ISLAND
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES OF MEETING
SPECIAL SESSION -
AUGUST 19, 2003
The Board of Island County Commissioners met in Special Session on Tuesday, August 19, 2003, beginning at 2:40 p.m. at the Island County Camano Multipurpose Center, 141 N. East Camano Drive, Camano Island, WA. Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman, William J. Byrd, Member, and Mike Shelton, Member, were present. Approximately 45+ members of the public were present, and County Staff attending were: Bill Oakes, Public Works Director and Dick Snyder, County Engineer. The press was represented through Kelly Ruhoff, Stanwood/Camano News.
An attendance sheet was circulated and placed on file with the Clerk of the Board.
The purpose of the Special Session was called for
the purpose of conducting public hearings
on the following:
§
2:40 p.m.
Resolution #C-72-03/R-29-03 – Proposed
Vacation - Petitioners Dean
& Dianne Pachosa, portion of County Road
known as Shoreline Drive, Plat of Tyee Beach, Div. #2, Sec. 11, Twp 30N, R 3E.
§
2:45 p.m.
Resolution #C-70-03/R-28-03 – Proposed Vacation - Petitioners Frederick
R. & Joanne Beich, et.al., portion of County Road known as Stillaguamish Avenue, Plat of Utsalady, Sec. 19, Twp
32N., R 3E.
§
3:00 p.m.
Resolution #C-64-03/R-25-03 – Proposed
Vacation - Petitioners Richard
& Julie Shallow, et.al.; portion of County Road known as Barnum Road, Sec
6, Twp 31N., R 3E.
Resolution #C-72-03/R-29-03 – PROPOSED VACATION BY - Petitioners
Dean & Dianne Pachosa, portion of county road known as Shoreline Drive
Public Hearing opened for the purpose of considering
Resolution #C-72-03/R-29-03, vacation as petitioned by Dean
& Dianne Pachosa for a portion of County Road known as Shoreline Drive in the Plat of Tyee Beach, Div. #2, Sec. 11, Twp 30N, R 3E. The petition by the Pachosas
requesting vacation of a portion of
Shoreline Drive that runs along the east side of their parcel, was referred to the County Engineer by the Board
on May 19, 2003.
Bill Oakes, Island County Public Works Engineer,
reported in accordance with R.C.W.
36.87 and ICC 12.03, indicating in this case that the County Engineer would not be recommending approval of the proposed vacation. The proposed vacation does not meet the test
of vacation in that the general public will
not benefit by the vacation and the right of way is of use, at least
16’. The original application for
vacation of right of way was on the seaward side up to within two feet of the
existing asphalt.
Ed Herring, 3085 Shoreline Drive, residing
about two blocks past the area in question was amazed the
matter was even being addressed because the proposal to vacate
land on the seaward side and give back on the other side makes no sense;
there is nothing to trade off and does
not benefit others in the
neighborhood. He has nothing against
the petitioners but was not in favor of the proposed vacation when it
would cost everyone that has to get in
and out of there every day.
Dean Pachosa, Petitioner, advised that his initial proposal had been 2’ vacation but in
discussion with Dick Snyder 3’ was recommended, and surprised he County
Engineer’s proposal today is denial.
Mr. Pachosa described his
proposal as a three-phase project: (1)
obtain approval of the vacation; (2) opportunity to cut away the bank on the
hill side of the property; and (3) build a house. His permit application shows
the total plan and he believed it would
benefit the community by getting rid of the bank and building a retaining
wall. They have been issued a
clearing and grading permit and the whole 100’
will be opened to everyone down stream of the beach and would be better for the community.
Mr. Snyder
indicated that Mr. Pachosa was correct about his comments on initial review
that it looked like the idea of moving the right of way over made sense;
however, after looking at it in the field, seeing the hill side coming
down and that to move the right of way over would require a fairly high
retaining wall to accomplish parking area, the County must consider future long
term maintenance of a retaining
wall. In
addition, there is no guarantee that a retaining
wall would be stable for 15 to 20 years.
