HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 28 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 March 28, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 L. Ward Nelson
16 Barbara Brenner
17
18
19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
20
21 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO EVALUATE
22 BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION IN THE RURAL ZONE (AB2006 -171)
23
24 McShane explained the background of the request. This has come forward from
25 Planning Commissioners. Work through the docketing process for Comprehensive Plan
26 amendments, which included proposals by one person for permit allocation. Those were
27 turned down.
28
29 Fleetwood asked if the only issue for consideration today is whether or not to send
30 this to the Planning Commission for consideration.
31
32 McShane stated that is correct.
33
34 Crawford asked if this would need to be docketed. They've already finalized the
35 2006 docket.
36
37 McShane stated this proposal does not require a docketed Comprehensive Plan
38 amendment. A permit allocation program would not require a Comprehensive Plan
39 amendment, in his view. Comprehensive plans don't implement anything. They're a plan.
40 The Planning Commission is familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. This is one tool for
41 implementing population projection numbers in the Comprehensive Plan.
42
43 Crawford stated the proposal from David Hunter is to amend Whatcom County Code
44 (WCC) Chapter 15.
45
46 Weimer stated this item is asking the Planning Commission to think more about a
47 permit allocation program. It's not tied to Mr. Hunter's proposal. There are a number of
48 proposals. Direction to the Planning Commission would be to look at the variety of options
49 and come back with the best.
50
51 McShane stated if the Planning Commission explores permit allocation, the County
52 Council should constrain the request. The Comprehensive Plan docket items are very
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 1
1 different from this. He is not interested in the Planning Commission pursuing them. They
2 were too broad. Narrow the scope, if the Council approves.
3
4 Weimer asked if they are giving the Planning Commission permission to have staff
5 look at the issue.
6
7 McShane stated that's a question.
8
9 Royce Buckingham, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Planning Commission
10 can't tell the Planning Department staff what to do. The County Council have more power
11 to do that. The Council has legal authority to tell people what to do. With the Council's
12 blessing, that work by staff will probably happen.
13
14 David Hunter, Planning Commission Chair, stated structurally, there is a problem
15 with Planning staff's relationship with the Planning Commission. The proposal deals only
16 with the rural areas, not urban growth areas or urban areas. It's very different from Mr.
17 Pros's proposals. It is a proposed amendment to the building code.
18
19 The Planning Commission suggested that this needs to be looked into. They are not
20 contemplating approval of it right away. If sent to the Planning Commission, the
21 commission will ask staff to review and make recommendations, as it always does. There
22 may be things they want to change. They may ultimately decide it's not a viable way to
23 control growth in the urban areas of Whatcom County. Show some deference to the
24 Planning Commission's request. It's not something the commissioners did on a whim. It's
25 rare for the Council to receive something like this from the Planning Commission.
26
27 Practically, the Council is struggling now with the means to deal with growth in rural
28 areas of Whatcom County. There are farm issues, but there are also other issues.
29 Resource issues are in addition to farm issues. Their understanding of what rural Whatcom
30 County is and should be is an issue that should be addressed with all the tools available.
31 This ordinance or a similar ordinance may be one useful tool. At this time, it is not helpful
32 to look at what is contained herein and decide whether or not to send it forward. The
33 proposal is a starting point for developing one tool to address development in the rural
34 areas. Get guidance from staff and the Planning Commission on this issue.
35
36 Staff are employees of the executive branch of County government. The Council has
37 a need and expectation that Planning Department staff will look into things as needed. He
38 is not sure the language of the ordinance or Charter make clear what happens if there were
39 a conflict between what the Council and the administration want the staff to do. In the
40 long -term, look into having another system that is answerable to the Council. That is a
41 separate issue.
42
43 Weimer stated the Council docketed many items for staff this year. He asked how
44 much of this item can be done by the Planning Commission itself, instead of the staff.
45 Hunter stated staff will have to spend some time, but not as much as they imagine. There
46 are interesting legal issues. Other communities have put in systems like this.
47
48 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs Director,
49 submitted a letter (on file) from their legal counsel. They are opposed to any form of
50 permit allocation. The BIA will pursue any legal remedy possible to combat it.
