HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole April 8 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
April 8, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(1:34:08 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer, Pete Kremen,
Rud Browne and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND RETAILING AS AUTHORIZED
BY WASHINGTON STATE INITIATIVE 502 AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA
FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER CHAPTER 69.51A RCW (AB2014 -074C)
Nick Smith, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this proposed
interim ordinance replaces ordinance 2014 -018. He read from the staff report beginning on
Council packet page 136. The proposed ordinance is similar to the ordinance adopted on
March 25, 2014. It maintains the same zone districts and use types approved in the current
ordinance. Changes include reductions or eliminations of setbacks and new specific use
standards. He read the summary of changes in the staff report beginning on Council packet
page 136 and the list of suggested changes from councilmembers, beginning on Council
packet page 164. Also, the Washington State Court of Appeals issued a decision on a City
of Kent ban on medical collective gardens. In 2011, the Governor vetoed Senate Bill 5073,
which nullified the language that allowed collective gardens under State law. The court
decision is that collective gardens are an illegal use. Staff recommends that the language
regarding collective gardens be removed from today's proposed ordinance.
Weimer asked legal counsel about the issue of eliminating collective gardens.
Royce Buckingham, described the Court of Appeals decision on March 31, 2014. The
staff proposal is to remove collective gardens from the County's marijuana statute.
Weimer asked the difference between legal marijuana and medical marijuana.
Buckingham described the collective garden concept, which is very different from the rules
for recreational marijuana.
Brenner stated leave collective gardens in the ordinance. She would not have voted
for recreational marijuana had she known it would hurt medical marijuana. The veto didn't
have to do with collective gardening. According to the federal government, everything
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
they're doing is not legal. The ordinance should include whatever they support. She
understands there was a veto, but she could have just disagreed with the wording.
Initiative 502 is broad. Buckingham stated the court analyzed what the Governor intended
with the veto.
Brenner stated the court allows an affirmative defense. Buckingham stated the
medical marijuana scheme never worked well and was vetoed in part. There has been
discussion about medical marijuana displaced by the recreational availability of recreational
marijuana, so people with medical marijuana needs can purchase them legally at a
recreational marijuana store. He's heard complaints from medical marijuana folks who can
no longer grow their own.
Brenner stated she's never had a complaint about medical marijuana. The purpose
of I -502 was to broaden the use of marijuana. People who need it medically will be priced
out of the market. Buckingham stated the court decision clearly says collective gardens are
not legal activity.
Kremen stated they have to abide by the law and the court decision. The initiative
can't be changed for two years. The Council can't make collective gardens legal.
Mann asked if this ruling had nothing to do with Initiative 502. Buckingham stated
the two are unrelated.
Mann stated follow legal counsel on this issue. He moved to remove all references
to collective gardens in all zones per the advice of legal counsel.
Browne asked the consequence if the Council allows the collective garden language
to remain in the ordinance. Buckingham stated the County would be in direct conflict with
State law by authorizing collective gardens, when the Court of Appeals has said they are
illegal.
Browne suggested adding language to the collective garden subsection, "The
marijuana collective garden, provided it is allowed under State law and the following criteria
apply." Buckingham stated he would not be comfortable with it. There will be a debate
every time someone wants to do it because they interpret the case differently.
Weimer asked when there may be an opinion from the State Supreme Court if it is
appealed. Buckingham stated it may take a few months to a couple of years.
Brenner stated the decision allows an affirmative defense. This court decision makes
it unclear. If an affirmative defense is allowed, it isn't illegal. They talk about not wanting
to violate State law, but it's still a violation of federal law. This was all done before I -502.
Leave it alone until it's adjudicated completely at the State level.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
(1:54:35)
Mann moved to eliminate density restriction if near eight houses in all applicable
zones as shown in the first bullet point in the staff report on Council packet page 136. It's
too restrictive.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford asked how this would impact residents in the Clearbrook neighborhood.
Smith stated the closest residence is about 120 to 150 feet away, based on the geographic
information system (GIS) tool. A 300 -foot setback should protect the area.
Weimer asked if the proposed ordinance would protect Clearbrook, even if the
Council removed this density overlay. Smith stated it would, unless the individual got a
waiver from the homeowner.
Crawford asked if having this restriction makes any current applicants ineligible.