Last Friday, Mr. Snyder amended the County Engineer’s report, and unfortunately was not able to get in touch
with Mr. Pachosa. The amended report
was submitted for the record:
Amendment to Engineer’s Report
R/W Vacation on Shoreline Drive
August 15, 2003
Requested vacation of R/W by Dean & Dianne Pachosa was reviewed in the field twice. Shoreline Drive in this area was built adjacent to the tow of the steep hillside, and at the southern end of the Pachosa’s ownership actually lies partly outside the R/W. The road is a 10 ft. wide paved road and has a 16 ft. total width R/W. At the Pachosa property, the road lies within the R/W at the north end, albeit on the west side of the 16 ft. wide strip; on the southern end, the west side of the road is off R/W by about 4 ft. The petition was for the county to vacate some R/W on the east side to allow the Pachosa’s to reduce the setback distance for construction. The original Engineer’s Report recommended that a portion of the R/W on the east side of the pavement could be vacated in exchange for a like amount of R/W on the west side from the property owner. Upon the second field review, it became more obvious that the hillside adjacent to the R/W on the west side was not stable by itself. If the R/W is widened to the west in exchange for vacating R/W to the petitioner on the east side, a substantial retaining structure would need to be built, at no expense to Island County. The wall would have to be set back at least 4 feet from the edge of any new R/W. to allow for shy distance of vehicles passing by. There is no long term guarantee that the retaining wall would be maintenance free for the future. After due consideration of all facts and the liability and risk of a wall, I now recommend that the request for vacating a portion of the road R/W be disapproved.
John Moore
3081 Shoreline Drive, spoke against vacating the road as requested. He submitted for the record 4 photographs
dated 8/17/03 showing the area in question and the problems said vacation would
create, the height behind the properties, noting it would be a road for parking.
Sixteen feet of right of way, even two feet either side would still give
only 20 feet total and two cars cannot pass.
Residents want to see a 16 foot
paved street. What is proposed
for a future road he could not see that potential especially since it would
affect 40 people should there be a slide – those folks to the north would be
stranded. [photographs placed on file with the Clerk of the Board].
Dean Pachosa addressed the Board and audience again
to note that he wanted 16’ like everyone else. The whole roadway along the back is full of driveways and retaining walls, hard to get through
during peak traffic times anyway. The Pachosas are trying to get the right of way of the road aligned with the road
itself. The road is in wrong spot and they feel that they are being penalized
for it.
No others indicated a desire to speak either for or
against the proposed vacation and the Chairman closed public testimony on the
issue.
Commissioner Shelton commented that throughout
Island County there are
a multitude of places where the
roadway does not fit in the right of way. If the road is not in the right of way, because of public use,
the County has gained prescriptive rights where the road is located. At the same time, the County does not lose
its right to the right of way it owns.
In this case there is a small portion of the road that does get out of
the right of way and toward the hillside.
Many have written concerning this road and inadequacy of
it. The pictures submitted clearly show
height of the bank behind the beach property at this point it seems to me
obvious we need to support the Engineer’s recommendation.
Commissioner Byrd expressed much the same thoughts,
and noted the areas staff and the Board looked at. The County is governed by specific laws that must be followed and
the first issue to deal with is that while the road may not be exactly where it is supposed to be, in every case the road favors the hill. That gives a greater problem because there
have been slides in that area as the photos Mr. Moore submitted indicate. There is a
serious problem there with sloughing.
He told the group that the Public Works Department was in the process
now of taking a look at trying to restore all
16’ along that area. Although
there is no firm time line, he provided assurance it would take place shortly.
Chairman McDowell provided an informational
note that if a road is built outside
the right of way, over time county government owns that land and has the
right to use it as well. What he is concerned with in any vacation is that everyone
be treated the same, and in that vein, the Board asked Public Works to come up
with a proposed policy in that respect.