51
52 Procedurally, it's interesting how an advisory body will create policy. Talk to legal
53 counsel about the Planning Commission making policy. The Planning staff work hard in a
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 2
1 sometimes dysfunctional environment at Planning Commission meetings. She questions
2 how staff will be directed by the Planning Commission, an advisory body, when staff is
3 under the administrative branch of government.
4
5 McShane asked the purpose of the Planning Commission under State law. Dickinson
6 stated it is advisory to the Council. They are not to set legislation and policy.
7
8 McShane stated that's why the Council is having this meeting. He asked if the
9 County Council should consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission or ignore
10 it. Dickinson stated she understood that the meeting today was to direct staff to do
11 something, not the Planning Commission.
12
13 McShane stated an email was forwarded to him. The email had his phone number on
14 it. He's happy to take phone calls. In three years, Ms. Dickinson never called him.
15 Dickinson stated that's not true. She called him about Lake Whatcom. She also talked to
16 him twice about the gravel issue.
17
Nelson stated Ms. Dickinson stated she hasn't called him either.
McShane stated it would be helpful to get input from the BIA. Dickinson stated the
BIA has submitted testimony for three years.
Jack Petree, citizen, stated the permit allocation is complicated with legal issues.
The County will have to interact with surrounding counties to assess impacts to them.
There are many Growth Management Act (GMA) issues. That doesn't mean the County
shouldn't look at it, but it is very complicated and will take much time.
Cities and the County are years out of compliance with GMA. The Planning
Commission hasn't been able to make a decision on something as simple as densities in the
urban growth areas (UGA's). Don't pile this on top of the docket. This work may or may
not have application after the legal stuff is done. Pay more attention to getting the County
and cities in compliance. They are still working on the five -year review. While they are
working on it, the county is taking an outsized amount of growth because the cities aren't
doing what they need to do to attract growth. The staff, Planning Commission, and no one
else has time to work on something very complex, time - consuming, subject to legal issues,
and requires interaction with other cities and counties.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated this is a stop -gap proposal as a
result of their failure to prioritize planning issues in the past. They talked about saving
_rV farmland seven or eight years ago. The biggest problem is that the Bellingham and County
41 planning commissions have not agreed on how Bellingham will grow. That causes pressure
42 on the rural areas. They would not have this problem if they were in compliance with the
43 Growth Management Act.
44
45 John Lesow, 317 Madrona, Point Roberts, stated he sent an email to the committee
46 and Councilmember Brenner. This idea of incremental allocation has been proposed since
47 last April. He's spoken about this to the Council before in favor of having this docketed.
48 Citizens brought forward a building permit allocation program.
49
50 The City of Sammamish passed something like this. It took a great deal of political
51 courage. They knew they would be sued, and they were. Those matters are still pending.
52 The Growth Management Hearings Board was not dispositive. The board had some
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 3
1 problems with the lottery. It is not a dead issue. That same courage exists on the
2 Whatcom County Planning Commission and Council. Give this proposal a fair hearing.
3
4 Brenner stated it could take more courage not to do this. People are already living
5 here and have gotten what they want. She wished things were the same as when she
6 moved here 25 years ago. She asked if the Planning Commission ever looked at Dan
7 Warner's proposal. It seems this item has all been drafted around a single person's
8 proposal, when there was another proposal that was more detailed. Lesow stated he read
9 Dan Warner's proposal, but the Planning Commission hasn't formally considered his or Mr.
10 Hunter's proposal.
11
12 Brenner stated she got a letter saying the Planning Commission recommends Mr.
13 Hunter's proposal. Lesow stated he hasn't seen that letter. Mr. Warner spoke to his
14 proposal last fall. The Planning Commission received it, but has not acted on it.
15
16 McShane stated Mr. Warner came forward at the same time. The council hasn't
17 acted on it either.
Brenner stated that if it's the Planning Commission's duty to respond to the public,
both proposals should carry the same weight. Mr. Warner's proposal is extremely
thoughtful.
