260 places on the Planning Director the enforcement provisions:    “The Planning Director is charged with enforcement provisions  of this  Chapter, Chapter 17.02, Chapter 16.06, Chapter 16.15, Chapter 16.17 and  Chapter 16.21. It  shall be unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, use, occupy or maintain any use or cause the same to be done in violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter 17.02, Chapter 16.06, Chapter 16.15, Chapter 16.17 and Chapter 16.21. Any such violation is declared to be a public nuisance and shall be corrected by any reasonable and lawful means as provided in this section.”.

 

Applicants are  continuing to occupy the  cabin and continuing to flush raw sewage down within 20 feet of the shoreline with no adequate drainfield.  They never had any kind of a septic approval, rather the allusion of having septic approval by fraud, a slight of hand, showing two permits; one  in a plat on a lot that looked like it had the same section township and range,  but it does not exist nor did it ever exist. The one they put forth was for the one they already had for the house, not the cabin; the one for the cabin never existed.  The septic as built they  produced was actually attached to  another lot owned by someone else. 

 

Project Applicant

 

Paul Bonaci, 5025 – 25th Ave. NE, Seattle, the project applicant  one of four family members, was  present to respond to the argument of the appellant and argue the basis for upholding the Hearing  Examiner’s decision.  They inherited the property from their parents. The project from the very start used experts and engineers:  Datum Pacific and Fakkema & Kingma.  Not only have they  done surveying but were paid to be Bonaci's  liaison to deal with technical issues and communicate with and answer questions from the County.  He said there were no secrets,  the application and decisions were well documented, and they look to the Board for an objective third party resolution.  Appellant argument is a claim wasting everyone’s time. The application was based on facts not manipulation of past and fabricated events or false statements.  Interruption of  family separation of  inherited property has reduced trust and cooperation among neighbors.  Ms. Seymour has caused three hearings; one Mr. Bonaci did not attend; two he did attend.  The hearings intent  was adequately done yet for benefit of doubt the Hearing  Examiner  asked for other hearings   to be held.  The Appellant may believe they performed without authorization, but there was some confusion by Island County several years back  and also during a time of employee turnover. 

 

Somehow from the 1998 application  there may have been some confusion on the boundary line adjustment and questions over whether it was a Type III or an administrative decision.  That issue has been documented by the  Planning Department and during earlier hearings and  through their  consultants and Island County, and had been trying   to let the public know the process and history of the application.

 

Island County was in direct contact with Datum Pacific during all the process of cutting down alder; there were not more than ten evergreen trees.  The property had been cleared in the past and a majority had been horse pasture.  About eighty percent is alder, shrubs, and blackberries. The County gave letters and  directions authorizing work to be performed a few years ago on their property.  There was less than one load of haul out trees; the rest were alder and are stacked on the property. 

 

Referring to the map posted   showing the proposed lot configuration  Mr. Bonaci pointed out the lots owned by the Seymours and Amana Fisher, an in-law of the Seymour family.  The two structures  have been existing for 40 years or more and have always been accessed from that road.  Over the last 3 or 4 years other houses have been built on this road that are even larger than the two presently there.  The three lots are accessed from Kevin Court.

 

As far as tree cutting, the logger used was a local logger who was directed to follow the Eagle Management Plan which he did.  With respect to roads and access, there had been communication with the  Seymours about them wanting Bonaci's  common access to their property – wanting Bonaci lots  to  form one road; however, Bonaci's have a legal county application.  Through the years over the process, Island County has given  legal lot designations and addresses for each of the lots:  3218; 3220; 3222.  The  Health Department and Bill Poss from Public Works have been out visiting and communicating  with Bonaci's and  Datum Pacific, and during the time  of cutting down alder and the ten or less evergreen  trees and clearing the shrubs.  The Bonaci's have a neighbor  next to lot 10 who has two lots on the shoreline and over the last year those two lots were fully cleared with the exception of some major trees, all the way to the bank.

 

With regard to having been accused of fraud about the  septic permit he has  written a response and a copy provided to the County  [included in exhibit 3].  He provided confirmation that the cabin was   preexisting; when purchased by his family it had  plumbing and a septic system.  At the time the house and septic were upgraded his father also upgraded the cabin’s septic system.   On April 27, 1993, Mr. Bonaci spoke by telephone with someone in the Health Department named  Barbara, indicating he had two structures, done within the last 20 years, and described by legal description the property and parcel numbers and asked for proper paperwork he needed.  That was sent and he has a receipt for $4.00.   While there have been accusations about multiple bird nests on their property, there is not one.

