BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCEEDINGS

 

July 11, 2000

 

John A. Bolender called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. with the flag salute. Mary Jo Cady was in attendance. Cynthia D. Olsen was on scheduled leave.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the June 13, 2000 meeting minutes as circulated. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

C O R R E S P O N D E N C E

 

FIRE MARSHAL

Mason County Fire Commissioners Association has requested the County consider restoring the Fire Marshal to a full time position for 2001.

STATE AUDITOR

Received notice that the State Auditor will be conducting their audit of the County.

B U S I N E S S

 

VETERANS ASSISTANCE

James F. Riley VFW 5372 Utilities $183.66

Lloyd L. Berg VFW 1694 Housing $200.00

Douglas Drinkall VFW 1694 Utilities $172.06

Vernon L. Oldfield VFW 1694 Housing $400.00

George Roberts VFW 1694 Utilities $158.95

Mike Inman VFW 1694 Mileage Reimbursement $55.51

Robert F. May VFW 1694 Housing $350.00

The Veterans Assistance Screening Committee is recommending approval on the above listed applications totaling $1,520.18

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the veterans assistance applications for James F. Riley - Utilities $183.66; Lloyd L. Berg - Housing $200.00; Douglas Drinkall Utilities $172.06; Vernon L. Oldfield Housing $400.00; George Roberts Utilities $158.95; Mike Inman Mileage Reimbursement $55.51; and Robert F. May Housing $350.00 submitted by the Veterans Assistance Screening Committee in the amount of $1,520.18. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

INTERLOCAL DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT

The Sheriffs Department requested the Board approve an Interlocal Drug Task Force Agreement from June 20, 2000 through June 30, 2003.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve and authorize the chairs signature on the Interlocal Drug Task Force Agreement with Westnet for the period of June 20, 2000 through June 30, 2003. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

FOOTHILLS PARK WATCHPERSON AGREEMENT

The Tourism & Recreation Department presented a watchperson agreement with Toni Anderson for the period of July 1, 2000 through October 31, 2000.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the watchperson agreement with Toni Anderson for Foothills Park for July 1, 2000 through October 31, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

CRP 1681 NORTH SHORE ROAD

Jerry Hauth, Public Works Director, submitted a county road project (CRP) for North Shore Road for replacement of a culvert to remove fish blockage in Johnson Creek.

The Board asked that this be held to determine exactly where the project is located.

CRP 1682 ERDMAN LAKE

Mr. Hauth presented CRP 1682 for replacement of a culvert on Erdman Lake Creek on Haven Way.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board execute CRP 1682, Haven Way, for replacement of a culvert to remove fish blockage in Erdman Lake Creek. Resolution No. 64-00 (Exhibit A)

CRP 1683 OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY

The Board was presented CRP 1683 for replacement of a culvert in Courtney Creek

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board of County Commissioners execute CRP 1683, Old Belfair Highway, for replacement of culverts to remove fish blockage in Courtney Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 65-00 (Exhibit B)

CRP 1684 EVERSON CREEK

A CRP for Everson Creek to replace a culvert was presented.

Cmmr. Bolender noted that the majority of funds from the other projects are county funds and it looks like the grant is paying for 75% of this project. He questioned how the other projects could also secure similar grant funding.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board approve Resolution No. 66-00 executing CRP 1684, Old Belfair Highway, for replacement of culverts to remove fish blockage in Everson Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 66-00 (Exhibit C)

CRP 1685- NORTH SHORE ROAD

Mr. Hauth presented CRP 1685 for a culvert replacement in Hall Creek on North Shore Road.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board approve Resolution No. 67-00 to execute CRP 1685, North Shore Road, for replacement of a culvert to remove fish blockage in Hall Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 67-00. (Exhibit D)

CRP 1681 NORTH SHORE ROAD

Public Works referred back to CRP 1681 and the question on the location of the project. The Board was advised Johnson Creek is in the proximity of the Silver Moon Tavern on North Shore.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution No. 68-00 executing CRP 1681, North Shore Road, for replacement of a culvert to remove fish blockage in Johnson Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 68-00 (Exhibit E)

ROAD CLOSURE - SKOKOMISH VALLEY ROAD

It was recommended the Board close Skokomish Valley Road to through traffic at milepost 0.68 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 20. This will facilitate paving and membrane placement on the Weaver Creek bridge. They are hoping it wont be a closure, but a delay for a while during the work. The detour alternate would be Eells Hill Road.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board approve Resolution No. 69-00 to close Skokomish Valley Road at milepost 0.68 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2000 to facilitate paving and membrane placement on the Weaver Creek Bridge. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 69-00 (Exhibit F)

