Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 9 20041 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee March 9, 2004 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Dan McShane Sharon Roy COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE 2003 -053, RELATED TO ISSUES AT POINT ROBERTS (AB2003 -317A) Fleetwood stated this ordinance was enacted last fall. Some people are critical of the tree retention and archeology sections. There is no ordinance ready for introduction. This is for discussion only. Amy Pederson, Planner I, submitted a memo (on file) describing the history of the issue. She read the memo. Caskey- Schreiber asked if tree retention was also instituted for erosion reasons. Pederson stated it was. Fleetwood asked for discussion on the public hearings that occurred. Pederson stated the original proposal to initiate text amendments was worked through with the Point Roberts Economic Development Committee, as the proponent for clarifying language. The proposal went to a public hearing, which was held in Point Roberts to a full house. Brenner asked if there is a provision for a variance if the only trees on the lot are located in the buildable area of the lot. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated a variance procedure applies. In this case, one can clear 5,000 square feet or 70 percent of the lot. Even if the trees cover the most desirable spot for building, the person can still clear 5,000 square feet or 70 percent of those trees. Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/2004, 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 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's pretty generous. Lake Whatcom residents are allowed to clear only 35 percent of the canopy. Pederson continued to read her memo regarding the archaeological resource management section (on file). Fleetwood asked who is on the Point Roberts Economic Development Committee. Pederson stated the committee is a representative group of the Point Roberts Taxpayer's Association. There is one representative each for the registered voters, business owners, and Chamber. It's generally thought to be the most inclusive Point Roberts group. Brenner asked if the archeological requirements are different from what State law requires. She was told that this section is just codifying State law. Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, stated he'd have to check on the State law. While administering, he's talked with State Office Archeology and Historic Preservation, which regulates these resources. They've indicated that these regulations are consistent with State law. The State buffers all archeological sites with a 500 foot buffer. That center of the site is the only information the County can get from the State, so that's the only practical buffer the County can apply. Brenner asked if the buffer applies to any sites in Whatcom County. Chalfant stated it applies to Point Roberts. It also affects the Shoreline Management Program and the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) ordinance. Brenner asked why this applies just at Point Roberts. Pederson stated the language in this provision has been in the County Code since adoption of Point Roberts Special District and 1990 Subarea Plan. The language then was vague, and has been enhanced. Review of cultural and archeological resources is also required in Title 23, which is the Shoreline Management Program and anything subject to SEPA review. Roy asked if this has anything to do with the tribal interests in Point Roberts specifically. She asked if there is concern from the tribes that there are more areas of significance in Point Roberts. Pederson stated there is not. The Lummis participated in the process, but were notified about it after the staff worked with the community and the Planning Commission. Fleetwood asked the Planning Commission vote on the archeology provisions. Pederson stated there was one general vote on the entire ordinance. Brenner asked if there is a State law that requires a 500 -foot buffer from an archeological site. Chalfant stated he doesn't think it's part of the State law. This is how they've chosen to protect the sites. Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/2004, 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. McShane stated it's a review buffer, not a buffer they have to stay out of. Chalfant stated in most instances, they have to predict how large the sites are. Goodwin stated the aerial maps show how many trees have been removed. People were concerned that they didn't want Point Roberts to be like Tsawwassen. Jerry White, Point Roberts, stated he doesn't agree with the representation of the history of how this ordinance came about. The 1990 section applied to Lily Point exclusively. It was used as a vehicle by staff to force this through now. He doesn't understand what purpose the tree retention policy serves. The Economic Development Committee is a new committee comprised of six members. Two members are upset that it was represented that the committee was in favor of the issue. One person testified on behalf of the committee, but Point Roberts is made up of more than six people. Point Roberts should be treated like any other area of the county in terms of the archeologically significant sites. He doesn't know why Point Roberts has to have that regulation when the other areas of the county don't. There is too much government intervention. Tree retention should be a choice of the property owner. It's gotten to the point where there are so many issues, including the heronry and wetlands, that the amount of regulations is out of hand. He doesn't know how they are going to enforce tree retention. The staff gives an air of being overworked, yet they keep creating new laws they have to enforce. Ruby White, Point Roberts, stated the Economic Development Committee is an offshoot of the Chamber of Commerce. No one on that committee endorses any of this stuff. One person who temporarily filled in may have represented himself as a committee member. Regarding tree retention, most of the trees in Point Roberts aren't on any steep slopes. They don't have a watershed. The archeological thing has caused grievous problems. This requires people to cover these things up. She agrees with the concept. There are a lot of archeological areas such as Indian burial grounds. That's a lot different than finding a little sliver of a potential piece of bone and declaring it an archaeological site. If one finds archaeological remains, the State is supposed to pay to inter them. She doesn't know what good this does. It's discriminatory because these regulations are different from other areas of the county. On one parcel, the County allowed a logger to clear -cut an entire 20 -acre parcel but didn't let the logger selectively log the parcel and divide the lots for development. Regarding the 1990 subarea plan, staff put forward a concerted effort to stop any development in Point Roberts, particularly at Lily Point. It got to be so bad that a group of residents formed a nonprofit association and hired a private planner and attorney to protect their interests at these meetings. They had a gag order put on and couldn't speak at the Planning Commission meetings. That was the beginning of the tree retention policies. None of this started because they wanted it. The Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/2004, 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 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. Economic Development Committee thing offends her. The real Economic Development Committee never asked for it. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) White continued to state that the community's needs and requests weren't considered in the subarea plan. The original goals for archeology were lofty, but they got lost along the way. They keep churning out regulations that can't be enforced. John Lesow, Point Roberts, submitted information (on file). The Economic Development Council in Point Roberts is not the most all- inclusive group in Point Roberts. They're not elected, don't have a charter, the meetings are private, and they keep no meeting minutes. They don't represent the people of Point Roberts. His information includes a result of a study that is the Point Roberts Economic Development Plan that included a survey of the residents. The result of a survey showed the people of Point Roberts are interested in tree retention, selective logging, and clear cutting, in that order. That's probably how the Economic Development Committee probably got involved, because that was the result of the survey. Trying to change the Council's mind on this issue flies in the face of ten years of history and the desirability of tree retention in Point Roberts. He read from his letter to the Council (on file) about the current arguments against tree retention. Point Roberts is no different from Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom. Point Roberts is surrounded on three sides and is constantly eroding. Retain the existing tree retention regulations. Fleetwood stated the purpose of today's discussion was to hear from the different sides on the issues. Caskey- Schreiber stated in looking at the subarea plan, she's satisfied that process was followed. They had 13 public meetings regarding this plan. It passed through one of the most conservative Planning Commission's they've ever had. There was a lot of public participation to support the adoption of the plan. In consideration of the area, what was done makes sense. It's far less restrictive than the regulations for Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom. This is an archeologically significant site. There have been inhabitants as early as 500 B.C., which does make it different from other areas of the County. The problem with the Blaine treatment site was a cautionary tale they need to heed. There is no need to take this any further. She is happy with the process. Continuing this discussion undermines the process. Brenner stated the tree retention regulations aren't too onerous and are flexible. She's concerned about the archeological part. The City of Blaine made a stupid move with their treatment plant. It shouldn't be used as an example of why this restrictive archeological ordinance is okay. It's very onerous on property Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/2004, 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 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. owners. Many times they're not sure if what they find has an archaeological significance. There doesn't need to be a 500 -foot radius. Roy asked what someone does in other parts of the County if an archaeological artifact is found. Chalfant stated it triggers State review. McShane stated the percentage of the area in Point Roberts that will have to review the archaeologically significant areas before development is only nine percent. Shoreline rules represents 13 percent, and have to be reviewed anyway. Pederson stated that nine percent might have to be reviewed through SEPA anyway. Brenner stated that unless they do it for the rest of the County, they shouldn't do it for Point Roberts. Fleetwood asked if people are notified of the known archaeological sites when they come into the County for a permit application. Pederson stated they are. Brenner asked if they are informed when they buy the property. Pederson stated they are not necessarily. Roy stated they are talking about areas that are known sites. They're not asking people to go out and look for as yet undiscovered sites. Pederson stated that's correct. Chalfant stated the archaeological data is in the permit database, and a person can find out when researching a parcel. They are able to inform property owners during the purchasing phase. Brenner asked what State law requires and how it's same or different from Point Roberts. Chalfant stated State law requires people to not excavate within an archeological site, no matter how big it is. The site is the location of the verifiable site. Brenner asked the reason for the 500 feet buffer. Chalfant stated that the sites are usually very large. When the sites were discovered many years ago, they discovered the center point but they didn't investigate the site further in order to keep the site intact, but an actual site may be much larger than the identified center point. McShane stated an example would be that someone may have discovered something while digging a long time ago, and no further investigation has been done. They know something is there, but they don't know how big it is. Chalfant stated State law protects intact resources. The County Code is modeled after State law. When materials have been disturbed previously, such as Planning and Development Committee, 3/9/2004, 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 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. to install a septic tank, the materials can be re- disturbed to reinstall the septic tank or redevelop the site. There is flexibility. Brenner stated she doesn't see that flexibility. She asked why wouldn't someone be able to replace a septic tank. Chalfant stated someone could do that. Roy stated one of the arguments that has persuaded her was that they are treating this area different from other areas around the county. She asked if they've thought about treating the rest of the county the same way. She asked if this is something they need to review as a part of the process everywhere. Chalfant stated a Comprehensive Plan goal is to protect these resources. Pederson stated they started Point Roberts because the information they received. The Comprehensive Plan does include goals, policies, and action items to address this issue countywide. Roy stated that if this is a good thing to do in Point Roberts, it is a good thing to do in the rest of the county. Fleetwood stated no formal action will be taken on this issue unless a councilmember brings something forward. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:15 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, 3/9/2004, Page 6