The County Engineer today
provided that in draft form for the Board’s review and consideration at a
subsequent meeting. One of the things
the policy will do is provide that if any right of way is ever moved, it will
not be moved into unstable areas. In the case at hand, the proposal was to
move the right of way closer to the hill in a land slide-prone area, and he
commented that regardless of retaining walls, which require maintenance, if the
hill is going to come down it will come down.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved Resolution
#C-72-01/R-29-03 denying vacation of a
county road known as Shoreline Drive in the plat of Tyee Beach, located in
Sec. 11, Twp 30N, Rge. 3E, W.M. in that the public will not be
benefited by this vacation; said road right of way is a component part of
existing county road; and it will be advisable to preserve this right of way as
part of the general road system.
In the Matter of the Petition of Resolution No. C- 72 -03
Dean
and Dianne Pachosa et.Al R-
29 -03
known as Shoreline Drive
situated in the Plat of Tyee Beach,
located in Section 11
, Township 30N Range 3E , W.M.
The Board having on the 19th day of August
, 2003 , denied the order of vacation of said road right of way.
It is Ordered by the Board, all the members concurring, that the
county road right of way petitioned to be vacated by Dean and Dianne Pachosa and others, not be vacated as follows:
§
The public will not be benefited by this vacation.
§
Said road
right-of-way is a component part of
existing County Road.
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this right of way as part of the general road system.
Done this 19th day of August, 2003.
BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
WM.
L. MCDOWELL, Chairman
WILLIAM
J. BYRD, Member
MIKE
SHELTON, Member
ATTEST: By: Ellen Meyer, Deputy
Elaine
Marlow, Clerk of the Board
Resolution #70-03/R-28-03 – Proposed Vacation by Petitioners
Frederick R. & Joanne Beich, et.al., portion of county road
known as Stillaguamish Avenue
The next hearing dealt with Resolution
#C-70-03/R-28-03 a proposed vacation by
Petitioners Frederick R. & Joanne Beich, et.al., a portion of County
Road known as Stillaguamish Avenue,
Plat of Utsalady, Sec. 19, Twp 32N., R 3E.
For very much the same reasons
as previous proposed vacation, Mr. Oakes reported that the County Engineer
recommended against the vacation based on the
following:
§
The public will not be
benefited by this vacation;
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this road as a part of the general road system
§
The section of unopened
Stillaguamish Avenue for which the petitioners have requested vacation, does provide access to Lots 11 and
12 of the plat of Buena Vista, Division 4 and Parcel R33219-475-2560 even though owners of these two lots and parcel
currently have access;
§
Other property owners also
have protested the vacation proposal but it does not appear that access to
their lots would be affected.
Hi Bronson, 90 Vista Del Mar Street, President,
Buena Vista Community Club, referenced his letter faxed to the Board yesterday
dated August 18, 2003 protesting the proposed vacation on behalf
of the Buena Vista Community Club, a Camano Island community of 165 homes, some
abutting the portion of Stillaguamish proposed for vacation. The neighborhood is concerned because the
right of way is used by the community, and for the reasons outlined in the
letter support the recommendation of
the County Engineer to not approve the
vacation.
David Brose, owning the last remaining vacant
lot along that street, adjacent to the property requested for vacation,
spoke in opposition to the vacation and expressed his concerns. The well servicing Utsalady has a ring of protection around it that
enters his property about half-way
through and that is the area he has access to.
Although it is not the portion
being proposed for vacation, because of the well location he cannot
depend on using that for access. If he
puts a road in he would have to do so above or further in closer to Ms.
McGuill’s place. The property is fairly
steep and because of having been disabled for a few years it would be difficult
for him to carry things from up above or down below. He is planning to retire and move here in the next few years and
this is a real issue for him. This is
also the only alternate access for the community.
