ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
- MINUTES OF MEETING
The Board of Island County Commissioners (including
Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on April 14, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. in the Law
& Justice Facility, Department III (Courtroom 3), 101 N.E. 6th
Street, Coupeville, Wa. Wm. L. McDowell,
Chairman, William J. Byrd, Member, and Mike Shelton, Member, were present. The meeting began with the Pledge of
Allegiance. By unanimous motion, the
Board approved the minutes from the
meeting of April 7, 2003.
VOUCHERS
AND PAYMENT OF BILLS
The following vouchers/warrants were approved for
payment by unanimous motion of the Board:
Voucher (War.) #163005-163323 …………………………… …………………. $594,602.44.
Public
Works/Road Department John
T. Lee 20 Years
District
Court Cyndy
Smith 20
Years
Health
Department Melinda
J. Kurtz 5
Years
Employee of
the Month – March, 2003
Janet Hall, WSU Extension
Office, was selected as Employee of the Month for April. She
coordinates the Waste Wise Volunteer program and is a gifted speaker and superb teacher.
Bob
McCaughan was given a letter in special recognition of his election as
President of the Northwest Washington
Chapter of International Conference of Building Officials.
Hiring Requests & Personnel Actions
As presented by Dick Toft, Human Resources Director, the Board by unanimous motion, approved the following personnel action authorization (s):
Dept. PAA #
Description
Position # Action Eff. Date
Planning 041/03 Asst/Assoc Planner 1708.02 Replacement 4-14-03
Planning 042/03 Dev. Services Mgr. 1702.00 Replacement 4-14-03
Planning 043/03 Supt.
Clerk – Temp 413.01 New Position 4-14-07
Agreement by & between Island County and
Island County Sheriff’s Guild
Covering Deputies Division January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2003
As presented by Dick Toft,
the Board by unanimous motion, approved and signed Agreement by and between
Island County, Washington and Island County Sheriff’s Guild covering Deputies
Division January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2003.
By
unanimous motion, the Board made the following two appointments:
Joint
Administration Board (Tourism)
Gayle
Picken, Camano Island
Representing
the Camano Island Chamber of Commerce
Keith
Welker, Camano Island
Representing
Unincorporated Island County.
Letter in Support of Application for Criminal Justice Treatment Account funds to establish an Adult Drug Court
The Board by unanimous motion authorized the Chairman’s signature on a letter of support
for an Application for Criminal Justice Treatment Account Funds for the purpose of starting an Adult Drug Court in
Island County.
The
following Health Department contracts
were approved by unanimous motion of the Board:
§
RM-HLTH-00-0001 Business Associates Agreement Supplement to
Contract HS-02-03, Whidbey General
Hospital-Protective Custody Monitoring - $2,000.
§
RM-HLTH-02-0078 Business Associates Agreement Supplement to
Contract HS-04-02, Island Employment Services-Developmental Disabilities-
$5,000.
Resolution #C-36--03 Proclaiming the Month of May 2003 Community Action Month in Island County
On request of the Island County Health Department on
behalf of the Opportunity Council, the Board by unanimous motion approved Resolution #C-36-03 Proclaiming the Month of
May 2003 Community Action Month in Island County.
BEFORE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Month of May 2003
} RESOLUTION # C-36-03
COMMUNITY ACTION MONTH }
in Island County }
WHEREAS: The
Opportunity Council is the Community Action Agency in Island County working to
help low-income community members to help themselves; and
WHEREAS: The
Opportunity Council as the designated Community Action Agency provides numerous
programs to help low-income citizens of Island County through Child Care
Resource and Referral, Homeless Housing, Community Resource Center, home
rehabilitation and weatherization, emergency financial assistance with winter
heating bills and rent, and many others; and
WHEREAS: The
Opportunity Council, in partnership with elected officials, the private sector
and low-income citizens, continues to identify challenges for those with fixed
and low-income and seek ways to strengthen the community;
BE
IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED by the Board
of Island County Commissioners the month of May 2003 as
in
Island County, and urge all citizens to join us in this observance.
SIGNED this
14th day of April, 2003.
BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Wm.
L. McDowell, Chairman
Mike
Shelton, Member
William
J. Byrd, Member
ATTEST:
Elaine
Marlow
Clerk
of the Board
Resolution #C-37-03 Proclaiming the Week of April 27 - May 3, 2003 Friends of Library Week
In recognition of essential work done by Friends of
the Library group, Resolution #C-37-03
Proclaiming the Week of April 27 - May 3, 2003 Friends of Library Week
was adopted by unanimous motion of the Board.
