HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 25 20101
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
Regular County Council
May 25, 2010
CALL TO ORDER (7:03:45 PM)
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:04:29 PM)
Crawford announced there was a Strategy planning discussion and positions to
be taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2010 -018) in executive session during
the Committee of the Whole meeting.
Crawford also announced that the Committee of the Whole had a discussion of
Growth Management Act requirements and the Planning Commission
recommendations (AB2010 -072) and discussion regarding the draft Public
Participation Plan for the periodic review required by the Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A) (AB2010 -210)
Brenner moved to approve the draft public participation plan.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Nelson (1) (out of the room)
MINUTES CONSENT (7:06:29 PM)
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 11, 2010
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 11, 2010
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 11, 2010
OPEN SESSION (7:07:24 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Paul Isaacson, 3940 Isaacson Road, submitted and read from a handout (on
file) on a development rights (TDR) program application.
• Yoshi Revelle, 4026 Willowbrook Lane, spoke about children's health.
• Dale Kinsley, 2744 N. Nugent Road, Lummi Island, spoke about Lummi Island
ferry service.
• Bob Bush, 3612 Sunrise Road, Lummi Island, spoke about Lummi Island ferry
service effects to emergency services.
• Brent Biermann, 1401 Marietta Avenue, Rural Avenue Neighborhood
Association, spoke about jail siting.
• Miley Lopez, Nooksack Valley High School 8t" grade student, spoke about E-
Verify.
• Karim Ortega, Nooksack Valley High School 8t" grade student, spoke about E-
Verify.
• John Lesow, Point Roberts, submitted and read from a handout (on file)
regarding the safety factor in land use planning.
• Lisa Wolkus, 3811 Constitution Road, Lummi Island, spoke about ferry
service.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Ms. Wolkus requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes.)
• Bob Weisen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, submitted a handout (on file) and
spoke about an event hosted by the Washington Policy Center and land
supply.
• Greg Brown, 4363 Saddlestone Drive, Bellingham, submitted and read from a
handout (on file) regarding a pipeline safety ordinance.
• Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, spoke about ferry
sizes.
• Shane Roth, 3925 E. Connecticut Street, Bellingham, spoke about retaining
good County employees.
Council Chair Crawford asked County Executive Kremen to provide an update on the
ferry issue.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, described the status of negotiation with the Lummi
Nation. They have been working with the Lummi Nation for months, and are continuing to
do so. Legal counsel have been in contact with members of the Lummi Tribe. Things have
hit a snag, but discussion has not broken down. The Council has asked the administration
to discuss with the Port of Bellingham any possibilities of using the facilities at the cruise
terminal. They cannot provide much information because the Tribe insisted on an embargo
on communications about negotiations. They are not resigned to going to the cruise
terminal. He is optimistic they will be able to negotiate with the Lummi Nation. The
administration will meet with the Lummi Nation probably in a couple of weeks. They have
the public's best interest in mind. The County Council will ultimately decide where the ferry
goes. Before that decision is made, the administration and Council will give the Lummi
Island residents an opportunity to explain their preferences. (7:51:27 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO REDUCE
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2010 -185) (7:52:26 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they are concerned about taking
development rights from agricultural land, yet they are willing to downzone these properties
without compensation.
Abe Jacobsen, 2314 Samish Way, Bellingham, stated it is a complicated problem.
There is no way to please everyone, but this is necessary to protect the water supply for
100,000 people. It's a disaster to build concentrated density. Most municipalities and
States sequester land for their reservoir and restrict use. They need to protect the future
drinking water supply.
Clair Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated the City supports the ordinance for the
reasons stated in the whereas statements. Preventing additional development helps their
joint efforts to improve Lake Whatcom water quality.
Paul Isaacson, 3940 Isaacson Road, stated he would lose 130 units or 65 acres,
totaling $6 million to $10 million. Executive Kremen and Interim Planning Director Sam
Ryan have always been accessible and easy to work with. There are some good people
here. There are also deceptive staff who don't want to answer questions. The County is not
going to steal from him, or he'll sue the County.