Nelson stated he urges the Planning Commission members, who have strong feelings
on this issue, to not make statements about political courage since it affects how people feel
and think. Instead, approach the issue logically in terms of how it affects the County. The
Council is paid to consider things that may take courage. He is offended by the implication
that they are not being courageous by choosing not to do something. If he doesn't do this,
it does not mean that he isn't courageous. Lesow stated that what's happening in the City
of Sammamish is a mirror image of what's going on in Whatcom County. The rumors that it
is illegal and is no good need to be staunched by a fair public hearing.
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated the Planning Commission is seeking to find
information about building permit allocation, no matter whose recommendation it is. The
problem is that Bellingham's population is not being well- received and is not working on any
level. The Planning Commission is trying to find out what the County can do. The City's
proposal will force people into the rural areas. The community needs a system that
captures as many people in the city as possible. The UGA area zones of 24 units are not
single family units. The City accepts higher density in the UGA's than in the city. The
County doesn't have a mechanism to deal with all the people in the rural areas. A building
_ permit allocation system is the only thing that deals with vested lots. If they don't deal with
41 it, the people arriving will overwhelm the County's levels of service. The County will see
42 record growth. The Planning Commission is trying to deal with that growth. The
43 commission hasn't come up with a proposal. It has looked at several, and asked Planning
44 staff to get more information. The problem is that they are not getting that information.
45
46 Two Bellingham City Council Members have said they have to move forward, right or
47 wrong. He doesn't want wrong. All the Planning Commission is trying to do is seek
48 information. An employee in the County Planning Department has experience with
49 successful building allocation programs. Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners don't
50 know enough about permit allocation, but they should want the information, whether or not
51 they use it.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 4
1 Now, the County tells people they can't build in certain places, such as industrial
2 areas. It's not unusual to deal with growth proactively instead of reactively to the numbers
3 that are coming in. Look at the options. Get the information.
4
5 Bill Geyer, 1008 - 16th Street, Bellingham, stated the people of Whatcom county
6 voted on Whatcom County Charter that reflects what the County should be. Remember that
7 the voters adopted a County Charter amendment to section 1.11 that says the Council shall
8 not adopt an ordinance that unduly impacts any property owner without just compensation.
9 It is a core value. Close to 77 percent of people adopted that core value. Consider that
10 core value. People decided they don't want things that have an undue influence on
11 individuals.
12
13 This is a non -issue that should not be on the agenda. The City of Bellingham water
14 service can service today 250,000 people. It is presently serving 85,000 to 90,000 people.
15 The sewage plant can service 250,000 to 260,000 people. It is presently serving 85,000
16 people. The Planning Commissioners need to agree on the UGA's around the cities, knowing
17 the infrastructure and capacity is there to service the population for the next twenty years,
18 and quit wasting time on issues like this. Do not approve this item. It has no place in the
19 current County Charter.
20
21 Weimer stated he agreed with the cities having water and sewer capacity. He asked
22 how the capacity is an issue with this program, which is an attempt to keep people in the
23 urban areas, not the rural areas. Geyer stated this proposal does not have anything to do
24 with having an efficient lifestyle in this community. The Planning Commission is not able to
25 bring forward information for a comprehensive policy advisement or fulfill it's task to give
26 the Council a tool for developing growth boundaries that recognize the underlying
27 infrastructure.
28
29 Brenner stated that as a lay person, she can think of reasons why this would be very
30 burdensome on people. Some time, she would like to hear from the building industry about
31 what happens with loans, mortgages, and similar practical matters.
32
33 Mark Meck, Lummi Island, stated he worked in construction in Phoenix. In Phoenix,
34 5,000 families per month moved into the area. The City of Phoenix managed that growth.
35 Here, planning is way behind the curve. Be proactive. Look at places like Gilbert, Arizona,
36 which had the same issues. Anytime the Council prevents people from doing what they
37 want with their property, it is not living up to the Charter and is violating their property
38 rights. There has to be a balance. A building moratorium will cause property values to go
39 through the roof. That will force out all the little guys.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
42
43 Nelson stated moratoria in other cities are usually due to impacts that over - burden
44 the system, he asked what is fixing the problem in regards to population changes.