Smith stated lowering the 1,000 -foot setback requirement would allow substantially more
applicants to proceed. The Clearbrook location is a very small parcel with an existing
building, so it would be difficult or impossible to relocate that building.
Crawford asked if there are a number of applicants who are within 1,000 feet of at
least eight homes. Smith stated there are.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. This is an experimental time. The
ordinance is interim. They can always make it less restrictive. Once a business is
grandfathered, they can't make it more restrictive. Err on the side of caution.
Brenner stated the 1,000 -foot restriction is arbitrary. Make sure the ordinance
includes the requirement for a buffer that would completely block the view from a
neighboring property, if there is a 300 -foot setback.
Mann stated the 1,000 -foot restriction had no real scientific basis and was included
to address the concern of the Clearbrook residents. He's been looking for a reason why
these operations will be dangerous, and what they're trying to protect people from. He
hasn't found a reason, so he supports allowing the applicants to move forward.
Browne asked if the code uses a 1,000 -foot buffer for anything else. Smith stated it
does not.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
(2:00:18)
Weimer referenced the second bullet item in the staff report on Council packet page
136 regarding the elimination of the community centers and residential setback /spacing
requirements in the commercial zone districts for retail marijuana.
Brenner asked if it is to be 300 feet from community centers. Smith stated it would
be. The proposal is to reduce the community center setbacks in all other districts from
1,000 feet to 300 feet, to be consistent with the 300 -foot residential setback.
Weimer stated there are still licensing restrictions about setbacks from schools.
Kremen asked if the 300 -foot setback is to the structure or the property line. Smith
stated it is a setback to the building, not the property line, consistent with residential
setbacks. The community center setback was from the outside walls of the facility to the
property line of a community center.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mann moved to approve the entire ordinance as presented by staff beginning on
Council packet page 138.
Crawford moved to not change the community center setbacks in either the
commercial zone districts or anywhere else from the current 1,000 foot distance.
Brenner stated she would rather require that there be a landscaped buffer so the
visual is blocked.
Crawford asked what the 1,000 -foot buffer in the State law was for. Smith stated
the State law is 1,000 feet from the property line of a school or daycare.
Crawford stated voters approved I -502 based on a 1,000 -foot buffer from these
uses. The County identified that it wasn't quite covering things unique to Whatcom
County's rural atmosphere and adopted a definition of that. That was appropriate for
Whatcom County. He doesn't understand why they would remove it now.
Browne asked what the State 1,000 -foot buffer included. Smith read the state
requirements, including schools, playgrounds, recreation center, childcare center, public
park, public transit center, library, or game arcades that are not restricted to adults.
Crawford stated they are looking at places where children and families gather. He
likes that the County has added community centers. It strengthens the State requirement
to better define the types of facilities in the community.
Browne stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. It's consistent with the
intent of the State law.
Mann asked the rules on liquor stores.
Brenner stated it's not a liquor store.
Kremen stated there aren't liquor stores in rural areas.
Brenner stated recreational centers and community centers are very similar, so she
has no problem with including community centers.
Weimer restated the motion to leave the language on this issue as it exists
currently in County law.
Crawford asked if the staff is making a recommendation or responding to Council
discussion. Smith stated staff's intent was what was approved and approved at the last
Council meeting, because it is what they developed after discussion with the Sheriff's Office.
This is about suggestions from councilmembers. He's trying to include the suggestions in
the interim ordinance and make them as consistent as possible with current code.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (5)
Nays: Mann and Weimer (2)
(2:11:59)
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer referenced the fourth bullet point in the staff report on Council packet page
136 regarding a limit on square footage.
Brenner stated 5,000 square feet doesn't seem big in the rural residential zone.
Consider a limit if it's on a smaller parcel. Remove the limit on the existing building.
Weimer stated the State law has size three size tiers of 2,000 square feet, 10,000
square feet, and up to 21,000 square feet. Smith stated the tiers need to be subtracted by
30 percent, per State law. The tiers are only for production, not processing.
Mann asked why they are addressing building sizes at all. The building code already
has square footage limits for all kinds of things. Smith stated it does. One concern is with
the lot coverage standards, which exempt agricultural structures. It would be unclear for
staff.
Mann asked if agricultural uses in rural residential zones don't have a building size
limit. Smith stated they are only limited in other setbacks and fire flow standards.