Marian Beddill, 2700 Old Fairhaven Parkway, stated she supports comments made by
Abe Jacobsen and Clair Fogelsong. Support the ordinance. Water supply treatment can
create cancer - causing organisms that remain in the drinking water supply. Pollution in the
watershed tends to cause cancer in the people who drink the water. Keep that
consideration in mind. Allowing development is an action to cause harm to those who drink
the water containing cancer - causing organisms. With respect to Mr. Isaacson, the County
Council doesn't protect stock market investors. Real estate investment is a risk.
Charles Rendina, 1991 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he is opposed to the
ordinance and requested the decision be tabled until August. The moratorium is too broad.
It doesn't allow for unique circumstances. Many people are struggling to hold on to their
homes. Don't take away their value. Reconsider in August.
Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated a downzone does not provide anyone with a
compensable property right. Zoning does not confer a property rights. There is a clear
connection between water quality and impervious surfaces connected with development.
Downzoning is an appropriate use of the County's police powers and is not subject to a valid
claim of a regulatory taking. If a property owner has a vested right to subdivide, they
aren't affected by the downzone. Otherwise, the County has no legal obligation to
compensate these watershed property owners. The County must restore water quality and
comply with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) permit. The County needs money to
comply. County money must be applied to the public welfare, not the benefit of a few
property owners who don't have a legal right to compensation.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing. (8:11:04 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
Brenner moved to hold in Council until they can get answers on the boundary lines
presented by Mr. Isaacson. His property is not in the watershed.
Nelson stated there has to first be a motion to consider the ordinance and discussion.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Isaacson donated a bunch of his land
to the downzone eight or nine years ago. This was the part of the property that the County
determined is not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Brenner withdrew her motion to hold to allow discussion.
Weimer stated he supports the motion. He asked the reason for the motion to hold.
Mr. Isaacson had a concern about some of his parcels not being in the watershed. If that's
his concern, the Code addresses it. The Code specifically says that the maps are not the
definitive maps for the watershed. If someone can do an analysis to show that property is
outside the watershed, the property wouldn't be included in the ordinance.
Brenner stated Mr. Isaacson went through that years ago. The analysis was done.
Someone recently changed the boundary of the watershed. Mr. Isaacson deserves to get
that cleared up before the Council votes on it. Don't make him go through an expensive
and timely process again. Get an answer.
Kershner stated she agrees with speakers who said they need to protect the drinking
water. This County is also trying to preserve farmland. They are paying people who own
farmland for their development rights. The drinking water is just as important as the
farmland. Watershed property owners also need to be compensated. If they pay
compensation to protect the farmland, they should also pay compensation to protect
drinking water. She does not support this ordinance until they can come with a way to pay
property owners, just like they do to protect farmland.
Mann stated he is in favor of a motion to hold, given what Mr. Isaacson has been
through with staff. It's reasonable to make sure they have identified the exact properties.
Nelson stated he remembers Mr. Isaacson speaking in favor of the moratorium. He
was afraid Mr. Isaacson would lose his ability to use his land, because people would lose
track of why they did the moratorium. The purpose of the moratorium was to develop
regulatory practices for development in the watershed that provides necessary protection.
The County is obligated to the public to have a level playing field. Don't take away people's
investments. Regarding cancer from drinking water, they are far from having any type of
treated water that would cause a risk of cancer. There has never been an epidemiological
study on Bellingham water's potential for providing problems. It's inappropriate to scare
the public in that way. There are problems with water sources that can cause disease
states, such as cholera and dysentery. There are problems from the cities as well. Don't
simply say that they should take away a rural property owner's ability to use their lands as
designated by zoning.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to refer to the Planning and
Development Committee in two weeks or four weeks, depending on Council's schedule, to
determine if Mr. Isaacson's parcels are in the watershed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
Nays: Kershner, Nelson and Weimer (3)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, ON AN INTERIM
BASIS, TO ALLOW FOR A ONE -TIME, TWO YEAR ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
EXTENSION TO LAND USE PERMIT EXPIRATIONS (AB2010 -180) (8:26:32 PM)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Weisen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he is in favor of the ordinance. It's fair. A
lot of energy has gone into some of these proposals, but they can't go forward because of
financing and other things. Help the community.