 

Other Members of the Public

 

Tom Cleverdon, Fakkema & Kingma, Oak Harbor, stated that Datum Pacific did just about all of the application  development and surveying work associated with the project.  When Datum Pacific closed their office, Mr. Bonaci asked Fakkema & Kingma to complete the PLA.  In his research dealing with Public Works, Bill Poss said he wanted to see a drainage plan for the project and so Fakkema & Kingma developed a  preliminary drainage plan showing a simple curtain drain, tight line for roof runoff to pipe it down in front.  To construct that will require a shoreline development permit, and he has a meeting tomorrow with Bill Poss and Joe Burcar  to discuss any elements of the shoreline  development permit.  The only thing that applies to the shoreline development permit is any construction  that will take place, and that will be taken care of in the next few weeks.  [preliminary drainage plan Exhibit 9]

 

No other members  of the public indicated a desire to address the Board.

 

Staff comment on Arguments

 

Jeff Tate responded to issues brought up in Appellant’s  written  and verbal testimony.  There are three different  ways to deal with property lines:  Boundary Line Adjustment, Subdivision, and Plat Alteration.  A Plat alteration is a high level  process, type III and requires a Hearing  Examiner decision.  A Subdivision  of more than 4 lots is the same process, a type  III process; both have a preliminary and a final.  A Boundary Line Adjustment is a ministerial type I process; if it meets standards staff The Boundary Line Adjustment is the easiest process.   Definition of Boundary Line Adjustment is:

 

“The adjustment of boundary lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which creates no additional lot or which creates no additional lot that contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. “

 

Looking at just property lines, it meets the definition of a Boundary Line Adjustment; clearly, County Code  provides that a  Boundary Line Adjustment can be done between platted or unplatted lots or both. The only reason  this project triggered a Plat Alteration was  because of movement of easements and changing of conditions in the plat; movement of boundary lines did not affect how this project would be reviewed either as a Plat Alteration or Boundary Line Adjustment.  There is a condition in the plat that says that along  every property line  there will be a 5-foot  drainage easement.   Boundary lines were moving that changed  the easement conditions  which is why the Plat Alteration process was triggered.  If that  condition had not been there this would be Boundary Line Adjustment.

 

 

With regard to the  claim that the Hearing Examiner erred  relying on RCW 58.17.215 and to support that conclusion said that  RCW 58.17.215 contains no language  that suggests the outside of a boundary of a plat may be modified  through a plat alteration,  Mr. Tate pointed out that the referenced RCW does not  contain that information that says if you move an outer boundary it is no longer a plat alteration; it does not say one way or the other.     RCW 58.17.215 starts off by stating:  “When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof,  except as provided in RCW

 

58.17.040(6), that person shall submit an application to request the alteration to the legislative authority of the city, town or county where the subdivision  is located.”.  It goes on to define different requirements of notice and who must be party to the application, etc.  In terms of  defining it as a plat alteration or not, there is no such language in state law that would preclude this as being a plat  alteration.  Island County Code further defines it.

 

RCW 58.17.040 “Chapter inapplicable, when”:   (6)  “A division  made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines, between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division  nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum  requirements for width and  area for a building site”.

 

Appellant cites RCW 36.70B.120 which sets up language regarding consolidated review, Mr. Tate noted the second sentence which states:  “If  an applicant elects the consolidated permit review process”.  ICC 16.19.130 says that when the applicant requests  it the department shall, and then describes  how a consolidated review is done.

 

As far as traffic the proposal started with two houses off Baby Island Way and ends with two houses off Baby Island Way; the Planning Department sees no net increase in traffic.

 

Mr. Tate stated that the septic system issue had been mis-characterized by the Appellant when she quoted staff saying it was an  irrelevant issue and not my job.  That needs to be put in context:   it was not relevant to the Plat Alteration  process just like it would not be relevant to  a Boundary Line Adjustment when moving boundary lines around to question the validity of a septic system.  The Health Department approved in 1993 the site plan review and preliminary plat  alteration; Mr. Tate did not go back and question the Health Department’s call.