BEFORE THE
BOARD OF ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Proclamation
In the Matter
of Proclaiming }
THE WEEK OF
APRIL 27 THROUGH MAY 3, }
2003 FRIENDS OF LIBRARY WEEK IN } RESOLUTION #C--37-03
ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON }
_________________________________________ }
WHEREAS, Sno-Isle
Regional Library System has five dedicated
groups of citizens in Island County who work hard to promote, encourage
and enhance local libraries; and
WHEREAS, the Friends of
the Library groups of citizen
volunteers donate countless
hours
of their time and talent providing essential work to enhance services of local
libraries, hold fund-raisers to provide
money for special library programs for all ages, purchase technology for public use, to purchase
craft supplies for early
readers, and artwork for everyone to
enjoy.
NOW THEREFORE, in honor
and recognition of these special volunteer Friends of the Library, the Board of Island County
Commissioners do hereby proclaim the week of April 27 through May 3, 2003 as FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK in
Island County, Washington, and urge all citizens in the County to recognize
and appreciate the efforts of the
Friends of the Library groups.
PROCLAIMED this
14th day of April, 2003.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Wm. L. McDowell,
Chairman William J.
Byrd, Member
Mike Shelton, Chairman
ATTEST: Elaine Marlow, Clerk of the Board
Adopt-a-Road Litter Control Program Agreement Renewal - Genuine Cedar Flex
By unanimous motion the
Board approved the renewal of Adopt-a-Road Litter Control Program Agreement with Genuine Cedar Flex (William E. & Sandra K. Tucker) for Ewing Road from Sills Road to Maxwleton
Road.
At
the request of Bill Oakes, Public Works Director, the following items were
pulled from today’s agenda:
§
Freeland Development
Agreement & Covenants [one partner
of three firms not available for signature]
§
Supplemental Agreement
No. 9 – Bryan Young Architect [still negotiating with Bryan Young and
changes in agreement need to go through contract review to be reviewed. The Chairman asked that this Agreement be
brought to the next staff session for discussion.
Resolution
#C-38-03/R-12-03 Initiating County
Road Project CRP 03-01, W. O. #357-2003
Camano Island Miscellaneous ACP
Overlays
Resolution
#C-38-03/R-12-03 in the matter of
initiating County Road Project CRP
03-01, Work Order #357 for 2003 Camano
Island Miscellaneous ACP Overlays was presented by Mr. Oakes with a recommendation of approval, moving forward as soon as possible this year. The paving jobs for Whidbey and Camano are
being staggered to simplify construction administration of the two contracts.
Chairman McDowell had mentioned at a recent staff session and in
an email to the County Engineer his disagreement with the break down of
the work as far as the total split
between the county road shops.
He understood in terms of the total dollar difference per road shop, but
the overlays were not even among the
road shops.
Mr. Oakes confirmed his
intent was to bring the Whidbey plan to the Board for review and
discussion on April 30.
By unanimous motion, the
Board approved initiating CRP 03-01
under Resolution #C-38-03/R-12-03 to
place asphalt concrete pavement overlays on Camano Island roads.
[Copy placed on file with
the Clerk of the Board]
Resolution #C-39 -03/R-14-03 Approving Plans & Specifications and Authorizing Call for Bids for 2003 Camano Island Miscellaneous OVER-lays, CRP 03-01, W.O. #357
As a follow-on item to the above CRP initiation, the
Board by unanimous motion approved
Resolution #C-39-03/R-14-03 in the matter of Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Call for Bids
for 2003 Camano Island Miscellaneous Overlays, CRP 03-01, Work Order #357.
|
IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING PLANS &
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING CALL FOR BIDS FOR 2003 ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT OVERLAYS CAMANO ISLAND, CRP 03-01, WORK ORDER NO. 357 |
) ) ) ) ) ) |
RESOLUTION NO.
C-39 -03 R-14-03 |
WHEREAS, sufficient
funds are available in the Island County Road Fund for 2003 Misc. Asphalt Concrete Pavement Overlays, Camano Island; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Plans
and Specifications are approved and that the County Engineer is authorized and
directed to call for bids for furnishing said construction. Bid Opening is to be the 6th
day of May 2003, at 11:30 A.M. in Meeting Room 116 Administration Building, 1
NE 7th Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239
ADOPTED this
14 day of April, 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
Vote of Individual Commissioners and Brief Statement as to Basis for the Decision regarding Appeal 046/03 Jane Seymour Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on PLA025/98 Bonaci Type III Decision
On March 24, 2003 the Board held a closed
record appeal on Appeal #046/03 by Jane
Seymour, appealing the Hearing Examiner’s decision on PLA 025/98 by Paul,
Gordon, Alan and Robert Bonaci. In
accordance with the Board of County Commissioners Procedures to Hear Closed
Record Appeals, and as announced at the end of the March 24, 2003 appeal, the
date and time of vote of individual Commissioners with a brief statement
from each as to the basis for the
decision was scheduled for this date at 10:30 a.m.