Lesa Kroontje, Lynden, stated the point of the ordinance is to allow people to
continue with projects as they were at the time they were vested. In many cases, the
projects have already begun to develop their infrastructure. They are allowing people to
continue projects that would have already been complete, but for the economic issues.
Approve the ordinance.
Mann asked if permit applications not yet approved would be included in this
extension. Kroontje stated that if there has already been a determination of completeness
for a project, such as a short plat that has already received a notice of additional
requirements. It applies to anything that's been submitted, with a deadline.
Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of the
ordinance. Protect construction and development interests in this county. No financial
downturn has been as financially devastating. People must have an opportunity to realize
their investments. Now, appraisals and financing are problems with any speculative project.
The Council must approve this to protect those investments, developers, and contractors
that make up 20 percent of the economic base in Whatcom County.
Lance Clark, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Director, stated he
supports the ordinance. Provide the opportunity for individuals to extend their approved
permits and protect their economic contributions and vesting.
Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants, submitted a handout (on file) and
stated he supports the ordinance. He read a list of jurisdictions that have already approved
similar extensions. Requiring someone to start over is an unnecessary burden. Adopt the
ordinance. He suggests a fee of $100 per application to keep track of the extensions.
Mann asked if the Ferndale and Bellingham extensions are similar or identical.
Campbell stated none are exactly the same. He described the different extensions.
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated that since the Growth Management Act
(GMA) was implemented, short platting has become much more complicated, costly, and
uncertain. Many people who would benefit from this are small land owners, not big land
developers.
Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont, Bellingham, stated they need this legislation. It may
take longer than two years for lenders to become active again. There is no financing
available right now. The permit process is slow and costly. When the economy improves,
they will need shovel -ready projects, not projects that must repeat the process. Many
jurisdictions have allowed this extension already. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
58.17.140 was amended to extend the time limit for long subdivisions from five years to
seven years. Set the fee now, rather than later. He supports a fee of $100 per application.
Joseph Garcia, 11061 Whistler Lane, Glacier, stated he is in favor of the ordinance.
Glacier is one of the poorest communities in Whatcom County. He described his project.
The extension is important to this project.
Wendy Harris, Silver Beach resident, stated she is concerned about this proposed
ordinance. The revised version is shocking. She is concerned about extending vesting
rights to something that has expired. There is no legal basis for allowing that. When
something has expired, it doesn't exist. She is concerned about authorization for extensions
regarding critical areas ordinances. There are special considerations and federal
requirements that have to be met. It's not something that they can mess with. It's
troubling that every speaker supporting this amendment is in the development community.
They don't hear people from the public talking about this. These are complicated issues.
It's not in their interest. The Washington Supreme Court held that development interests
and due process rights protected by the Vested Right Doctrine come at a cost to the public
interest. A proposed development that does not conform to newly adopted laws is against
the public interest embodied in these laws. The Vested Rights Doctrine is a balance
between private property rights and the public interest. She asked how this ordinance
benefits the public. The ordinance is unclear and sloppy. It seems to apply in shoreline
areas. Provisions don't cite where they'll be placed in one of the four regulations being
amended. It is confusing.
Shane Roth, 3925 E. Connecticut, Bellingham, stated he opposes the ordinance.