ROAD CLOSURE - DEEGAN ROAD EAST

A request for road closure was also presented to the Board for Deegan Road East for the coffee Creek culvert replacement project. This would be at milepost 0.15 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. on Monday, August 7, 2000 through 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 31, 2000.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board approve Resolution No. 70-00 closing Deegan Road East at milepost 0.15 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. on Monday, August 7, 2000 through 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 31, 2000 to facilitate the replacement of a large culvert at Coffee Creek. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent. Resolution No. 70-00 (Exhibit G)

QUIT CLAIM DEED BELFAIR SHOP PROPERTY

Mr. Hauth explained that in 1996 a boundary line adjustment was completed to clear up an error in the legal description of the Belfair Shop property. The quit claim deeds are being presented to transfer the ownership of two parcels to the neighbors (Meek & Sarver) on the east.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the board sign the quit claim deeds to complete the boundary line adjustment to convey the parcels described in the North Mason area to neighbors Meek and Sarver. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

POST FOR QUOTES FORD EXPLORER

Dave Loser, Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund Manager requested the Board approve posting for quotes for replacement of vehicle #158, a 1992 Ford Explorer.

There was discussion this equipment is used for forest patrol. They are not adding a new vehicle.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded the Board authorize the Equipment Rental & Revolving Fund Manager to utilize the post-for-quotes/telephone bid procedures to replace vehicle #158 with a used late model Ford Explorer. Total additional cost not to exceed $25,000 with vehicle #158 used as a trade in. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE/VARIANCE PERMIT FOX

The Board considered a proposal to repair foundation, construct retaining wall and place fill for septic system and construct parking deck and cabin/deck additions along Hood Canal. Allan Borden, Planner, presented the staff report for the Guy Fox permit.

 

The Planning Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

 

This substantial development permit, conditional use permit, and variance are approved subject to the submitted site plan showing residence and deck with additions, parking deck, septic system components with retaining wall, located with proposed setbacks on the property and in accordance with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program decision.

 

The applicant shall comply with the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act, Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Mason County building permit for the structures, and Mason County Health Department for septic system installation.

 

All excavation materials and soils exposed to erosion by all phases of construction shall be stabilized and protected by seeding, mulching or other effective means (such as replanting the area at the margin of the fill), both during and after construction.

 

The applicant shall follow the specifications of the project proposal, including water and erosion control and the profile of the proposed fill.

 

The Board questioned where cars are currently parking.

 

Mr. Borden responded they are parking on the west side of North Shore Road.

 

There is an issue of the right-of-way.

 

There is existing parking somewhere by the sanikan.

 

Pat McCullough, Agent for applicant, explained the cabin has been there for a long time. It has no septic system. It has inadequate parking. It is a tertiary treatment system being proposed. He was surprised to find the county owns half of the houses along North Shore Road. In talking with the right-of-way people he was assured the County is not going to do anything on that side of the road.

 

The Board questioned how much parking is available.

 

Mr. McCullough responded they could park three vehicles. It is minimal and several of the properties along North Shore are similar.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to conditionally approve the shoreline substantial development/conditional use/variance permit SHR 2000-00020 for Guy Fox with the four conditions presented by staff and a fifth condition "The applicant shall secure approval of a request of county-right-of-way and vacation and variance along North Shore Road exchanging 15 width on the east with the 15 width on the west, prior to construction of the elements of this proposal" and authorize the chair to sign the Findings of Fact when prepared. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

NORTH BAY/CASE INLET WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY & SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM LOAN AGREEMENT

Gary Yando, Director of Community Development, asked the Board to approve amendment No. 3 to Loan Agreement No. L9400010 as it relates to the North Bay/Case Inlet Water Reclamation Facility and Sewer Collection System. The loan is in the amount of $2,620,000 and is a 0 interest loan. The date of completion for the project is March 1, 2002.

 

The Prosecutors office has reviewed this proposal.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve Amendment No. 3 to the North Bay/Case Inlet loan agreement No. L9400010. This amendment is needed to establish the newest projected construction schedule dates and payback schedule. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

RECESS

The Board recessed at 10:08 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.

 

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

The Board held a public hearing on the proposal to construct the Lakeland Village portion of the North Bay Case Inlet Wastewater Collection & Treatment System within the shoreline management area of Anderson Lake. The Department of Community Development has requested a continuation of the hearing to allow adequate time to communicate with the people who have filed a lawsuit against this project.

 

There was no one present to testify on the proposal before the Board.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to continue the hearing to August 15, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

RECESS

The Board recessed until the next scheduled item at 10:30 a.m.

