061907_decision_morgan_appeal_ADM14206In the Matter of the Appeal of
MORGAN ADM14206
PARTIES PRESENT:
MORGAN
DENNIS REYNOLDS
TOM MORGAN III
MARK PEDERSON
Mm 0
Mr. and Mrs. Morgan appeal from a letter decision of Larry Frazier, Director of Bainbridge
Island Department of Planning and Community Development dated August 13, 2006.
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
'
The public hearing was reopened on November 2, 2006, at 10 a.m.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner.
The list of Exhibits are attached and incorporated by reference.
MINUTES:
Appearing
on
behalf of the
appellant is
Dennis Reynolds of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLC.
Appearing
on
behalf of the
respondent
is Jeff Weber of Buck Gordon, LLP.
TOM MORGAN, Managing Agent for Blakley Rock, LLC appeals the administrative
decision dated August 31, 2006 issued by the Director of Bainbridge Island Department of
Community Planning denying in all material respects their request for a favorable code
interpretation, The decision which is being appealed states:
1. That an existing dinghy
dock is
exempt from the Shoreline
Management Act
Substantial Development
process
on condition that the Morgans
can provide more
W
detail of the fair market value information concerning the cost of the dock
construction and ne'fact that it did not exceed $2500. In addition, the decision
allows the Morgans to file an after - the -fact shoreline exemption for the dinghy dock,
but only under the City's existing procedures.
2. The decision further implies that the
application
for an exemption
for the dinghy
dock cannot be approved because it
would be a
new dock and no
new docks are
currently allowed in the harbor.
1 The decision determines that the reseeding of an existing lawn is a regulated
activity under the Shoreline Management Act and the 1996 Bainbridge Island
Shoreline Master Program that allows the appellants to submit an after - the -fact
shoreline request for a permit exemption. The appellants contend that the decision
improperly indicates reseeding occurred waterward of an existing bulkhead when in
fact all reseeding was landward of the existing bulkhead and;
4. The decision determines that the Morgans removal of old tires, rusted metal, and
piling materials from upperbeach area above the ordinary high water mark, is a
regulated activity under the 1996 Shoreline Master Program. The decision also
determines that the replenishment of sand in a children's play area is a regulated
activity. The decision allows the Morgans to seek after -the —fact shoreline permit
exemptions.
Preliminarily, the parties stipulated that exhibits 1 -37 were admitted into evidence. During
the hearing process, Exhibits 38, 39, and 40 were admitted into evidence with no objection.
Appearing was TOM MORGAN III, who indicated that the appellant Blakely Holdings, LLC
is a family limited partnership and in the form of trust for the Morgan children. Part of the
land is owned by him and the remainder is owned by the LLC.
Appearing was DENNIS REYNOLDS, who indicated that if the City at any time wished to
have the Examiner remand the case for further evidence that he would not object.
Reappearing was TOM MORGAN III who resides at 10768 Country Club Road. The
addresses along this area are being revised and 10768 is now 10770. Mr. Morgan
indicated that he has been actively involved in the community issues concerning Blakely
Harbor and the preservation of the same. When he purchased the property in 1997,
Blakely Harbor was basically undeveloped and he and his wife determined that they
wanted to help preserve the natural aspects of this area. They are involved in helping with
th® drafting of nrAinanceS fnr thr hnrhnr. Nn nn"I hjc wife hnVe htv n w ni involved in tht
r'
protection of the environment on the island. He is the incoming co -chair of Island Wood,
an organization designed for the protection of the harbor area. He and his wife own four
parcels; three are waterfront. The address for the original house which he purchased was
6M
10768. The house was built in the 1940s and that house is now an accessory dwelling unit
which he uses for his home office. He and his wife, through their LLP, own 10770 and the
two parcels to the east of 10770. The dinghy dock which is in question is on what was
formerly 10768 and is now 10770. In addition to the dinghy dock, a single - family residence
and the original accessory dwelling unit exist on the premises. The family home, which he
now lives in, was started between 1993 and 1994. They took over the construction in
1997. To the best of his knowledge, all permits were obtained for the structure. The
dinghy pier, which is built, is limited to private recreational use for he and his family. It is
approximately 12 foot by four foot and the dinghy dock rests on three separate pilings,
which were in existence when he purchased the property. He wrapped the pilings in
cement and plastic to avoid further harm to the sound. Lot 10730 where the debris was
removed and sand installed is a single- family residence built in the 1940s or 1950s. It also
has a manufactured home that was installed in the early 1990s. It is developed with the
bulkhead, a play area, and a grassy area. 10730 previously had a lawn. He also bought
the site to the east of 10730, which is a single - family residence and a small yard parcel
plus a bulkhead. As part of the general clean up of these parcels, he and his wife removed
all of the debris including leftover vehicles and other materials which were on the property.