They don't know how much revenue will be lost without the extension. The County
government's role is not to insulate citizens from the inherent risks associated with real
estate investment. This County can't afford that role. This sets a bad precedence. The
developers and landowners did not experience this economic hardship alone. The entire
community has suffered the hardship, but the entire community won't benefit. The
community will have to take on the added cost of this ordinance, without an accurate
estimate of what that cost would be. He would like to see those calculations.
Chet Dow, 5491 Woodfern Way, Bellingham, stated property rights are a
fundamental, God -given right. Twenty percent of the county's economy was related to
construction activity, which means jobs. Local government should be more concerned
about jobs that pay a living wage. This ordinance will address the need for jobs, more
economic development, and a healthier economy in Whatcom County. The public will
benefit from that economic activity. A lot of staff time went into the projects. He asked
why they would go through that again. Staff is already over - burdened.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing. (8:53:22 PM)
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. This is an inexpensive way for County
government to show support for jobs and people in the community. They can provide jobs
this way, at the front end, or they will have to provide more services at the other end for
people who are going under. She doesn't believe they should let people go under because
someone thinks they will apply again. This is a very creative way to show sensitivity and
support. They should have done this sooner.
Mann stated he totally supports the concept. It's fine to allow some extensions.
They heard comments about the cost to the community for doing this. He doesn't see what
a lot of costs would be, other than lost permit fees the second time around, which doesn't
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
feel that fair. He is in the real estate business. He owns properties and fixes them up. He
risks his money. He stopped acquiring properties and taking out highly leveraged loans
three years ago, because he could see this coming. He's not approving this because it
protects the developers. That's not their role. Having 20 percent of their economy wrapped
up in the building and development industry wasn't sustainable. They aren't ever going to
see those levels again. His real concern is about the amendments made the last couple of
weeks. He needs rationale about the dates in the amendments. It seems overly broad to
go back to January 1, 2009. He can't support the ordinance without the rationale behind
the dates in the recent amendments.
Crawford stated the market began to collapse September 2007. By January 2007,
the secondary financing market for unconstructed land evaporated. They could have gone
back further than January 1, 2009. The draft ordinance was not retroactive to the current
economic situation. The dates are based on the current economic crisis. It is a little bit
arbitrary.
Mann asked if that encompasses permits that may have been issued as far back as
2004 through 2006. That goes back really far.
Crawford stated they are aware of the situations of larger developers, but it has
trickled down affect every landowners access to financing.
Nelson asked about fees.
Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department, stated that either
the Council can establish an appropriate fee, or the Department can use the applicable fee
for an extension in the Unified Fee Schedule. An extension generally takes from one to
three hours.
Weimer stated it makes sense in this economic downturn to help people who have
already paid their money to keep things alive. Other jurisdictions have done a lot more
analysis of what they're getting. He asked how many projects are involved. Schroeder
stated they haven't done that review. This is an interim ordinance. That analysis would be
done once it is scheduled before the Planning Commission in August to make the ordinance
permanent.
Weimer stated he would also like to know where these permits are. Extending some
of these projects may not be good for the public benefit, if they are in lands they are trying
to protect or in the watershed. He wouldn't want people to divide lands in the rural study
areas, and then have to try and buy back those development rights. Schroeder stated he
doesn't have that information at this point. They may go through that identification process
through the Planning Commission process.
Weimer asked if they agree that this does not apply to critical areas within shoreline
jurisdictions, according to the State Department of Ecology. Schroeder stated critical area
assessment reports have a five year timeframe. They are extending that by two years for
critical area assessment reports. He hasn't reviewed Barry Wenger's email about shoreline
jurisdiction. Other than the critical area assessment report, this ordinance does not talk
about shoreline jurisdiction or any timeframes associated with shoreline permits. The State
law determines those timeframes.
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
53
Weimer stated he is in favor of this, but will vote against it until they get answers to
these questions. He moved to hold in Planning and Development Committee until the
Council receives answers to these questions.