Agrypina Mlynarceyk, 184 E. Belvedere Street, also owning a four-plex, stated that
Stillaquamish had been open and maintained by her since August 2, 1989. She
needs it in order to have her three septics pumped every two to three years,
and it is the only access in to mow her
lawn. Her house is off Stillaguamish
facing North Camano Drive and she needs the road open. The road is public and she asked that the County keep it
as a county road even though she has maintained it for so many years. Tenants in the four-plex have boats and
kayaks, and some have extra cars.
Glen Jones, 175, E. Sky Vista, agreed with what had been stated by others
opposing the vacation and emphasized this is their only egress. Up above where their driveways are is a private road; the
property under discussion is a County road and should remain open.
Walt Huehnerhoff,
163 Sky Vista, told the
Commissioners that the street behind his property is Stillaguamish and he had no access to that street except the property line. He mentioned too, as noted in the letter
from the community association, the need to access by utilities, cable and
gas. Should this be vacated his
environment that should be serene probably would be used as a thoroughfare and
he did not want that to happen.
Michele McGuill, 191 Sky Vista Place, mentioned that
her septic location is where the property is proposed for vacation, and is also
the only way she can get to the front of her property in order to have the
septic pumped, or have anything hauled in.
No others indicated a desire to speak either for or
against the proposed vacation, and the Chair closed public testimony.
Commissioner Shelton, after listening to the
testimony, believed it very clear that Stillaguamish was an important access for
a good number of folks for access, roadway and utilities; Commissioners Byrd and McDowell agreed.
By unanimous motion the Board approved Resolution
#C-70-03/R-28-03 denying approval of said vacation for the reasons so stated by
the County Engineer.
In the Matter of the Petition of Resolution No. C- 70 -03
Frederick R. and Joanne C. Beich
et.Al. R- 28 -03
known as Stillaguamish Avenue
located in Section 19, Township
32N, Range 3E, W.M.
The Board having on the 19th day of August
, 2003 , denied the order of vacation of said road.
It is Ordered by the Board, all the members concurring, that the
county road petitioned to be vacated by
Frederick R. and Joanne C. Beich
and others, not be vacated as follows:
§
The public will not be benefited by this vacation.
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this road as part of the general road system.
§
The section of unopened
Stillaguamish Avenue for which the petitioners have requested vacation, does
provide access to Lots 11 and 12 of the Plat of Buena Vista, Division 4 and
parcel R33219-475-2560 even though owners of these two lots and parcel
currently have access.
§
Other property owners
also have protested the vacation but it does not appear that access to their
lots would be affected.
Done this 19th day of August, 2003.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
WM.
L. MCDOWELL, Chairman
WILLIAM
J. BYRD, Member
MIKE
SHELTON, Member
ATTEST: By: Ellen Meyer, Deputy
Elaine
Marlow, Clerk of the Board
Resolution #C-64-03/R-25-03 – PROPOSED VACATION BY Petitioners Richard & Julie Shallow, et.al., portion of county road known as Barnum Road
Public Hearing on
Resolution #C-64-03/R-25-03 proposed vacation by Petitioners Richard & Julie Shallow,
et.al.; portion of county road known as Barnum Road; Sec 6, Twp 31N., R 3E. was opened by the Chairman. Mr. Oakes reported that in this case, the
recommendation of the County Engineer was denial, based on the
following:
§
The public will not be
benefited by this vacation;
§
Said road is now in use
as a County Road;
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this road as part of the general road system;
§
There is overwhelming support
from citizens on Camano Island to keep the road open;
§
In addition, the road
abuts a body of water and RCW 36.87 prohibits vacation unless the road will be
used for specific purpose by a public authority which isn’t the case in this
matter.