Thereafter, he rototilled the lawn and applied a mixture of peat and other materials to
improve the lawn and then hydroseeded it. For purposes of grading the site, they drug a
long board across the site much as is done on baseball fields between innings. They used
this approach to even out the site and provide for a gentle slope. The process was one of
reestablishing an existing lawn. All work was done landward of the bulkhead. In addition
to reestablishing the lawn, they used wheelbarrows to bring sand to a play area and
reestablished the play area so that there was a gentle slope from the lawn to the sound.
From appearances, the sand was sloped in such a way that it covered up the existing
bulkhead, which was very short. They began working on the site in July of 2005. He was
approached by the City and received a phone call telling him to make arrangements to
discuss his revitalization of the area. They asked him to cease work because of their
concerns. He did stop work on the site. There was no equipment on the beach during this
process. They did bring small, rounded cobblestones to the beach for purposes of helping
to restore the beach. The sand, which was placed in the play area, was clean sand. There
was approximately 1200 cubic feet of sand in an area 8 by 90 with a height up to 19 inches
sloping downwards toward the water. He tried to recreate the natural topography of the
site with sand and the lawn. There are remains of a ship on site due to a shipwreck in the
1960s that was not disturbed. They did not seek a shoreline permit because the work did
not appear to exceed $2500 and they did not have enough time. They retained a biologist
by the name of Mark Pederson at Margnex International to review the work that they had
done and make the report to the City. That report is Exhibit 1 and received no comment. It
is his philosophy that he is a steward of the property. He has the use of it for a brief period
of Time and it is his dirty to ansnra that three aYe no adverse impacts to the to ,.,h;i„ h,.
.3 F.. .• ••I,L a l� aUc vvi uic i Jc is
residing there. The City has been difficult to deal with in that they appear to be shifting
positions and he is never quite sure exactly what it is they want him to do or what it is that
they are complaining about. He has a solar powered boat hoist on the site. In 2002 he
to
hired a company to build bridges. That individual suggested that the pilings that are in
existence were a method of getting down to his boat. He built a platform that they then
placed on the pilings after the pilings had been wrapped in cement and wrapped in plastic
thereafter. The project was completed before 2002. He refers to Exhibit 6 and 7 with
reference to his proof as to the improvement being done before 2003. He stressed that the
site was created by dragging a board across the soil. The lawn was layered with an
organic matter to help the lawn retain moisture. The topography was not changed, and the
grade was not changed. He was basically cleaning up piles of debris and junk and
restoring the site to the original condition.
Upon cross - examination, Mr. Morgan indicated he did not have a building permit for the
dock. When he was questioned about the comments of 40 cubic yards of dead grass
being removed on Exhibit 9, he thought the 40 cubic yards of dead grass might be correct,
however he does not believe that the footnote there as to number of yards is correct. This
is the play area on the property in 2004 and believes that the sand is on or near the shore
and covers up part of the bulkhead. At this point, the parties stipulated that the dock issue
is not before the Hearing Examiner today.