The motion to refer to the Planning and Development Committee failed by the
following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Mann and Brenner (3)
Nays: Knutzen, Crawford, Nelson and Kershner (4)
The motion to adopt the ordinance carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY
AND REVISE THE DEFINITION AND STANDARDS OF HOME OCCUPATIONS
(AB2010 -047) (REVISED VERSION) (9:11:05 PM)
Brenner stated there was an article in the Bellingham Herald. The reporter will make
clarifications. This Council has eased regulations with home occupations, not made them
stricter, as appeared in the newspaper. The Council identified the lesser impacting types of
cottage industries and determined that people no longer need permits.
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated this is a great improvement, but
needs clarification. On Council packet page 216, section 2.84.150(A)(6)(2), define
adequate screening. In section 2.84.150(A)(9), e- commerce sales is still questionable,
given the other wording. Add a new sentence, "Off site and e- commerce sales will be
allowed." In section 2.84.150(A)(11), it says that storing building materials for other
properties is prohibited. Remove that restriction.
Gina Brester, Ferndale, stated she is concerned about vehicle requirements and
storing building materials for other properties. Her husband is a contractor. Their property
is not littered, but they don't qualify for home occupation under these restrictions. They
have a considerable investment in their property for their business. Allowing only two
vehicles on four and a half acres isn't many.
Ron Roosma, 4977 Wahl Road, stated allow a contractor to store materials on -site.
Contractors need to be able to store form boards, or a sewer contractor needs pipes. The
regulation could designate a specifically -sized area, such as 20 feet by 20 feet or 40 feet by
40 feet, for that storage use.
Tom Pullar, 2499 E. Smith Road, stated allow one or more vehicles on five acres or
less. They're all out there trying to make a living. This regulation makes it difficult. He
can't afford the cottage industry. Work with the small business owners.
Kathleen Watkins, 983 Old Samish Way, Bellingham, stated they own equipment and
trucks. She explained the history of her family's business. People are working hard and the
County is making it hard.
Brad Bytnar, 2607 Lochcarron Drive, Ferndale, stated he is considering purchasing a
home based business. He asked if a home -based business can still be run out of a location
if it's been sold to another party.
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
Crawford stated the Code has to do with use. It's not a business licensing issue.
Levy Nyberg, 1816 Harksell Road, Ferndale, stated he is a small contractor with
three pieces of equipment. He asked the definition of a vehicle. He is also concerned about
vehicle storage outside of a required setback and screening and materials storage. It
doesn't make sense that he can't keep the tools of his trade on his property.
Peter Len, 2606 Haynie Road, Custer, stated he does automotive fabrication
metalwork. This regulation legislates him out of being able to do business at home. He's
paid taxes and lived in the county since 1991. He wants to continue his business, support
his family, and be in compliance.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing. (9:32:28 PM)
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She didn't want the language about
storage of materials.
Knutzen stated this has been frustrating. They took up this ordinance originally and
tried to make it more friendly for small businesses. He thanked those who helped with that
process. It's frustrating that they've been dealing with this for a long time. Don't put it
back in committee. With the help of staff, he hopes to make minor changes tonight and
adopt the ordinance.
Nelson asked why the regulation limits the number of vehicles if there are screening
requirements. Eliminate subsection (6)(1) on Council packet page 216.
Kershner moved to amend to delete completely 2.84.150(A)(6, 9 -12). Don't
regulate home occupations to this extent. Make it as simple as possible for the owners of
home occupations. They could continue to prohibit mortuaries and funeral homes as home
occupations. Otherwise, be reasonable.
Nelson stated hold this in committee and work on it during a work session.
Brenner stated she is against the motion to amend. Because of the way the Code is
written, they have to include the minutia. If something isn't specifically included, it's
prohibited. Removing language doesn't automatically allow uses. They are trying to
improve on something that is already there. The real issue is to go back through Title 20
that prohibits anything not specifically stated in the Code.