 

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT MONTANA REACH, INC.

The Board held a continuation hearing on the proposal for construction of a multi-owner joint use pier-ramp-float structure on Hood Canal.

 

Allan Borden, Planner, presented the staff report and noted approval was recommended with the following conditions:

 

The use of pressure-treated wood piling is approved for use in this project, provided that the supplier certifies in writing that appropriate best management practices have been employed in its production and that the material is fixed and free of excessive surface residue prior to installation. This certificate shall state the purchasers name and shall be provided to Mason County prior to construction.

The applicant shall secure a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval and follow all construction specifications authorized in that permit.

The applicant shall secure an Army Corps of Engineers approval and follow all construction specifications authorized in that permit.

The applicant shall use best management practices for construction of the structure and shall remove construction debris from the shoreline area following project completion.

The applicant shall implement the approved proposal in a manner that is consistent with all policies and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and its rules, the standards of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, and the building codes of the Mason County Building Department.

 

The presence of the eelgrass is located on the far eastern area of the property and not in the area immediate to the proposed pier, ramp and float.

 

There was discussion that the purpose of the float being initially located on the west side of the property was due to the presence of the eelgrass on the opposite side of the property.

 

The depth of the water and lack of the presence of eelgrass allows the structure to be located as proposed with the 115 length. It is substantiated by the consultant that the float would not ground at low tide, which is preferred by Fish & Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers.

 

The Board questioned without the 15 if it would increase the float to be grounded.

 

Mr. Borden responded it would increase the chances that it would be grounded some of the time.

 

The revision of the proposed structure was received by Planning. The length is still the same. According to the redesign there is an additional small float in the center which would make the structure wider to 48 from the previous 40 width. The purpose is so the ramp will glide on the track float. The way it was constructed is the two 20 floats were joined where the ramp came down and actually bends down. This makes it more stable.

 

The area is still below the square footage maximum of 600 square feet. The proposal is less than 500 square feet.

 

The Board questioned how this proposal qualifies for the 115 joint use facility.

 

Mr. Borden responded an applicant could qualify for a joint use when there are two waterfront parcels involved in the proposal. When originally proposed, Montana Reach had one property east to west, but on the north side of Highway 106 and a second piece of property upland on the south side of Highway 106. They are in the process of applying for a boundary line adjustment which would create two lots.

 

He explained when a boundary line adjustment is completed the different parcel numbers are identified on a map. P1 & P2 are the original parcels. P1 is north of Highway 106; P2 is south of Highway 106. There is an additional parcel (P3) indicated which would become attached to the waterfront portion of P1 so it becomes one parcel. P4 is the waterfront of parcel P2.

 

A question was raised about how one of the newly proposed parcels would have access to the dock. Often the dock is located close to the common property line. In this case the proposal is completely across the parcel. Is there something to address the access. Will the joint use agreement be subject to review and approval.

 

Mr. Borden commented it could be reviewed by the Planning Department.

 

Jerry Vermillion, applicant, noted the access for the new parcel would be straight across the road and onto the beach. It could be described in the joint use. He understood that joint use is different than a community dock. A joint use is 2 4 users and a community dock is open to many. They divided up the property feeling it to be the most reasonable. It would attach the one-acre to the front part where they have a permit approved for a septic drainfield. The biologic report is in and is lengthy.

 

The Board referred to the new septic and drainfield being proposed which addresses the allegation by the Kinneys.

 

Mr. Vermillion responded that the allegation is not accurate. The system is similar to what most of the parcels have. When they remodeled it was okayed by the County to use it on a temporary basis until they were able to put in an upgraded system.

 

Mr. Vermillion added the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife did test the water and the water was fine in front of their property. They want to come back this summer when there is heavy usage of the Pebble Cove area to check the water.

 

The Board referred to the added ramp support and track float which adds another 8 to the size of the float. She questioned if there is a way to cut off 4 from the ends of the float so they still maintain the original size of the float or build the two floats as one large float that is 40 in length.

 

Mr. Vermillion noted that Fisheries would not allow it to be more than 8 wide because of light. The other issue is they had it designed for 40 and were going to put a little stub ramp on there of 1 or 2, but that was not adequate. They wanted to be sure there is 3. If they go to 3 structurally it would have to be changed.

 

The biological assessment was done on the original and revised proposal.

 

Joan ONeil, property owner to the immediate west, wanted to confirm they are talking about a ramp that begins 12 west of the existing stairs on the bulkhead. The reason is that the maps are all different that include a number from the property line. Some of them show 22 from the property line, some show 33 from the property line. When she measured it, one of the photographs that had a line drawn in was almost 41 from the property line. The only consistent number is the 12 from the existing stairs. If it begins 12 from the existing stairs the ramp would be put around 30 from the property line which is better than 22.