45
46 John Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, stated he has been on the Planning Commission for
47 three years. It does some work, but it doesn't solve anything or work on anything
48 meaningful for the long -term. There seems to be fear of doing anything different, for fear
49 that it will hurt someone. However, they hurt more people by not doing anything.
50
51 Crawford asked who is hurt. Belisle stated they have to pay for restoration. Oysters
52 can't be harvested. There are many things that are influenced by not caring for the
53 resources.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 5
1
2 He is against the growth that another generation will have to pay for. They are not
3 looking at the costs of. restoration, the resources they lose, or the cost of water quality. Not
4 one stream in Whatcom County meets water quality standards. Not one basin that is open
5 to irrigation rights. They are not looking at the cost it will take to bring those resources
6 back versus the cost to protect the resources.
7
8 They are behind five years on the GMA because they aren't taking any action. They
9 must overcome their fears. People tell the Planning Commission what not to do, but no one
10 has suggested a new solution. They are ignoring the problem. The County is beating up
11 Bellingham for not taking its share of the growth, however the County has also accepted
12 more building permits than the City of Bellingham. Look at what the County is doing to
13 protect the county's resources and to help Bellingham take its growth.
14
15 Levels of services are outstripped. They don't know how to pay for those levels of
16 service, yet they will keep allowing building. People are upset about how services will be
17 paid for. Everyone wants to live in areas that are green. If they don't do something, they
18 will lose the environment and people will end up leaving. Ms. Dickinson has not offered any
19 solutions. The Planning Commission hasn't done anything meaningful.
20
21 Nelson stated he understands Mr. Belisle's frustration. The Planning Commission is
22 selected to help the Council, not to formulate policy. The Council must measure the effect
23 and affect to all.
24
25 Doing a moratorium is almost like an emergency ordinance. The Council does
26 moratoria for urgent matters. The rural areas may not have issues about water or septic
27 availability. He asked the growth rate here and now, compared to previous years. He
28 asked if they have to curb an exorbitant amount of growth or curb the UGA's that are
29 forcing people to move to the rural areas and whether staff is spending a lot of time on
30 permit allocations. He asked the problem that may lead the Council to want to look at this.
31
32 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the growth rate is
33 about two percent, which is about what they predicted through the growth management
34 planning process. The growth rate was about 1.9 percent last year. It is increasing. If the
35 City isn't accepting it's percentage of the two percent, the County could experience greater
36 numbers of permits.
37
38 Growth in the city in the past five years hasn't been a straight curve going up. In
39 the county, there is a steady increase. Approximately 60 percent of the growth in the
40 county was in the urban growth area. In the city, the growth rate wasn't a steady growth
41 rate. If they combine growth rates for all the cities, there is a larger number of growth in
42 the combined cities than out to the county.
43
44 Growth is increasing in the county. The growth rate may or may not be likely to
45 increase, depending on key factors. Executive Kremen has asked staff to project revenue
46 and cost in the future. He will present information on where growth is occurring.
47
48 The County must check for water availability. There are serious issues related to
49 infrastructure. Once the County gets concurrency in place, it can declare a moratorium on
50 development in certain locations where infrastructure isn't in place and where they haven't
51 worked out how to get the infrastructure in place. That will ration permits until
52 infrastructure is in place. He has an additional services request (ASR) for the concurrency
53 proposal. The Council will see that ASR.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 6
The staff is doing other things also. The County's position is that it has many tools
from the GMA. They hope to implement concurrency. They are revamping the rural
program. They are working toward natural resource policy integration. They are
completing work on the UGA's. They will look at limited areas of more intense rural
development (LAMIRD's). They are looking at how to best provide infrastructure. They are
looking at design guidelines. The County is using many tools. Support staff as it deploys
those tools that the GMA provided.
Crawford asked how the 1.9 percent growth rate compares to the state, west coast,
and national average. He asked if they are growing really fast. Hart stated they are
growing fast. The County is in the upper tier of counties that are growing fast. The State
growth rate may be about 1.7 or 1.8 percent.
Brenner stated she read everything that has been sent to her regarding permit
allocation. She is a lay person. The only new information is the outcome of all the court
cases. She doesn't see any information besides that.