Mann stated he's fine with the 2,000 square foot building limit for new buildings.
Don't change an existing building.
Brenner moved to amend the subsections that limit building size, "The facility shall
not exceed a total of ... effective date of this ordinance, in whieh ease the faeolity shall
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
(2 :17:29)
Browne stated he supports the language regarding odor and light controls.
Mann stated this element of the ordinance is important since they're reducing
setbacks. Odor and lighting are the actual impacts the neighborhoods will see. He asked
how enforceable is this language. Smith stated many of these will require building permits,
so he can condition a building permit to require those controls. A senior building inspector
has had difficulty determining what stops the odor. People have suggestion methods such
as carbon filters. Staff can condition permits and ensure that those items are included.
Mann asked if the code could include language about equipment that will meet best
practices standards for cleaning the air. Smith stated the Council can recommend it. It's
vague, but that's the intent. If there is a complaint, enforcement staff will respond.
Mann stated the enforcement staff is understaffed. The County has the most
leverage in the beginning, when issuing the license and building permit. He'd like stronger
or more specific language.
Weimer stated he supports the idea, but questions enforceability. Whether it's in the
code or a condition of the permit, it's still an enforcement issue. He asked if it makes a
difference in terms of enforcement. Smith stated it's the same thing.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Kremen stated the Council must establish its intent so the growers and processors
can adequately satisfy the County's regulations. They've been able to shield the lights
already. It's not that big of a problem. Odor may be more problematic. Requiring some
sort of mechanism to reduce odors emitted from the operation wouldn't be too onerous on
the growers.
Brenner moved to include wording about requiring odor control "An approved
filtration system that will not allow Ne odor or smoke to s#a-l+ be emitted...."
Crawford asked what they would do for outdoor operations.
Browne stated most production is likely to occur in greenhouses. If they require
odor control, they must set a standard for that odor control so Planning staff can identify
and enforce the standard.
Weimer stated these operations can be outdoors in a fenced area. He asked if a
filtration system would still be required if the operation is in the middle of agricultural land
with no one around, and how a filtration system would work outdoors.
Brenner stated it wouldn't be required because it wouldn't cause a public nuisance or
threaten health or safety or unreasonably infringe upon the use and enjoyment of
neighboring uses.
Smith stated an option is to require setbacks and a wall for outdoor grow operations.
Kremen stated a filtration system is a very specific system, but one could have a
suppression system to reduce odor without having a filter. He suggested a friendly
amendment to substitute "filtration" with "odor suppression." It gives more flexibility to
achieve the goal.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated he's opposed to the motion. Language already says that no odor or
smoke shall be emitted beyond the walls of the facility. They don't need to take it beyond
that.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford.
Brenner stated they're having a problem with enforcement, so it would be better to
make sure an approved suppression system is in place so they don't have to wait for
problems and complaints. Being more specific gives the applicant more predictable.
Browne asked how staff would review the permit with the language as it is now.
Smith stated he would ask the applicant how odor would be controlled. He's done this with
a few permits. They've submitted a plan that the building inspector reviews and verifies.
He will condition the permit. He's giving more latitude to the building inspector to make
that decision in the field.
Brenner asked staff's opinion. Smith stated the way the language is now is
consistent with other zone standards. He understands the concern, but he still questions
what such a system is.
Brenner withdrew the motion.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Buchanan asked if there are lighting standards for nurseries. Smith stated there are
not. The lighting language is from the County's off - street parking standards.
Crawford referenced an enforcement action on Y Road regarding lighting in a
greenhouse and asked if the enforcement is because they can't or won't shield lighting.
Smith stated there is a conditional use permit on record. He believes there were neighbor
comments, so the Hearing Examiner made a condition on lighting.
Weimer referenced the first bullet point on page two of the staff report on Council
packet page 137 regarding a notarized document from neighbors.
Browne stated it's a good idea, but it may not be strong enough to prove the intent
of the property owners. He doesn't know the consequence of producing a false statement.
Create a standardized form that says it is submitted under penalty of perjury. There is no
ambiguity, and Planning staff won't have to interpret it. Smith stated he plans to prepare a
standardize form that legal staff will review. He will require that form for the waiver.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the document would be adequate. The
penalty would be criminal prosecution.
Brenner stated an administrative approval process ensures that the property owner
is notified about the waiver.