 

Also, page 19 of 35 of the biological survey shows the location of the eelgrass. This is just a small portion of what Montana Reach, Inc. owns. They own all around the cove. There doesnt appear to be anything in the study that shows the presence of eelgrass in the entire rest of the cove that the Kinneys refer to. She assumed that the determining reason for putting the proposal in its place is the existing cement bulkhead. If it were placed farther to the east it would have to be a different kind of method used to attach it to the shore. She didnt see anything that shows the cove has eelgrass.

 

The Board interjected the eelgrass is not within the scope of their evaluation. It is not the Boards determination to direct the applicant where to place the structure on his property as long as it doesnt impact environmental concerns or neighbors. The applicant has the latitude to choose where to propose a structure and whatever mitigation is necessary. The County would have the purview to redirect the location if it had a particular impact on the environment or the neighbors.

 

Mrs. ONeil stated the second concern is if the commissioners are moving toward approving the project on the condition that a boundary line adjustment (BLA) be allowed. A boundary line adjustment is not easily granted as she personally was denied a BLA five years ago. She didnt want the administrator to think it is a done deal.

 

The Board stated if the BLA is denied the shoreline permit would be void.

 

Mrs. ONeil asked if Montana Reach is retaining ownership of the two parcels involved. She understood the definition of a joint use facility is two waterfront owners.

 

Chairperson Bolender interjected that was his original question during the first hearing. The Prosecutors office has determined a joint use facility is two waterfront parcels and not two owners as the property could be sold at a later date to another owner.

 

Mrs. ONeil urged that 4 of the project from the Pebble Cove side be deleted.

 

The Board discussed condition #8 and that Mr. Vermillion testified he has an approved system operating and functioning on site. It was noted that the Board needs to have something from staff that it is an approved system.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the shoreline substantial development permit SHR 2000-00012 with eleven conditions. The first five as presented by staff (listed above);

 

Chairperson Bolender stated ordinarily he wouldnt be supporting the 4 reduction, because the individual is significantly under the square footage requirement. But because of the close proximity of this structure to the adjoining property owners and community use area, it is appropriate to require the 4 reduction or moving the entire structure to the east. They cant get there because the biological assessment didnt address it. It seems to be the only compromise to take into consideration the neighbors concerns. It still gives the owner 4 more than the original proposal. At a previous hearing there were concerns about visibility of the pier. There was discussion about a condition that the handrails be designed for maximum visibility by adjacent property owners.

 

6) The applicant shall secure approval of a boundary line adjustment for the two properties prior to construction of the proposed pier, ramp and float structure.

7) Subject to a joint use agreement addressing access and maintenance to be filed with the County Auditor.

8) Subject to an approved septic system on site.

9) A 4 reduction from the Pebble Beach side of the float which would bring the total float size to 44. (16 float on the west side)

10) The structure be 12 from the existing stairway.

11) Handrails will be designed for maximum visibility by adjacent property owners.

 

Motion failed. B-nay; C-nay; O-absent.

 

Jerry Vermillion stated in a joint use dock with putting two to four people on it from the other parts of the property, the dock is limited in size. It is under the maximum square footage. There is enough room to have 44.

 

The Board stated they are trying to balance needs of the adjoining property owners and the fact that there is a large parcel of property that an additional site could potentially be chosen for this structure, it is appropriate to look at an additional reduction beyond what is allowed in the code because of the close proximity to the structure to the adjoining property.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the shoreline substantial development permit SHR 2000-00012 for Montana Reach Inc. with the five conditions originally proposed by staff (listed above)

6) The applicant shall secure approval of a boundary line adjustment for the two subject properties prior to construction of the proposed pier, ramp and float structure.

7) Subject to a joint use agreement addressing access and maintenance to be filed with the County Auditor.

8) Subject to an approved septic system on site. (does not need to be new system if existing system is approved)

9) Subject to a reduction of 4 from the Pebble Beach side on the float which would make the total float length of 44.

10) Subject to the structure being built 12 to the west of the existing stairs.

11) Handrails will be designed for maximum visibility by the adjacent property owners.

Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact when prepared. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

SHORELINE VARIANCE PERMIT WILSON

Grace Miller, Planner, presented the staff report for the Roger & Lynn Wilson proposal to construct a single family residence waterward of the shoreline setback by Fawn Lake.