Jenny Baker, Snohomish Conservation District,
Habitat Restoration Coordinator, has been working with the Shallows,
involved from a stream restoration perspective. The concern is Barnum Road and Kristoferson
Creek has been identified as a problem
in: (1) Limiting Facilities
Report for Island County; and (2) Draft WIRA 6 Salmon Strategy. She noted a letter from Lew Legat, then County Enigneer, dated May 20, 1999, to Barnum Road property owners, indicating that the County was interested in
vacating the road at the suggestion of then County Commissioner Bill
Thorn. The opening paragraph indicates
that the road has a gravel surface and
parallels Russell Road that has a paved surface, and that this portion of Barnum Road has a low traffic
count and gets minimal attention by the Public Works
Department.
Two options were outlined in that 1999 letter: Option 1 – Road Closure; Option 2 – Road Vacation. From her perspective it is a good
opportunity for stream restoration. If the road can be vacated
there are dollars that can be provided from Fish and Wildlife Service to assist in improving the habitat. If it is an issue that the public uses the
road, that issue can be addressed other ways, i.e. Russell and
Shumway. Roads.
From the description on the deed
and county maps indicating that the property extends to the south side of
Barnum Road, she requested clarification
on the issue that it abutts a body of water.
Mr. Oakes
pointed out that R.C.W. 36.87.130
states that no county shall vacate a county road or part thereof which abuts on
a body of salt or fresh water unless the purpose of the vacation is to
enable any public authority to acquire
the vacated property for port purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, or for
park, viewpoint, recreational, educational or other public purposes, or unless
the property is zoned for industrial uses.
He believes the spirit within which this is written is to give people
access to waters of the state. This
road would abut waters of the state.
Lawrence Baum, Lil’ Cat Boat Co., Consulting Geologist,
submitted a letter dated August 14, 2003 on behalf of the Kristoferson
Creek Commercial Landowners Association, signed by all of the business members
of the Association, objecting to vacation of a portion of Barnum Road for the
following reasons:
§
Little or no attempt on
the part of petitioners to embrace within the decision making process the
larger community of the Kristoferson Creek watershed. Petition for rejection of
the proposal was previously forwarded to the Board
§
Removal of the culverts
would render this portion of Barnum Road impassable by car and private
ownership of this land could result in the fencing-off of the land prohibiting
or restricting public access to this portion of Triangle Cove.
§
While applaud the
efforts to save and re-establish endangered fish populations, simply removing
culverts is a premature and costly
expense which may or may not even have
a desired outcome
§
The move is
premature because an overall program an
overall program of watershed management for this creek and its drainage is not
yet in place
§
Have already seen with
issues dealing with beavers flooding local drainfields at a cost of many
thousands of dollars to the county and the potential for economic loss to landowners through increased buffer zones along the
Creek, how piece-meal attempts to encourage fish invariably lead to unforeseen
and undesirable consequences.
[complete
letter on file with the Clerk of the Board]
Ron Wells, 175 Triangle Cove Lane, in response to
the letter read above, confirmed that there is no public access that he is aware of to Triangle Cove.
Vicky Eisenberg, 231 Barnum Road, representing
herself as well as Dennis Perrino, Peter Maurer, Joyce Sutton, and D. Yarwood, stated that they still use
that as a trail and if vacated and can
no longer use it, they all would be
opposed to the vacation.
Lister
Carroll, 253 Barnum Road, pointed out that the turn off from Russell
Road is peculiarly shaped and emergency
vehicles he did not think could make it.
Tractor-trailers come on the gravel road now, otherwise could not make
the turn; it is a big safety
issue. The other concern is for
commerce/deliveries.
Rick Shallow, Petitioner, 148 Russell Road, explained that in taking the petition around
for signatures, he did as instructed which was to go around to people who live
in the area, not up stream or along the highway. He wanted the road closed because it goes through his property on
both sides. He is not opposed to a
trail through, just against cars going
through and using his property as a personal dumping ground. As far as high tide and being able to get to the Cove from his
property, he said that once in a blue
moon he could go across and get in.