Browne stated create a County waiver that states this is being filled out by the
property owner under penalty of perjury. Make sure there is a penalty for falsifying the
documents.
Weimer moved to add language "provide a notarized written agreement as
provided by the Planning and Development Services Department."
Kremen stated copy the language on the F1 forms. Smith stated staff will prepare
that standardized form with appropriate language.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
(2:37:48)
Weimer referenced the suggested changes from councilmembers as listed in the staff
memo on Council packet page 164. He brought forward suggestion A, which is language
from the cottage industry section that limits the number of employees in a rural residential
zone.
Browne stated he is opposed to any type of employee number requirements for
many reasons. He suggested item B on the list. The County can't enforce it. Marijuana
businesses may manage the liability issues by employing security staff. They can't
differentiate between part- and full -time employees. A business investor won't want to
have code limits on how big the business can grow. If he saw that limit, he would go to
another county.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer stated he agrees, but he's trying to make these regulations consistent with
all the other business regulations in these zones, which is limit the number of employees.
When the Council discussed cottage industries, rural residential areas have dense housing.
Without a limit, 50 people could come and go from the business. There are also traffic
limits.
Browne stated traffic limits and building size limits are appropriate limits. An
employee number limit is not appropriate.
Brenner stated businesses must ensure there isn't extra traffic. Smith stated that is
traffic concurrency.
Brenner stated it would be easier to enforce than number of employees. Also,
employees can work in different shifts. Two employees wouldn't be enough.
Mann stated asked why this isn't subject to cottage industry rules. Smith stated
these rules morphed from the agricultural rules.
Weimer referenced councilmember suggested changes, item B, on Council packet
page 164.
Browne stated he prefers no limits on the maximum number of employees. Limit by
building size, occupancy, and traffic requirements.
Brenner stated don't put limits in agricultural and rural zones, but they can make a
limit of ten in the smaller zones, such as rural residential and rural residential - island. A
cottage industry requires someone to live at the site, but that isn't a requirement here, so
they can't be compared. Smith stated processing of agricultural products is not allowed in
the rural residential and rural residential - island zones. The ten employees may be meant
for the rural and agricultural zone. If the Council limits the building size to 2,000 square
feet, it's more consistent with cottage industry, which does have a two employee limit.
Brenner stated an existing building can be more than 2,000 square feet.
Crawford stated there is a labor intensive part of marijuana process that involves
clipping leaves. He asked how many employees that takes. One person's marijuana
production operation may need ten people clipping. This is a unique thing they've never
dealt with. It's a part of the marijuana processing that can't be mechanized.
Browne stated he doesn't want to limit the number of employees for any business.
Smith stated staff is concerned about controlling traffic and parking, which are the
reasons for employee limits. There is a 20- employee limit on agricultural processing in the
agricultural zone. Business owners always say their number of employees will be 20.
Browne moved to remove language in all sections that limits number of employees
." and "
Weimer stated he is against the motion. It is inconsistent with much of the code
where they try to give people an idea of limits, particularly in the residential zone.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner asked if it is better to copy the agricultural requirement. Smith stated it is
more vague when saying traffic generation and off - street parking. It's not a specifically
stated item.
Crawford stated it specifies permanent employees, which is unenforceable. The
reason for these things is to establish and inform people of the guidelines. The County
would probably only refer to it if there were a complaint of an egregious violation.
Browne stated he's concerned about the group of people who are interested in
locating their business here, but decide not to because of the restriction, which is not
applied in other counties.
Mann stated the cottage industry regulations were difficult to create. They must say
what is generally expected in terms of reasonable scale in rural residential and rural zones.
Buchanan asked if other jurisdictions have employee limits. Smith stated other
marijuana regulations don't limit employees. They have building size limits.
Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Browne in agricultural areas, but not
in rural zones. The purpose of zoning is to allow uses in areas compatible with those uses.
If out -of- county people are looking at Whatcom County as a place to produce and process
marijuana, there are zones where there can be more than ten employees. Zoning can be an
effective tool to push prospective businesses from out of the area of that scale into
appropriate areas. He will support the language the way it is, even the 20 employee limit in
agriculture because it is consistent. If the Council wants to consider raising that limit in the
agricultural zone, he would be interested. They should encourage more interest in
agricultural uses in the agricultural zone.