Mann stated he was shocked by the newspaper article. They attempted to make the
regulation less restrictive. The reason for rules like this is to be able to deal with the people
who aren't clean and respectable, unlike the audience members. The Council also received
emails from people who had neighbors of these businesses. People don't need a permit for
a home occupation.
Sam Ryan, Interim Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
a land use permit is not required.
Mann stated that if a person doesn't qualify as a home occupation, then the next
step is a cottage industry, which has two layers. After that, the next step is a conditional
use permit, depending on the impact of the use. The County is not trying to run people out
of business. It is reasonable to outline some restrictions for operations that don't require
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
any land use permit or oversight. That may be annoying to a business owner, but they also
hear from the neighbors about high impact uses. They can tweak the number of allowed
stored vehicles and building materials storage. He also has problems with subsection (9) on
Council packet page 216. However, Councilmember Kershner's proposal goes too far.
Nelson stated he is against the motion. There are things they could tweak. Use
what's required to protect the property owners next to the business and the business itself.
The primary use is as a home, not an industry. He doesn't want to tweak this now to try
and make everything legal within an accessory use. He understands the concerns, and they
can work on those things.
Knutzen stated he would take this back in the Planning and Development Committee.
They did not start from scratch on this. They are not trying to put people out of business.
If people are noncompliant, they were noncompliant before the Council started working on
this. The thresholds for vehicle numbers, vehicle weight limits, and acreage were lower.
Kershner stated she would withdraw her motion if it goes back into committee.
Item (8) on Council packet page 216 stated the elements that need to be worked around.
Crawford stated look at the items that were struck out on Council packet page 217.
That was the existing Code. Staff came forward with this ordinance and asked for more
clarification.
Knutzen moved to hold in committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
CONSENT AGENDA
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through three.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND WASHINGTON STATE MILITARY
DEPARTMENT FOR GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPLEMENT EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OPERATING BUDGET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,358 (AB2010-
220)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND KINGWORKS CONSULTING
ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SILVER LAKE
PARK DAY LODGE RENOVATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,940 (AB2010-
221)
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, 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
51
52
53
3. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP NO. 909009 AND APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY
EXECUTIVE TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR - RUTSATZ ROAD
REPAIR" TO LOW BIDDER TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $161,093 (AB2010 -222)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PDR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND PDR ADMINISTRATOR TO
PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 8 APPLICATIONS
(AB2010 -215)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
resolution.
Crawford stated he will vote for this, however the County must extract itself from
financially supporting purchases of development rights (PDR's) to a great degree. He's
interested in other programs from other jurisdictions. They have decided to do this
program, and he will support it to the degree they have so far. It's another programmatic
step in that program. In the long term, extract the County from this great expense.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $556,762 (AB2010 -213)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the substitute ordinance, which does not include funds for firefighter training, in a
total amended amount of $161,700.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND THE OESER COMPANY
FOR CLEAN UP OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS IN LITTLE SQUALICUM PARK
(AB2010 -219)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, Page 11
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
52
53
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2009 -071, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATED TO COMPLETION OF THE 10 -YEAR REVIEW
OF THE URBAN GROWTH AREAS REQUIRED UNDER THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT, SPECIFICALLY THE URBAN GROWTH AREAS OF BIRCH
BAY, FERNDALE, NOOKSACK, AND SUMAS (AB2010 -054C) (ordinance
revised to include a change to Map UGA 4a for a parcel of land located along
Portal Way)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $445,062 (AB2010 -223)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen thanked Councilmember Brenner for inviting him to the salmon festival at
the Lummi Nation.
Brenner stated Public Works Assistant Director John Hutchings was recognized at
that ceremony.
Nelson asked everyone to honor fallen military this Memorial Day.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, invited all to attend a ceremony at 3 p.m. on June 1
to unveil Aaron Aamot's name on the courthouse memorial wall.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 5/25/2010, Page 12