Gordon Messier, 321 Barnum Road, was also concerned about access and the dirt
portion of the road and how larger vehicles need to use that. As far as the situation with the road
crossing Mr. Shallow’s property, he noted they all had that problem on Barnum
Road and the public coming and leaving debris.
John Dwyer, 273 Barnum Road, commented that there are 18 houses on the remaining
portion of Barnum Road, the road all single lane, nicely blacktopped but
very narrow and no room for two trucks to pass. The residents manage it very well because when any trucks, trailers, low boys, etc. need to go along that road, the trailers
are parked down on the gravel portion which is two lane. His opinion was there had to be on the east
end some parking left for those
trailers, low boys etc.; if not, there is no room on the entire two miles to
get out of the way, and it would make it very difficult because of the dead end
road.
Andy Bostrom, 275 S. Barnum Road, stated that he and
his wife were against the proposed vacation, noting that folks on the Barnum side of the road like to take walks
around the Cove and Driftwood Shore side and would miss having that access
along the bay.
No others indicated a desire to speak either for or
against the proposed vacation and the Chairman closed the public testimony
portion.
Commissioner Shelton understood from the Applicant’s
s point of view how discouraging it is when the public dumps on their
property; unfortunately it is not a
reason to vacate a road. The majority
of testimony today from residents along
Barnum Road has been that the public roadway has a public benefit and
therefore, in his opinion,
inappropriate to vacate a portion of it.
Commissioner Byrd recalled that several folks came
to his Camano Annex office to discuss the matter with him recently, everyone
opposed to the vacation and in favor of keeping the road open for recreational purposes, public use and access, other than Jenny
Baker. The RCW was very clear with
regard to not vacating a portion of a county road which abuts a body of
salt or fresh water.
Chairman McDowell,
aside from the water issue, was
concerned that the road was obviously
used for delivery of packages, some cars and certainly walkers and no one in
good conscience could say this section
is useless when it is still used by the public.
The Board, by unanimous motion, approved Resolution
#C-64-03/R-25-03 denying
vacation of a portion of county
road known as Barnum Road in Sec 6, Twp 31N., R 3E, for reasons stated:
§
The public will not be
benefited by this vacation;
§
Said road is now in use
as a County Road;
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this road as part of the general road system;
§
There is overwhelming
support from citizens on Camano Island to keep the road open;
§
In addition, the road
abuts a body of water and RCW 36.87 prohibits vacation unless the road will be
used for specific purpose by a public authority which isn’t the case in this
matter.
In the Matter of the Petition of Resolution No. C- 64 -03
Richard and Julie Shallow et.Al. R- 25 -03
known as Barnum Road
located in Section 6, Township 31N, Range 3E
The Board having on the 19th day of August
, 2003 , denied the order of vacation of said road.
It is Ordered by the Board, all the members concurring, that the
county road petitioned to be vacated by
Richard and Julie Shallow and
others, not be vacated as follows:
§
The public will not be benefited by this vacation.
§
Said road is now in use
as a County Road.
§
It will be advisable to
preserve this road as part of the general road system.
§
There is overwhelming
support from citizens on Camano Island to keep the road open.
§
In addition, the road
abuts a body of water and RCW 36.87 prohibits vacation unless the road will be
used for specific purpose by a public authority which isn’t the case in this
matter.
Done this 19th day of August, 2003.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
WM.
L. MCDOWELL, Chairman
WILLIAM
J. BYRD, Member
MIKE
SHELTON, Member
ATTEST: By: Ellen Meyer, Deputy
Elaine
Marlow, Clerk of the Board
Answering questions from audience members about when
the road would be oiled and graveled, Dick Snyder confirmed that the Department
was looking at trying to work it into next year’s road program.
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. The Board will meet next in Regular Session August 25, 2003 beginning at 1:30 p.m. [the 11:30 a.m. Elected Officials Roundtable canceled].
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