In attendance were:
Jane Seymour, Appellant
Phil Bakke, Director,
Planning & Community Development
Jeff Tate, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development
Mike
Shelton Statement as to the Basis for Decision - APP #046/03, Jane Seymour Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision on
PLA 025/98, Bonaci
A closed record appeal was held by the Board on March
24, 2003 to consider APP#046/03 by Jane Seymour, representing Greg Seymour,
Christi Seymour, Brenda Seymour and Haley Seymour; Greg Seymour and Jane
Seymour, Co-Trustees of the Seymour Family Trust, appealing the Hearing
Examiner’s decision on PLA 025/98 by Paul, Gordon, Alan and Robert Bonaci.
The Appeal cited eight errors on the part of the Hearing Examiner, to
which I respond as follows:
1.
Hearing Examiner Failed to require that the lots being added to the Plat of
Saratoga, Div. 1, use the short, 60 foot wide, loop county road in the Plat
that was established for that Plat.
Response. The road in question has historically served
two residences; this plat alteration will not change that and the road will
continue to serve only two residences.
2.
Hearing Examiner incorrectly
concluded that appropriate provisions have been made for on-site septic
systems, including reserve drain fields.
He entirely disregarded substantial evidence of fraud perpetrated on the
County by the Applicants.
Response. If there are issues around the septic
systems and reserve drainfields, and the Appellant’s suggested there is some evidence of fraud, these
issues should be handled as issues through the Health Department and not as a
result of this action.
3.
Hearing Examiner disregarded substantial evidence in the form of sworn
affidavits, declarations, spoken testimony and photographs that the Applicants
removed timber and graded without permits required by the Island County Code.
Response. The action had County approval. The logging was done according to the Eagle
Management Plan and the State Department of Fish & Wildlife had no problems
with that.
4. Hearing Examiner erred in glossing over the Shoreline
Substantial Development issues.
Response. This
plat alteration did not do anything to trigger a Shoreline Substantial
Development permit. There may be issues
later in relation to development of these lots that may require a Shoreline
Substantial Development permit.
5. Hearing Examiner incorrectly agrees with the
characterization of this Application as a Plat Alteration.
Response. The Hearing Examiner correctly determined
this application as a Plat Alteration.
Neither
State Law nor Island County Code have
language to indicate it should not be a Plat Alteration.
6. Hearing Examiner erred in relying on RCW 58.17.215 to
support the conclusions that the Application is a plat alteration.
Response. RCW 58.17.215 states that you can alter
boundary lines between platted lots, unplatted lots or both.
7. Based on incorrect conclusion that the application is
a plat alteration the Hearing Examiner
erred in allowing the County to treat the application as exempt from
environmental review.
Response. Based RCW 58.17.215 being legal,
environmental review is not necessary
8. The Hearing Examiner erred in not finding that the
Application requires project permits from more than one category and in not
concluding that there must be a consolidated permit process as required by RCW
36.70B.120.
Response. The County has to establish a consolidated
review process and the Applicant has to request, and this Applicant did not in
this case request consolidated permit review process.
RCW
36.70B.120 is consistent with ICC 16.19.130.
The
appeal is denied.
Mike
Shelton, Commissioner
April
14, 2003
William
J. Byrd Statement - Basis for Decision
The closed record appeal to consider Appeal APP#046/03 by Jane Seymour, representing Greg Seymour, Christi Seymour, Brenda
Seymour and Haley Seymour; Greg Seymour and Jane Seymour, Co-Trustees of the
Seymour Family Trust, to appeal
the Hearing Examiner’s decision on PLA
025/98 by Paul, Gordon, Alan and Robert Bonaci, was held on March 24,
2003.
The Appeal dated
February 7, 2003, provided the Basis of Appeal and outlined eight errors
on the part of the Hearing Examiner, and the relief requested.
1.
The Hearing
Examiner failed to require that the lots being added to the Plat of Saratoga,
Div. 1, use the short, 60 foot wide, loop county road in the Plat that was
established for that Plat, and incorrectly concluded that the proposed plat
alteration serves the public interest and protects the public health and
welfare, and violates RCW 58.17.215.
Response: There is no
net increase of traffic expected on Baby Island Lane. Appellant has stated that there are two existing structures that
are currently being served by Baby Island Lane. The proposed PLA provides for the continued service for two
structures. The two structures were
legally established and have always had access from Baby Island Lane. RCW 58.17.215, 58.17.040(6) and ICC Chapter
11.04 do not support their requirement for the Applicant to alter his access route.