Browne stated this is not a marijuana zoning issue for him. It's a statement about
putting any restrictions in the County code on number of employees. Control the character
of a rural zone through the building footprint, percentage of impervious surface, fire
marshal occupancy limits, and other controls that are normal and customary in other
jurisdictions.
Crawford stated regulating the size of a business in those ways just creates a
different effect and impact on the neighborhood. Problems are created when eight people
show up for work one morning at a residence with a driveway. It's not practical to limit the
scale of the structure to limit the problems with too many employees. Enforcement based
on number of employees is rare, but use the code to legally convey the scale of business
allowed and to give Planning staff the ability to do something about egregious problems.
Brenner stated start with the limits as they are, and they can revisit it. Smith stated
the employee limits are only to processing. They want people to use the resource lands to
grow. Processing is more of a secondary action. In Thurston County, the producing is
allowed outright, and processing is subject to their home occupation criteria in residential
zones.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Browne (1)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen and Buchanan (6)
Mann moved to approve suggestions C and D on Council packet page 164.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to approve suggestion E on Council packet page 164 and also reduce
the setback to 150 feet in the other zones where there is an existing building that is going
to be used.
Brenner stated don't reduce the setback further. They've compromised by getting
rid of the 1,000 -foot setback. She might consider making it less through a conditional use
process. A good buffer can be constructed in a 300 -foot setback, but may not be in a
setback of 150 feet.
Kremen asked how this would affect the Clearbrook community. Smith stated that
parcel is zoned agriculture. According to GIS software, it's 120 to 150 feet away from the
nearest residence.
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to make the setback 200 feet instead
of 150 feet as a compromise.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment. The 150 -foot setback came from Ms.
Starkenburg - Kroontje when she brought up the comparison with manure lagoons. In the
agricultural and rural forestry zone, a similar setback would be nice. They don't get a lot of
people who complain about manure lagoons. He's willing to go to 200 feet to get enough
votes.
Browne asked why they are allowing a more densely located facility in the least
dense part of the county. The agricultural and rural forestry districts have the lowest
residential density, yet they are saying they can locate a facility closer to a residence.
Mann stated they must prioritize agricultural activities in the agriculture zone, not
residential activities. When living in an agricultural zone, residents should expect
agricultural uses.
Browne stated that the agricultural and forestry parcels tend to be larger, so there
should be more than enough ability to locate the facility 300 feet from other residences.
Mann stated that if there happens to be a neighbor closer, it would give the neighbor
the ability to veto a use that is appropriate for the zone.
Brenner stated farmers live on their agricultural land and foresters live in rural
forestry. She agrees that a setback of 300 feet should be adequate as a minimum. There
has never been one case of crime regarding a manure lagoon. They're not comparable. It's
important to make sure there is an adequate buffer between the facility and residences.
Weimer restated the motion that the setback is to be 200 feet in the agricultural
and rural forestry zones, and in any zone for people using an existing building on the
property.
Smith asked if the motion means that a new facility has to be 300 feet away in any
zone, and if an existing building only has to be 200 feet away.
Mann stated that is correct.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Weimer stated the motion is to change it to 200 feet in the agriculture and rural
forestry zone.
Browne stated he's concerned that this will drive facilities out into areas where the
Sheriff's Department has greater difficulty providing service. It's easier to meet setback
requirements in remote areas further away from law enforcement.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Weimer, Kremen and Buchanan (4)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford and Browne (3)
Weimer referenced suggestion F on Council packet page 165.
Browne stated this is not a marijuana issue. It's a general business issue. Don't
dictate to any business that half their material has to come from the local area. He
understands the rationale was to encourage the local consumption of agricultural products,
which he supports, but don't restrict what a business can do.
Mann moved to approve item F on Council packet page 165. There's no reason to
have it in the rural industrial zone.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer referenced suggestion G on Council packet page 165.
Smith stated the question was asked of whether a liquor store was limited to 2,500
square feet. The answer is that it would be limited, so the stores will be consistent.
Building size and floor area requirements in certain areas may supersede this floor area
requirement. It is a limit just on the floor area for the use.
Browne moved to approve item G on Council packet page 165.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (7)
Nays: None (0)
The motion to recommend approval as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Weimer, Kremen, Browne and Buchanan (5)
Nays: Brenner and Crawford (2)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on May 6, 2014.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/8/2014, Page 12