Appearing was MARK PEDERSON who prepared Exhibit 1 which had been previously
entered into evidence. He also submitted Exhibit 34 which is a summary of his work
background and experience. He performed a biological assessment. He has done over
100 biological assessments for the federal government and had done work for Bainbridge
Island on many occasions. He worked with teams on this site including David Kold
geotech, Karen White, data collector, and Coast Engineering to research and define and
review this project. He issued a report on October 30, 2005 to the City of Bainbridge. In
performing his biological assessment, he conducted a site visit, read all of the material,
reviewed photographs of the site, discussed the issues with Dan Potella of Fisheries,
reviewed a fish map with reference to population of the water and beach in that area. The
shoreline in front of the Morgan home better fits the BIMHCA geomorphic class definition
for "low bank" rather than "split /barrier /backshore ". The property is higher in elevation and
the slope is greater than 15% and there is a narrow foreshore with high water line on the
bulkhead protecting the bank. There is not a lot of wave action at this site. The deck of the
small dock is removable and was constructed on land. When installed it rests on three
pilings that existed when Mr. Morgan purchased the properties. These pilings were
enclosed in plastic casing because the old pilings appear to contain creosote. The work
was done at low tides using Best Management Practices for installation. It was built and
installed for less than $2000 in 2003. The deck is oriented south - southeast to north -
northwest and abutting the existing sea wall. It is used to launch and as access for small
dinghys. Because the dock is short and narrow, shading of the substraight is not an issue
of hinlnnir -.al signifi canna, Beca��8e of fha ciZe and fha fact that it w�aS built on exiting
pilings, it is unlikely to affect juvenile salmon migration. The dock is removable, further
diminishing the potential for negative impacts. The dock does not have any significant
negative environmental impacts nor were there any likely during construction because Best
M
Management Practices were used. With reference to the reseeding of the lawn, the activity
appears to fall under single - family residential landscaping. Reseeding was not likely to
have a significant adverse impact effects upon the environment. There is not a very good
habitat site and Best Management Practices were used to minimize any detrimental
impacts that might be caused to the water. Materials were replaced for similar vegetation.
With reference to the sand, 40 -50 cubic yards were placed by hand over areas. Mr.
Pederson could not distinguish between the new sand and the old sand. It all appeared to
be the same. The sand was clean when it was purchased from a local source. He sees no
significant detrimental impact. The children's play area could well be above the ordinary
high water line. According to Mr. Pederson, there is a sandy beach in that area. 40 -50
cubic yards of washed cobble and pea gravel were placed along the toe of the bulkhead to
try to trap sand from the site. These types of materials existed on the beach prior to
installation of additional materials. The rocks were placed by hand and they were brought
to the beach by wheelbarrows. The theory of the rocks was that it would reduce wave
energy, thus erosion. This action provided nourishment of the beach materials that will be
utilized on the substraight for forage fish. The material would replenish the piling materials
that may be moved more rapidly to the west by increased frequency of the waves (as they
turn the corner heading into the harbor). Placement of the larger river dock will support
attached microalgee and provide habitat for shorecrab and other invertebrates. Patches of
fine sediment between the cobble patches could still be utilized for forage fish farming if not
washed away by wave action. Mr. Pearson rendered an opinion that it would probably do
more ecological harm than good to remove the materials installed by Mr. Morgan. Sand
and gravel materials are frequently used for beach nourishment in other areas. Mineral
rocks have been moved around by natural wave action and are beginning to support
microalgea and invertebrate habitat. These rocks remain at the base of the bulkhead and
dissipate wave action and wave energy. He recommended that additional action be taken
to enhance the beach.
Upon cross - examination, Mr. Pederson testified that he has no idea how much soil was
added.
There was thereupon an exchange between Dennis Reynolds and Robert Thorpe.
There was also an exchange between Jeff Weber and Randi Thorpe of the Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
No one spoke further and the hearing was closed at p.m.
After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following shall constitute the
findings conch isions anri dgcisinn of the Fj@aring Fxaminar on this annaal
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION:
FINDINGS:
IS
1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted Exhibits 1 -55 into evidence into the record,
reviewed the same, heard testimony, judged credibility of witnesses, viewed the
site, researched the issues, and taken this matter under advisement.
2. The appropriate notices were given pursuant Brainbridge Island Municipal Code,
3. The appellants have a possessory interest in four parcels of property located at
10730 and 10768 Country Club Road NE, on the southern shore of Port Blakely on
Bainbridge Island. The Morgan property is in the Blakely Harbor Management area
(MA -6) and consists of approximately 347 front feet. The shoreline immediately
adjacent to the Morgan properties is lined with homes to the east and the west.
