HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 13 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 13, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
CODE, CHAPTER 20.80.800 — LIVESTOCK REGULATIONS (AB2005-
316)
Brenner stated she is opposed to the new regulations. She moved to
eliminate the ordinance entirely.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this started as a code scrub to clarify
the language and better administer what has been on the books for a long time.
There are a couple of new parts to the ordinance. The question has been raised
about why the County even has this code.
Fleetwood asked if the urban and rural zoning designations that meet the
ten -acre requirement and are adjacent to one of these zoning designations requires
a limited number of livestock per area. He asked if that requirement was in place
before this scrub, for a long time. He asked if the rationale was to handle noise and
odor. Olason stated they've had the requirements for a long time. The rationale
was nuisance and what constitutes too many animals on smaller lots. Many cities
have similar ordinances to regulate livestock on small lots. As the lot size shrinks,
use becomes more limited. Often, the problem is a nuisance, and the regulations
are not even part of a land use code. They're part of the animal- keeping
regulations.
Brenner stated that it's never been enforced, to her knowledge. If they are
going to do something like this, use best management practices. She doesn't
support the new changes or the code at all. She would like to have a hearing to
repeal this section of the code. When the use is on small acreage, the regulation
should be a public health ordinance if there is a public health problem. Determining
nuisance is subjective. Dogs could be considered nuisances. Livestock should be
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
allowed where dogs are allowed. The regulation should be site - specific. Public
health rules can include a nuisance ordinance regarding animals. They don't need
to do much to a nuisance law to deal with the problems.
Olason stated this code predates the right -to -farm ordinance. If not a
commercial farming operation, one may be subject to the nuisance code.
Brenner stated the Council can tweak the nuisance ordinance rather than do
this.
Fleetwood asked if a sufficient basis for rescinding the law is because
something is not actively enforced. Most people follow the law.
Brenner stated it's not been enforced because it is not an issue. In Kendall,
it's a public health issue, not a livestock issue. This came up because of complaints
from the Kendall community. If the nuisance law doesn't cover it, the Council
needs to strengthen it. If the concern is about feces and septic systems, it's a
public health issue.
Fleetwood asked about putting the obligation on the individual who disrupted
by the neighbor who has too many chickens or dogs.
Brenner stated the obligation is already on the individual. A law will only be
enforced if there is a complaint.
Fleetwood stated that if there is a law, a lesser number of people will have
too many animals to cause an annoyance. If not a law, they will increase the
number of people who cause complaints.
Brenner stated that a "one size fits all" solution doesn't work in Whatcom
County. Some people could manage their use in a way to make it extremely
positive so there are no complaints from anyone. Don't punish people who aren't
doing something bad.
Fleetwood asked how the County drew the line before this small change.
Olason stated he can't verify this code has never been enforced. The language was
difficult to interpret. Part of the issue has always been the notion of numbers being
tied to the nebulous concept of management. The reason for the right -to -farm
ordinance was because of the industry standards of best management practices. If
there is a small violation, the question is whether the property owner is or is not a
commercial operator. The right -to -farm test separates out the commercial
operators from those who aren't commercial operators, who are subject to nuisance
complaints, County enforcement, and civic arguments. The right -to -farm ordinance
came out in the late 1980's or early 1990's. This code tries to give the County a
basis for looking at potential public health problems. The question is how useful
this ordinance is at the end of the day. This code doesn't get at how a lot is
managed. It gets at the numbers of animals and acreage. However, problems
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
arise with how a farm is managed. This code is a blunt instrument to test whether
or not an operation is okay. However, it's ineffective in defining what should or
should not be done in terms of management. It has been a frustrating code for
staff to administer.
Fleetwood stated this code has been on the books for at least 20 years. He
asked if there is a scenario where people would have problems if this code were
repealed.
Brenner stated there are other laws to cover any potential problems.
Olason stated the feedback he's heard is that this is one more thing for the
neighbor to call the County about. His goal wasn't to rewrite this code. His goal
was to give the code more definition so it could be enforced.
Fleetwood asked if there is a problem with repealing this code. Olason stated
he has no problem with repealing it. It's time is passed. If they want to deal with
how livestock impact the environment, this code doesn't address it. If they want to
deal with how noisy someone's chicken house is, the right -to -farm ordinance gives
staff the direction on whether or not something is a farming enterprise or
someone's hobby. On a nuisance charge, let people take the nuisance to court to
decide. The County doesn't have to do anything with it.
Fleetwood asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee looked at it. Olason
stated it is not a big deal to them.
Brenner stated no one has noticed it. A lot has changed since the code was
put into effect. If there isn't good coverage for the Kendall area, then beef up the
nuisance laws and public health laws.