2. Hearing
Examiner incorrectly concluded that
appropriate provisions have been made for on-site septic systems, including
reserve drain fields, and disregarded
substantial evidence of fraud perpetrated on the County by the Applicants to
obtain a 1993 Island County decision
confirming the legality of two non-conforming residential structures on their waterfront property.
Response: There was no evidence of fraud discovered
for on-site septic systems. Applicant
has produced evidence of record to show his communication with the County
Health Department and receipts of $4.00 for his application. Additionally, the Applicant has established
an area designated for a reserve drainfield.
3. Hearing Examiner disregarded substantial evidence in the form of sworn
affidavits,
declarations, spoken testimony
and photographs that the Applicants removed timber and graded
without permits required by
the Island County Code and violated their own Bald Eagle Protection
Plan
Response: The Appellants have declared there was substantial evidence
including photographs that the Applicant removed timber and graded without
permits and violated the Bald Eagle Protection Plan. The Applicant has proceeded with work in accordance with Island
County concurrence. Appropriate permits
including the Bald Eagle Management Plan approval were obtained. No evidence was submitted to substantiate
these allegations.
4.
The Hearing Examiner erred in glossing over the
Shoreline Substantial Development issues, despite the fact that the proposed
development is within 200 feet of the shoreline, involves a steep and
unstable slope, and contains critical habitat areas, both upland and marine.
Response: The Appellant’s claim appears to be based on
whether the Applicant was required to adhere to the Shoreline Substantial
Development requirements. WAC
197-11-800 addresses “lands covered by water” which do not necessarily mandate
shoreline requirements. The Appellant
has cited requirements from SEPA exemptions instead of shoreline
exemptions. The Shoreline Management
Act has its own set of exemptions.
Additionally, the environmental impact appears to be reduced by reducing
from six to five lots, and/or potential dwellings. Further, this WAC addresses development and does not address Plat
Line Adjustment. If and when
development occurs, the Applicant may then be required to adhere to SEPA
regulations. This objection at this
time regarding a plat line adjustment does not appear to be relevant.
5.
The Hearing Examiner incorrectly agrees with the characterization of
this Application as a Plat Alteration, which it is not. The project extends beyond the limits of an
existing plat and therefore cannot by
definition be a plat alteration.
Response: RCW’s 58.17.215 and 58.17.040(6)
specifically address when Plat Line Adjustments can be made and address platted
and unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract,
parcel, etc., or a division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet
minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. Accordingly, the Appellant’s charge is not
supported by the above RCW’s.
6.
The Hearing Examiner erred in relying on RCW
58.17.215 to support the conclusions that the Application is a plat alteration,
a form of sub-division, despite the addition of land from outside the plat.
Response: The Appellant claims the Applicant has
formed a new type of subdivision and therefore this is not a mere Plat Line
Adjustment. This claim appears to come
from the fact that other unplatted lands were absorbed into the plat line
adjustment. However, RCW’s 58.17.215
and 58.17.040(6) specifically allow for such action. The Appellant’s claim is therefore not supported by the above
RCW’s.
7.
Based on incorrect conclusion that the application is a plat alteration
the Hearing Examiner erred in allowing
the County to treat the application as exempt from environmental review under
WAC 197-11-800(6)(a).
Response: This claim of the Appellant is based on the
fact that the Hearing Examiner erred by allowing this change as a plat line
adjustment. As stated previously, RCW’s
58.17.215 and 58.17.040(6) specifically allow for this change. Accordingly, the change need not fall under
the purview of WAC 197-11-800(6)(a).
Even if the change did not fall under the above WAC, that refers to
“lands covered by water,” which again is not relevant to this case.
8. The Hearing Examiner erred in not
finding that the Application requires project permits from more than one category
and in not concluding that there must be a consolidated permit process as
required by RCW 36.70B.120.
Response: ICC 16.06.130A and RCW 36.70B.120 language
provides alternatives for the Applicant.
The Applicant may elect a consolidated permit review process. This is not a mandatory requirement, and
often, cannot be, because of unforeseen requirements. In this particular application, it would not have been possible
to have a consolidated permit due to the difficulties and identification of the
numerous procedures required.
Accordingly, the Appellant’s claim is not supported by the above RCW and
ICC.
Decision: The appeal is
Denied.
Review of the RCW, WAC’s and Island County Codes do not support the
Appellant’s claims. Deliberate review
was undertaken to examine each claim separately. In that examination, all eight claims could not be supported by
the governing codes. Accordingly, my
decision is uphold the Hearing Examiner.