There are bulkheads and sea walls protecting the Morgan property and the homes
on either side. There is a vertical concrete bulkhead in front of the Morgan home
that existed when they purchased the property in 1997. There are at least five (5)
cement and rock groins along the shore to the east. The western most groin is near
the Morgan's eastern property line. According to expert analysis, the groins are
deteriorating near the bulkhead. This deterioration is likely exacerbated by the
impact caused by the ferries. The groins are also trapping sand and other sediment
as the materials migrate along the shore from east to west on this reach of the
beach. According to expert analysis, immediately west to the groin, the northern
property appears to have a substantial erosion of sediment. These factors,
according to the appellant, contribute to the risk to the base of the Morgan's
bulkhead and establish a need for them to produce enhancement. (See Exhibit 1)
4. On July 17, 2006, Dennis Reynolds, on behalf of the Morgan family, filed a request
for code interpretation with Larry Frazier, Planning Director, City of Bainbridge
Department of Planning and Community Development. In that request, he indicated
that the Morgans are owners of four parcels of property; three are waterfront. The
address for the original house, which is now an accessory dwelling unit, is 10768.
That house was built in the 1940s, and he and his wife, through their LLP, own
10770 and the parcels to the east of 10770. The family home, which the parties live
in, was started sometime between 1993 and 1994. The parties started a cleanup
of all four parcels and constructed a dinghy dock that was about 12 foot by 4 foot by
placing boards on top of existing pilings. As part of the cleanup, he and his wife
removed all of the debris, including leftover vehicles and other materials that were
on the property. They rototilled the lawn and applied a mixture of peat and other
materials to improve the lawn. They established the lawn. They hauled sand to
establish a play area, and reestablished the natural slope of the lawn and sand.
Thev hrnught in annrnximateiv 1200 r_.uhir_. feet of sand and cnhhle stones to protect
the sand from dissipation. During this process, the city asked them to stop work
because of the absence of permits.
6—
5. With that request for code interpretation, Mr. Morgan furnished Mr. Frazier with an
analysis performed by Mark Pederson, President of Margenex International. Mr.
Reynolds explained that the Morgan family intended to pursue land use applications
for the beach enhancement project pursuant to BIMC 16.12.300. They were
requesting the code interpretation pursuant to the BIMC 216.025A and BIMC
216.0158. They also indicated that in the future, they would be requesting a
shoreline permit exemption for the normal repair and maintenance of an existing
bulkhead located on their property.
With reference to reseeding, according to the Morgans, the vegetation behind the
existing seawall was "a maintained lawn with weeds. " They therefore rototilled the
area, added soil, and reseeded the area inland from the existing seawall.
With reference to replacement of sand in the play area, there was approximately 40
to 50 cubic yards of clean sand transported by foot and wheelbarrow to the beach.
It was placed above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). In the process they
removed old tires, rusting metal (railroad lines) and piling materials (possibly
creosoted) from the upper beach area prior to the placing the sand on the beach.
6. Mr. Reynolds requested the following interpretation for Mr. and Mrs. Morgan:
1. For the dinghy dock, that the Director interpret the
Bainbridge Island Municipal Cod and applicable regulations
and procedures to conclude that pursuant to existing City
procedures, they are allowed to submit an "after- the - fact"
request for a shoreline exemption. In this regard, Mr. and
Mrs. Morgan are willing to pay any required application fees
for the exemption without protest, including enhanced
permit fees.
2. That the Director determine that reseeding the lawn is normal
landscaping activity for a pre- existing use and condition which
under a literal interpretation of the Shoreline Management Act
and the City Shoreline Master Program, as well as long
practice in Bainbridge Island, is unregulated. This
interpretation would obviate the need for Mr. and Mrs. Morgan
to secure an after - the -fact shoreline exemption for this
common activity.
3. That the Di.rentor make the same determination requested
above, subparagraph (2), as to removing the junk materials
and replenishment of the sand in the children's play area.
7—
The requested interpretations, according the Mr. Reynolds, relate solely to
Shoreline Management Act and Bainbridge Island Shoreline Master Program
provisions relating to the permit process; specifically, whether or not an
exemption application can be submitted for: (a) dinghy dock, and (b) is not
required for the reseeding of the lawn or replacement of the sand in the play
area.
T On August 13, 2006, Larry Frazier, Director of Planning and Community
Development issued a memorandum decision. (See Exhibit 8). In that
memorandum decision he indicated that:
The dinghy dock is exempt from substantial development permit process
provided the applicant can demonstrate a cost of only $2000. The evidence
submitted was insufficient to make a finding of a cost of less than $2000. He
indicated that the applicant could submit an after- the -fact application, but
under BIMC 16.12.340(C)(1), an after -the -fact application for a private use
dinghy dock could not be approved because it would be a new dock or pier in
Blakely Harbor, and new docks and piers are prohibited in Blakely Harbor.