Concurrency should be at the top of the County's list. She's tried to work toward
concurrency for a long time. That's the direction to go. Everyone knows they must pay
their fair share. The County must know what those fair shares are.
Fear is coming from every direction, not just one side or the other. They must try to
work together.
Some of the increase in growth is a result of the threats of moratoria. She
supported the moratorium on Lake Whatcom because it made sense. Creating moratoria for
everything that the Council wants to take its time on doesn't make sense. Do an interim
concurrency ordinance based on existing ordinances that can act as a place holder to collect
money. No one would say it's not fair. The City of Bellingham has already done one for
transportation. The County can plagiarize that ordinance.
McShane stated the population projection was controversial. He asked if the
Planning Department plans the staffing level it would require to meet that population
projection. He asked if they hire more people if they are exceeding that projection. Hart
stated staff is working out plans for the next three budget cycles. There are many ways to
achieve concurrency. Some ways are staff -heavy and some are consultant- driven. The
Council may decide to use consultants rather than staff. Keep staff lean, but use all the
tools in the tool box. By April 14, he will present a strategic plan for the department.
_r %J
41 Wei -mer asked the growth rate in the county, outside of UGA's and suburban
42 enclaves. These plans seem targeted to those rural areas.
43
44 Troy Holbrook, Planning Division Supervisor, stated they allocated 16.5 percent of
45 the total population growth to the rural areas, which excludes Birch Bay, Columbia Valley,
46 and UGA's. The County planned for that level of growth. If they start metering the building
47 permits in the rural areas, staff will have to look at the other allocations as well. It might
48 not be compliant with GMA. If they restrict building permits in rural areas, it may push
49 other permits into other counties. The County will have to work with those jurisdictions.
50 One of the main points in court cases is predictability to other jurisdictions.
51
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 7
1 Hart stated the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
2 (CTED) alluded to the fact that this might have regional implications. The County would
3 work through those implications with other jurisdictions.
4
5 McShane stated CTED signed off on the County's population projections, including
6 the way they were allocated. Hart stated CTED reviewed and made comments of those
7 projections.
8
9 Weimer asked if the allocated 16.5 percent growth rate is happening in the county.
10 Hart stated staff can do an analysis of that question this afternoon.
11
12 Fleetwood asked if they believe they are seeing that growth amount. Hart stated
13 they are seeing a lot of development in the northwest quadrant of the county, outside the
14 Blaine UGA and the Birch Bay UGA. They are definitely seeing rural growth out there. They
15 haven't looked at the allocation per quadrant of the county.
16
17 Fleetwood stated there was a suggestion that the Council is being irresponsible by
18 taking up this issue. He asked if it is feasible for staff to allocate some time to the Planning
19 Commission's consideration of this proposal. Hart stated the County's position is to deploy
20 staff to look at the items the Council has decided to do, which he read earlier. It is the
21 most incredible and ambitious effort.
22
23 Fleetwood asked if that list of items currently includes a review of a permit metering
24 system. Hart stated it does not at this point.
25
26 Nelson stated that if the Council puts forward a request for policy changes, it
27 wouldn't be just to look at metering. They would also have to look at fiscal impacts to
28 Whatcom County, impacts to departments, impacts to small cities, mineral resource land
29 (MRL) use, impacts to other districts, and changes to assessed values. Define the criteria
30 the Planning Commission would look at. There are many ways to save farmland. He
31 supports concurrency. It will take a lot of work.
32
33 McShane asked how to apply concurrency to rural areas through the short-plat
34 process. Hart stated King County eliminated larger platting efforts in rural areas. It had
35 the impact of limiting the growth that was occurring in the rural areas when concurrency
36 management was put in place.
37
38 Entertain a program of indicators that would begin to tell a better story of what is
39 happening in the rural areas. Staff would collect the information for the Council a series of
40 indicators based on the long -term sustainability of the rural areas. The Council could docket
41 it as a subcategory. Staff can bring forward the indicators on a regular basis.