William
J. Byrd, Commissioner
April
14, 2003
STATEMENT BY WM. L. MCDOWELL REGARDING CLOSED RECORD
APPEAL
APP 046/03
BY JANE SEYMOUR – AN APPEAL OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION ON PLA 025/98, BONACI TYPE III DECISION
Appellants
Greg Seymour, Christi Seymour, Brenda Seymour, Haley Seymour and the Seymour
Family Trust, through their attorney Jane Seymour, filed an appeal seeking to
overturn the Island County Hearing Examiner's decision to approve PLA
025/98. The appeal dated February 7,
2003 was received by the Board of Island County Commissioners on February 7,
2003 and was heard on March 24, 2003
In
her written statement of appeal, Ms. Seymour offered eight (8) issues why this
appeal should be approved:
1) The first issue involves a concern regarding
the traffic impact to the area. This
concern is not valid in that after approval the same two existing houses will
have access to Baby Island Lane as they did before approval. Prior to approval of PLA 025/98, five lots
had access to Kevin Court and/or Harbor View Drive and after approval only
three lots exist and they will access Kevin Court and/or Harbor View Drive, for
a net loss of potential traffic impact on these roads. Public interest is served by the net
reduction of lot density.
2) Fraud was alleged by Ms. Seymour regarding
septic permits. The applicant denied
any fraud. Whether a septic permit was
incorrectly issued or not for a house does not impact the validity of the plat
alteration. Other appropriate venues
are available to address septic issues, if they exist.
3) The appellants allege that timber removal
and grading were allowed without permits and violated the bald eagle protection
plan. No substantive information was
provided with any specifics as to any violation of the eagle protection plan. The timber removal and dirt movement was
with full knowledge of the county.
There was no willful violation by the applicant of PLA 025/98 regarding
timber removal or dirt movement and no impact that would cause reversal of the
approval of PLA 025/98.
4)
Ms. Seymour claims that
PLA 025/98 should have gone through a shoreline substantial
development permit process. In
this section she refers to this project as a land division. PLA 025/98 is not a
division of land, it is a plat alteration. There is nothing in county code requiring a plat alteration to
have a
shoreline substantial development permit. If this project had been a long or short plat then most likely
a
shoreline substantial development permit would be required.
5) The appellant claims this project was not a
plat alteration because the project extends beyond the limits of the original
plat. Clearly state law recognizes an
alteration of plat boundary lines may exist between platted or unplatted lots
or both as mentioned within RCW 58.17.040(6).
For all intents and purposes, this project would have been a simple
boundary line adjustment as it meets all criteria of the movement of boundary
lines between platted or unplatted lots or both. (RCW 58.17.040(6). However, the reason this project had to
follow the more complex and involved process of a plat alteration is per code
definition, an alteration is required if there is a change in easements or
conditions of approval of a plat. There
is no requirement that limits an alteration for the purpose of change of
easements or conditions of plat approval to only parcels within a plat.
6) The arguments surrounding issue number six
appear to be the same as those stated for issue number five. The same response is therefore
appropriate. Also, RCW 58.17.215 does
not limit alteration of a subdivision exclusively to property within a subdivision. Its mention of RCW 58.17.040(6)
clearly shows it (RCW 58.17.215) contemplates platted land, unplatted land or both. Therefore, issue number six is without merit.
7) Ms. Seymour states this project is a
subdivision because it is not a plat alteration and is therefore subject to
SEPA. Ms. Seymour is incorrect in her
statement that this is not a plat alteration. Her issue number seven is denied.
8) The appellant's attorney makes the
statement that state law (RCW 36.70B.120) requires all permits to be
consolidated into one process rather than being processed if or when the
necessity for more permits arises. The
RCW referenced only requires that such a consolidated process be made available
by local government. The second
sentence of RCW 36.70B.120 clearly states that the applicant can
"elect" the consolidated process, but in no way requires it of the
applicant. Issue number eight is
therefore denied.
My
decision is to deny this appeal.
Wm.
L. McDowell
Island
County Commissioner
April
14, 2003
Commissioner
Shelton moved that Appeal APP#046/03
brought by Jane Seymour, an
appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s decision on PLA 025/98, Bonaci plat
Alteration, be denied. Motion, seconded
by Commissioner Byrd, carried unanimously .
After
the Board’s decision, Chairman McDowell requested that the Planning Director
prepare a written decision for signature by the Board during the Planning Department’s agenda at the next Board
meeting, April 21st.
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
The next regular meeting of the Board will be April 21, 2003, at 9:30
a.m.
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