The dinghy dock would therefore have to be removed.
In reference to lawn replacement, Mr. Frazier indicated that the lawn is an
existing non - conforming development and the SMA allows for normal
maintenance and repair, which can include replacement when that is the
common method of repair, including within the native vegetation zone. He
also indicated that an after - the -fact application for exemption would be
appropriate. Further, if the grading and filling involved 50 or more cubic
yards, then a grading permit is required.
In reference to beach debris removal and sand replacement, Mr. Frazier
indicated the applicants were not exempt from the substantial development
permit process. The SMMP requires a shoreline conditional use permit for
beach enhancement, which includes beach nourishment, unless it is outright
prohibited because the beach is spawning, nesting, or breeding habitat. He
did indicate that the Morgans could submit an after - the -fact for debris
removal and sand replacement.
8. On September 13, 2006, Dennis Reynolds, on behalf of Tom and Beth
Morgan, filed an appeal of the administrative decision issued by Larry Frazier
dated August 13, 2006. In their appeal they indicated that the expert that
they rgtainerl Mr. Mark Perlargon perfnrmed an analygig that rnnrli ided that
the potential impacts related to the activities of the applicants were not
measurable or had positive impacts for the quiet environment. As to the
small dinghy, Mr. Pederson concluded that the feature does not have any
ONE
significant negative environmental impacts, nor would it likely have any
during construction, assuming that best management practices were used.
They requested that the Hearing Examiner reverse the administrative
decision and approve their requested code interpretation. They also
requested that the Hearing Examiner grant any further relief that is just and
fair under the circumstances.
9. The hearing on the appeal opened on November 2, 2006.
% On
December 6, 2006, while
the
case was still pending
before the Examiner,
the
Examiner wrote each of
the
counsel and stated in
pertinent part:
"I am requesting assistance from you.
First of all, I need to know what are the "justiciable" issues before me?
Secondly, I would like to know what portions of the Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code authorize me to hear this case. Third, I would like to know
what the legal impact of my decision will be when and if I do render a
decision. I would like to know how my decision will be used by the City and
how my decision would be used by Mr. Morgan. I would like to know,
whether in your opinion, my decision is appealable... "
11, On December 21, 2006, the City filed a letter brief with the Examiner asking that the
case be dismissed for lack of justiciable issues. The Morgans responded with a
brief. The City indicated that the code interpretation addressed the procedural
question about what applications the Morgans could file pursuant to the City's
Shoreline Master Program in an attempt to legalize various work that the Morgans
had done without going through the applicable City processes. The applicants have
not applied for any permits or for any exemptions. There is no actual or present,
existing dispute before the Hearing Examiner. The arguments tend to be
hypothetical, what would happen if. Therefore, the parties don't have genuine and
opposing interest, The interest that they have is a potential interest, a theoretical
interest. If the Examiner ruled in favor of the City, the decision would not be the
final decision on the matter. It would not resolve the dispute between the parties.
Following the Examiner's decision, the Morgans would need to decide whether or
not to submit the applications. If they decided not to, then the City would have to
decide what it would do next. Apparently, there is a dispute between the parties
before the Hearing Examiner, which is the second part of this appeal. The appeal
involving the code interpretation at this point would be meaningless. The second
mart of their appeal jn�inl�iec one of the hvnntheticals befnra the Fxaminar.
m
CONCLUSIONS:
From the foregoing findings the Examiner makes the following Conclusions:
1. The Examiner does not have jurisdiction to decide the issues involved here because
of the absence of a justiciable issue, and any decision the Examiner would issue
would not be a final decision to settle the issues between the parties. It would be a
decision based upon hypotheticals.
2. The case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (See To -Ro Trade Shows v.
Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403, 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001)).
DECISION:
This case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED this 19`h day of June 2007
TERRENCE F. McCARTHY
Hearing Examiner
10—
Compiled: 10-17-06, amended 10- 23 -06, 10- 24 -06, 10- 27 -065 10 -31 -06
EXHIBIT LIST
ADM 14206 - MORGAN, TOM AND BETH
APPEAL OF ADMIN. DECISION
Staff Contact: Public Hearing: 11 -02 -06
Peter Namtvedt Best 10:00 a.m.