 

With respect to timber removal, Mr. Tate stated that when the  application came in it received quite a bit of review in the years 1998 and 1999 and for whatever reason, in 1999 dropped off and no one in the department was reviewing it until 2001.  When review resumed and Mr. Bonaci   picked up an application to continue review, for whatever reason, there was an  assumption that preliminary approval had already been provided, and Mr. Tate  could not explain why that was, but did note it was apparent  from reading the correspondence between the county and applicant.   For whatever reason  both Engineering and the Planning Department felt it had already received preliminary review and told the applicant to go ahead with things; and inspected the site; indicated what type best management practices needed to be installed,  etc.   That, if anything, is an error on the part of Island County staff.  It has been Mr. Tate’s  impression when it comes to on-site improvements there was  no malicious intent on the part of the applicant to do anything without permits.

 

Appellant Reply to Arguments: 

 

In reading RCW 36.70B.120, Ms. Seymour  stated that Mr. Tate had not gone far enough in that sub-paragraph two states:   

 

(2)     Consolidated permit review may provide different procedures for different categories of project permits, but if a project action requires project permits from more than one category, the local government shall provide for consolidated permit review with a single open record hearing and no more than one closed record appeal as provided in RCW 36.70B.060.”

 

She said that is why the Hearing  Examiner’s decision on that point was wrong.

 

On the point of RCW 58.17.040, the Bonaci application is not  exempt from consolidated review because these sites are being created on the waterfront.  Because the Bonaci’s  do not have and still do not have an  approved septic system, there is 1.88 acres, one as-built, one drainfield,  one septic tank, and no pumping system up the hill and it is  within 20 feet of the  shoreline which is not allowed under Island County Code. 

 

RCW 58,.17.040 provides for  exemption of  Boundary Line Adjustments but not exemption when  there are new building sites being developed, which was established in R/L Associates v. Klockars, 52 Wn.App. 726, 763 P.2d 1244  1988.  Klockars clearly establishes that you cannot  create new building  sites via a boundary line adjustment, or in this case the County wants to call it a plat alteration, and thereby  avoid consolidated review.  This is the end run Appellants object to.  The  means by which Bonaci's are trying to achieve the end run goes back to the application   pointed out in her November 26, 2002 letter, and submitted one of the attachments to that letter at this time apparently signed by Paul Bonaci, hand-written dated May 6, 1993 to the Island County Planning & Community Development Department regarding  building permits, and clearly presents two as builts, two different numbers and only one of those relates to this property.   [Exhibit #10].

Board Questions and Comments

 

Commissioner Shelton noticed on the map submitted by Fakkema &  Kingma on what is now lot 13 there is an off-site drainfield easement for lot 14, and asked if that merely was for a reserve area or did Mr. Bonaci have intentions of installing a new drainfield on that site.

 

Mr. Bonaci confirmed that was a reserve dranfield area.

 

Commissioner Byrd noted that Ms.  Seymour indicated that the right of way for Baby Island Lane was 30 feet, but recalled  having read somewhere it was 36 feet.  Mr. Tate believed it was  30 feet.

 

Commissioner McDowell in addressing the transportation issue,  asked if Ms. Seymour agreed there are  two houses that currently access Baby Island Lane.  Ms. Seymour stated that there was only one legal residence, two structures.

 

Mr. Tate clarified to note that there  is one parcel currently served by  Baby Island Way, with two houses.  If approved, the proposal would be  two parcels with two houses:  one more parcel, same number of houses.

 

Commissioner  McDowell referred to Ms. Seymour’s appeal regarding the point that the Hearing  Examiner erred in relying on RCW 58.17.215.  He notes RCW  58.17.040 (6):  “A division  made for the purpose of  alteration by adjusting boundary lines, between platted or unplatted lots or both…” seems to  clearly describe an alteration which is  exactly what is being done.

 

Ms. Seymour stated the problem was there was more than  one statute that affects this procedure. Under the other statute she  quoted it  could not  be possible to have this project without consolidated review.  It  requires both  shoreline and consolidated review. 

 

Commissioner McDowell asked Ms. Seymour to clarify whether or not she was objecting to  a plat alteration, or just that it should be consolidated review.

 

Ms. Seymour responded that 58.17.040 is the chapter that says “the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to”. 

 

Commissioner McDowell recalled also hearing testimony  saying the code