Olason stated that if the committee considers repealing the code, have a
conversation with enforcement staff first. The point is whether there is a problem
on a property. When it comes down to it, this ordinance may even challenge the
right -to -farm ordinance. The test is whether best management practices are being
used. This ordinance doesn't do anything except say someone has too many
animals.
Fleetwood asked if the problems could be solved between neighbors with
existing laws. Olason stated the County may potentially still have to go out to a
property, but staff will not have to count the chickens. Staff will just have to
determine whether or not the farm is a true farming operation.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to recommend repeal to the
full Council and to have a public hearing.
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked if the Planning Commission discussed repealing this section
of the code. Olason stated it did not. The Planning Commission was focused on
making the section better to understand. If there is no rush to repeal the
ordinance, let the Planning Commission know that the Council is considering just
repealing this code, and let the Planning Commission consider it. Give the Planning
Commission direction.
Fleetwood moved to recommend that the Council remand to the Planning
Commission to consider repealing WCC 20.80.800.
Brenner stated the Planning Commission is also overloaded. Don't send it
back to the Planning Commission. The Council can go forward with repealing it.
Fleetwood stated he is less comfortable with going forward with a repeal than
remanding it to the Planning Commission.
McShane stated he hasn't considered a repeal of the section until this
meeting. He would like a little time to digest the concept.
Olason stated the Planning Commission could provide that analysis. They
can look at the nuisance rules and see how scenarios would play out.
Brenner stated Councilmember McShane is correct. There is no time hurry.
However, don't table it. Things at the Planning Commission can get bogged down.
Bring it to the Council at the evening meeting.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM SUBURBAN ENCLAVE /RR2 TO PUBLIC RECREATION /ROS
FOR APPROXIMATELY 47 ACRES WITHIN THE CHUCKANUT -LAKE
SAMISH SUBAREA (AB2005 -084A) (PLEASE NOTE — THIS ITEM WAS
PREVIOUSLY NUMBERED INCORRECTLY AS AB2005 -335; THE
CORRECT NUMBER IS AB2005 -084A)
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated that regardless of any committee
recommendation, this ordinance can't move forward for action tonight. If
forwarded, it is moved to the concurrency hearing. This ordinance is amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan map and the zoning map.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The proposed amendment applies to two parcels, totaling 47 acres, owned by
the Washington State Department of Parks and Recreation Commission. The
location is on Chuckanut Drive, one mile south of the entrance to Larrabee State
Park, adjacent to the Whatcom and Skagit border. The properties surrounding the
subject properties include Larrabee State Park and recreation open space
designation. This is one pocket of rural residential zoning.
Fleetwood asked why this amendment wasn't done years ago. Pederson
stated the State Parks and Recreation Department purchased the property in 1988.
Until then, it was in private ownership.
Brenner asked why the State would own rural residential land. Pederson
stated the State purchased these properties that are surrounded by recreational
property, in the middle of the State park area.
Fleetwood asked how this has come forward. Pederson stated the County
Council initiated this Comprehensive Plan amendment.
McShane stated he brought this item forward. There has been quite a bit of
discussion about the Chuckanut suburban enclave lately. He asked if staff looked at
other areas of suburban enclave, beyond this area. Pederson stated staff thought
about considering the rest of the areas, but decided against it because of the
pending appeal. Legal counsel recommends that staff keep the scope limited at this
time.
McShane stated he tried to look at what he thought was a limited area of
more intense rural development (LAMIRD), in terms of zoning, the size of the lots,
and where development has occurred. This committee changed the proposal after
hearing input from a property owner regarding vested development in the area.
That part got removed from this proposal. All that was left was this southern half.
Brenner moved to recommend that the Council forward to the concurrency
hearing.
Pederson stated a letter from the State Parks and Recreation Department is
in the packet. They would like the opportunity to preserve the option to retain their
density and be included in the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, which
is not available to them at this time. If that's not possible, they would like the
change to be waived until after their comprehensive planning process for Larrabee
State Park, in 2008.
Brenner stated this zoning change is a good, important thing to do. If the
zoning is rural residential, two units per acre (RR2), the State will get to keep it as
leverage. The County wouldn't consider that request from a private individual.
Everyone should be treated the same.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated the original docketed item was to rezone from RR2 to rural,
one unit per five acres (R5A). A recreational open space (ROS) zone would be
more advantageous to the Parks Department. Pederson stated it would be more
advantageous. The R5A zone would still allow residential development, but that is
not the current or proposed use by the State Parks Department. A caretaker's
residence is allowed in ROS zoning. The State could put a caretaker's residence on
each parcel.
Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley, stated the Clayton Beach property is not new.
A lot of people have been using the property thanks to the State. The property is
adjacent to the existing Larrabee State Park. It is separated by the railroad track.
Clayton Beach may be on the county border. There is no problem with changing
the zoning. The County Council has better things to do. This is an easy item to
approve. Get on with it. There is no reason for a TDR for the State.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/13/2005, Page 6