Exhibit # Dated Date Recd Pages
1
Code Interpretation Request with attachments
7 -17 -06
7 -17 -06
20
2
Application form
7 -17 -06
7 -17 -06
1
3
Corres to Reynolds from Gladstein re: staff
7 -21 -06
1
assignment
4
Corres to Frazier, Director (DPCD) from
8 -1 -06
8 -2 -06
1
Reynolds re: inappropriate staff assignment
5
E -mail corres to Reynolds from Frazier re:
8 -1 -06
8 -2 -06
2
final determination on code interpretation
6
Corres to Frazier from Reynolds re:
8 -24 -06
8 -25 -06
8
Argument for Code Interpretation Request
with Declaration of Thomas Morgan in
Support of Code Interpretation Request
7
Corres to Frazier from Reynolds re:
8 -31 -06
8 -31 -06
5
Declaration of Thomas M. North with
attached declaration and photographs:
A. Three Children on steps
B. Three Children on steps (closer view)
8
Memorandum to Morgan from Frazier re:
8 -31 -06
5
Code Interpretation
9
Appeal of Administrative Decision with
9 -13 -06
9 -13 -06
41
attachments
10
Notice of Public Hearing documentation
11
Notice of Appearance for COBI
9 -20 -06
2
Page 1 of 3
ADM 14206
Morgan Appeal
Compiled: 10-17-06, amended 10- 23 -06, 10- 24 -06, 10- 27 -06, 10 -31 -06
12
Corres to Hearing Examiner Getches and
9 -25 -06
9 -29 -06
Reynolds re: Request for Pre - Hearing
Conference from Weber
13
Hearing Examiner Getches response re Pro
9 -29 -06
9 -29 -06
1
Tern appointment
14
Corres to Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
10 -2 -06
10 -2 -06
1
McCarthy and Reynolds re: prehearing
conference from Weber
15
Corres to Weber from Hearing Examiner
10 -10 -06
10 -10 -06
1
Weber re: Prehearing conference
16
Corres to Counsel from Hearing Examiner
10 -23 -06
10 -23 -06
2
re: pre- hearing conference
17
Respondent City of Bainbridge Island's
10 -24 -06
10 -24 -06
47
Response Brief with attachments and
Declaration of Delivery
18
Respondent City of Bainbridge Island's
10 -26 -06
10 -27 -06
2
Witness and Exhibit List
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
19(l)
Site Map showing subject properties
1
20 (2)
Aerial photo of subject properties with
1
property ownerships from September 2004
21 (3)
Oblique aerial photo of subject properties
1
from 2000
22 (4)
Vertical aerial photo of subject properties
1
from June 2002
23 (5)
Vertical aerial photo of subject properties
1
from September 2004
24 (6)
Five photos of site taken on July 28, 2005 by
5
Peter Namtvedt Best
25 (7)
Five phGLGs of sit taken G11 AUgUu L 4, 2vv5
5
by Peter Namtvedt Best
Page 2 of 3
ADM 14206
Morgan Appeal
Compiled: 10-17-06, amended 10- 23 -06, 10- 24 -06, 10- 27 -06, 10 -31 -06
26 (8)
Letter from Larry K. Frazier, AICP to
Thomas E, Morgan and Dennis Reynolds
11 -4 -05
3
27 (9)
COBI Shoreline Management Master
Program
11 -26 -96
127
28 (10)
GOBI Ordinance 96 -38
9 -30 -96
2
29 (11)
COBI Ordinance 2003 -30
9 -22 -03
9
30 (12)
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Chapter
16.12
31 (13)
WSR 00 -24 -031
11 -29 -00
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
32
Appellants' Designation of Witnesses and
Hearing Exhibits
10 -27 -06
10 -30 -06
3
33
Resume of Robert W. Thorpe
10 -30 -06
2
34
Resume of Mark G. Pedersen
10 -30 -06
7
35
2006 Blakely Harbor Shoreline Amendment
9 -15 -06
10 -30 -06
3
36
2006 Blakely Harbor Dock Shoreline
Amendment - Process and Participation Plan
7 -13 -06
10 -30 -06
1
37
Settlement Agreement, Mutual Release of
Claims and Hold Harmless Agreement
8 -29 -06
10 -30 -06
58
Page 3 of 3
ADM 14206
Morgan Appeal