42
43 Nelson stated that is a good idea. Also bring forward positive information.
44
45 McShane moved to recommend that this should be a constrained review as a
46 possible tool. Limit to only the rural area. Also, make sure the priority issues are done
47 first. First work on the docket, LAMIRD's, and concurrency. Those items will shed light on
48 whether or not there is a need for building permit allocation. The Executive is committed to
49 concurrency. Dealing with UGA's will be a thorny issue. The sooner that is done, the
50 better. It will shed light on Bellingham's ability to take their proportion of growth. If the
51 cities fail to plan for what they agreed to take on, the Council should hear about it soon. If
52 that is happening, the cities are doing an invisible permit allocation in a way, and the
53 County is receiving the repercussions. He restated the motion to recommend to the full
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 8
Council that this should be a constrained review as a possible tool, limited to only the rural
areas. Also, make sure the priority issues are done first. First work on the Comprehensive
Plan docket, LAMIRD's, and concurrency. Working on permit allocation would be up to the
discretion of the Planning Commission.
Fleetwood stated he would support the motion. This is within the purview of the
Planning Commission's role to advise and recommend policy. The County Council may
consider an ordinance, or it may not. They need a full toolbox. This is but one item.
Adding this as an item for consideration, which the Planning Commission would primarily
consider, will not drain them of their ability to continue the planning work that they are in
the midst of. The effects of rampant growth strain the public's ability to deliver services
efficiently. This is one consideration to address it.
Weimer stated he will support the motion. They need to start accomplishing some
things. Finding out more information will not get them sued. He hopes someone can define
what "unduly burdened" means.
Brenner asked how this item falls into the priority with regular planning items such
as rezones and other regular items.
McShane stated there may be other things that would be a priority. However, much
of the expansion of the Planning Department is driven by permitting fees. They have more
planners now than five years ago. The question is whether the resources are going into
actual planning, unrelated to permitting. He's not sure they have done that. The County is
behind the curve that they recognized a long time ago. The County hasn't put resources
into implementing things. It creates a big problem.
Brenner stated some of the new Planning staff were hired to deal with permitting,
but also to deal with federal, state, and local laws that the County needs to deal with
comprehensively. Hart stated the majority of staff, about 80 to 90 percent or more, is
focused on permit review.
Nelson stated putting this forward at this time is going to be the same thing as
telling the public there will be another moratorium. As a result, random permits will be
requested. He wants tools, but not broken tools.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson continued to state they can't start looking at it without allocating staff time.
He asked how much staff time they want to devote to this. He asked how much they want
41 the Planning Department to spend in reviewing UGA's, other jurisdictions that will be
42 impacted, school districts, and evaluating impacts to assessments. Make sure they put
43 together a sound program. This isn't as important as the commissioners are portraying.
44 Few individuals have contacted him. If they are going to make a tool, make sure the tool
45 works. He could support it if no staff time will be spent on it. With all the issues the County
46 has, he is reluctant to spend time on it.
47
48 McShane stated the Council can't allocate administrative staff. That is one issue
49 regarding any request. It is up to the Executive to allocate staff. Concurrency is a priority
50 for the Executive. That's why he supports it being done first.
51
52 All he's saying is that, at some point when other things are done, allow the Planning
53 Commission to explore whether or not it's a viable tool.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 9
1
2 Nelson stated he is in favor of a tool if it works. They need all the information to
3 make sound decisions. He doesn't see that information.
4
5 McShane stated that's a broader discussion during the budget cycle.
6
7 Crawford stated he is opposed to this item. He urges the committee to not support
8 the concept.
9
10 Motion carried unanimous /y.
11
12 2. RESOLUTION FOR REVIEW OF THE RURAL ZONES, AGRICULTURAL ZONES,
13 APO AREAS, AND RURAL FORESTRY ZONES (AB2006 -133)
14
15 This item was not discussed.
16
17
18 OTHER BUSINESS
19
20 There was no other business.
21
22
23 ADJOURN
24
25
26 T#P - meeting adjourned at 11:08 a.m.
2T-
28
29
30 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
31
32 %%J1u11i►iiill
33 ATTE��, �`
35 • .,,,. C' •
36
-fir!
37
38
39 Dana Broyft -D is , i Sterk
'• y�NG�O
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane,
mmittee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/28/2006, Page 10