 

She noted the Planning Staff recommends approval with one condition:

 

Erosion control (silt fencing) is to be installed prior to construction and maintained until such time that upland groundcover has been established on the building site.

 

There were no public comments received.

 

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the shoreline variance request for Roger & Lynn Wilson for a residence on Fawn Lake SHR 2000-00017 with one condition as presented by staff (listed above) and also approve the findings of fact for the chairs signature. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Grace Miller, Planner presented the staff report, for the Edward Tuck proposal to place approximately 200 cubic yards of landfill over a 3200 square foot area for recreational use of uplands within 200 feet of the shoreline.

 

Mrs. Miller recommended approval with the following conditions:

 

No adverse impacts from the stormwater to the receiving wetlands can occur.

Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment. Erosion control (silt fencing) is to be installed prior to construction and maintained until such time that upland groundcover has been established to prevent erosion from occurring on the beach.

Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause water quality degradation.

Proper erosion and sediment control practices must be used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent upland sediments from entering the water body. All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities must be revegetated. Routine inspection and maintenance of all sediment and erosion control devices is recommended both during and after development of the site.

 

The applicant or contractor was not present.

 

There were no public comments on the proposal.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the shoreline substantial development/conditional use permit requested by Edward Tuck SHR 2000-0022 with four conditions (listed above) and approve the Findings of Fact for the chairs signature. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

 

RECESS

The Board recessed at 11:35 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.

 

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

The Board held the continuation hearing (from June 13) on the Paradise Estates proposal to dredge an existing Mason Lake marina and the placement of fill within a shoreline location. Shandra OHaleck, Planner, presented the staff report and recommended approval with the following conditions:

1) The applicant shall comply with the specifications and conditions of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic project approval for this project.

2) A US Army Corps of Engineers Permit or Exemption in conjunction with a WA State Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to the performance of any activities waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark.

3) This project must comply with the general requirements of Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority Regulation 1 and Chapter 173-400 WAC.

4) The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Mason County Grading Permit Standards Chapter 33, Section 3309.4 and Section 3309.5 concerning engineered grading.

5) The applicant shall use best management practices for dredging and for placement of the fill and shall contain all material deposited within shoreline boundaries by bulkheading, diking, or other acceptable methods to prevent undesirable erosion.

6) All dredged materials shall be certified clean, and a copy of this certification provided to the Mason County Planning Department, prior to placing within shoreline jurisdiction.

7) All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities must be revegetated, use bioengineering techniques, use clean durable riprap, or some other equivalent type of protection against erosion.

8) Dredging operations shall be self monitored to control leaks or spillage of dredged materials. Additionally, machinery or vessels shall use precautionary methods to prevent petroleum or hazardous materials from entering the water.

9) The project must be consistent with all the applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management Act, its rules and the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.

10) Applicant must coordinate with the Department of Ecology and Mason County Environmental Health Department to assure this dredging plan contains provisions for addressing potential Milfoil distribution.

Ron Moon, Paradise Estates Board Member, referred back to the figure of the 1500 cubic yards of material. They researched on the figure and determined the original Mason County Environmental checklist that was signed by the chairman at that time was put together by the engineer and the person that came up with the design to find out the actual number of yardage needed. They also indicated the 1500 cubic yards was an estimate.

Tim Sayan, Paradise Estates Vice-President noted the president was handling this project and he retired so now he has taken over. Their intention was to be able to get to the bidding process. The members were clear at the recent annual member to have the proposals. They will vote it at their annual meeting next year.

Carl Franks, Grapeview, asked how long the permit is good for.

The Board responded three years.

Mr. Franks also questioned if all the fees for the permit had been paid for.

Tim Sayan questioned if the permitting process was necessary for them to define the scope of work.

The Board responded that there are a variety of other regulating agencies beyond the local county control. When a shoreline permit is initiated it is then sent to all those agencies to comment on. In the absence of that happening, they could outline the permit process, but there would be no input from the other agencies as to any of the other increments or conditions that might be attached. The purpose of the permit is to scope the horizon and alert all agencies with regulatory authority and get their comments on the specific proposal.

Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve the shoreline substantial development/conditional use permit for Paradise Estates SHR2000-00010 with the ten conditions (listed above) and authorize the chair to sign Findings of Fact. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; C-aye; O-absent.

ADJOURNED

The meeting adjourned at 1:49 p.m. due to no further business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

Rebecca S. Rogers

Clerk of the Board

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

 

___________________________________

John A. Bolender, Chairperson

 

 

___________________________________

Mary Jo Cady, Commissioner

 

Absent 7/11/2000

___________________________________

Cynthia D. Olsen, Commissioner