HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 4 20021
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
June 4, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Sharon Roy
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ON AN INTERIM
BASIS FOR THE SITING OF COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING AS A
CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE ZONE DISTRICT
(AB2002 -1918)
McShane stated this item and the next item on the agenda are related. They
will be discussed together.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, stated they need to
discuss two things. First, under the State solid waste regulations, composting of a
material that contains a solid waste requires a permit if it is not in a totally enclosed
building. A solid waste, according to the State definition, includes things like
chicken and cow manure and yard waste. Currently, a mushroom composting
facility would require a permit if it used chicken manure as a feedstock. In addition
to the existing rules, the State is proposing new solid waste rules that are quite
extensive for composting operations. The proposed rules specify what is required
for a permit, what the operational standards are, the plan of operation, staff
training, and testing.
McShane asked if the existing commercial composting facilities would need to
follow the new rules. Delahunt stated the existing facilities will need to follow the
new rules. There is a series of deadlines in the draft rules that say when the
existing facilities need to comply. The new rules also include a list of different
types of facilities that could be exempt from solid waste permitting, as long as they
follow certain operational requirements that are laid out in the regulations. If a
facility doesn't follow those requirements, then it would need to be permitted,
which require more requirements.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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.
Fleetwood asked who would administer the permitting process. Delahunt
stated the local health departments would administer the regulations.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Health Department only gets involved when
animal waste is involved. Delahunt stated the Health Department also gets
involved when yard waste, called green waste, is involved. In the current rules,
there is an exemption if the composting is done in a totally enclosed building. In
the new rules, that exemption does not exist. Currently, the solid waste rules have
very few specific requirements about composting. The new rules have very specific
requirements. The new proposed rules are in the public comment period right now.
They are scheduled to become effective this fall. She submitted a copy of the draft
rules (on file), which deals with how the facility is operated, the type of base that
would be needed under the compost piles to prevent groundwater contamination,
stormwater runoff, and how odor control must be in place.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if those rules supersede the critical areas ordinance,
which doesn't allow composting in aquifer recharge areas. Delahunt stated they do
not. The new proposed State regulation says that the facility must also be in
compliance with any local rules.
Fleetwood asked the reason for removing the exemption for totally enclosed
facilities. Delahunt stated the exemption is in the existing rules applies to a general
category of recycling facilities. A compost facility happens to follow under the
general term of recycling facility. In existing rules, they probably weren't thinking
of a composting operation. They were probably thinking of someone recycling
aluminum cans or something like that.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the rules would be enforced. Delahunt stated
the Health Department would do an administrative notice of violation, which would
include civil penalties. If the operation continues to be in violation of permit
conditions, then the Health Department would not renew the permit. People can
make comments about the operation during the permit renewal process.
Brenner asked if the infractions are significant enough to not be considered a
cost of doing business for the operation. Delahunt stated the current fines in the
civil penalty section are $100 per day for the first violation, $200 per day for the
second violation, and $300 per day for the third violation. The fine would
accumulate for each day that the operation is in violation. The penalties are based
on class one civil infractions, which are specified in State law. She's not sure the
County can levy a higher fine.
Brenner asked if the County has the authority to file an injunction for the
operation to cease and desist, if it is not in compliance.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County could
undertake a nuisance action. It would not be a part of the solid waste regulations.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 2
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.
1
2 Delahunt stated that if the operation was permitted with the County, the
3 County could suspend or revoke the permit at any time. The operator would
4 probably appeal the Health Department's decision. The decision would then go to
5 the State Pollution Control Hearings Board. She doesn't know if the operation could
6 continue to operate during the appeal process. It's a lengthy process that would
7 not happen overnight.
8
9 McShane stated he was concerned about groundwater quality. He asked how
10 they handle that. Delahunt stated the County requires a liner under the piles and
11 leachate collection and control. Although it's not specified in the current
12 regulations, the State has a compost facility resource handbook that specifies how
13 compost facilities should be constructed and operated. The County would use the
14 handbook as the basis for its permit conditions. A lot of the conditions in the
15 proposed regulations came out of that handbook.
16
17 McShane asked if the mushroom composting facility going on inside a
18 building in Ferndale is under the County's jurisdiction for permitting. Delahunt
19 stated it is not at this time. They are in an enclosed building.
20
21 McShane stated the State law is going to change that exception so, in the
22 future, State law gives the County authority. Delahunt stated that is correct, if the
23 regulations are approved by the State. A facility that makes mushroom compost
24 and ships it offsite will be required to have a permit. A mushroom composting
25 operation for onsite use does not require a permit, but it must follow the
26 operational controls that are listed in the regulations. If a facility is not following
27 the operational controls, the Health Department could require them to get a permit.
28
29 Brenner stated the facility in Ferndale is not in a fully enclosed building. That
30 is the problem. The building is open all the time. A lot of the time, the stuff is
31 sitting outside. Even now, the County would have a legal reason to say that facility
32 does not qualify as an enclosed building. She understands that it is safer for the
33 State to approve something that gives the County more jurisdiction.
34
35 Curt Meenderinck, 2216 Hampton Road, stated he is concerned about the
36 proposed ordinance. He's been a feed supplier to the local dairies for over 30
37 years. Three years ago, he was one of three finalists for the Business Pulse Person
38 of the Year for Whatcom County. All the proposals for composting discriminate
39 against permitted agricultural uses in the agricultural zone. He's supplied
40 ingredients to the mushroom industry for over 30 years. He's convinced that there
41 is a difference in composting. One difference makes an unacceptable order, and
42 one which would make it to continue to be accepted in the agricultural zone. There
43 are not any agricultural producers in Whatcom County making a reasonable profit
44 or return on their investments. In discussing this proposed compost ordinance with
45 Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends Director, and the Whatcom County
46 Extension Service, his concerns are similar to theirs.
47
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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.
The proposed ordinance would create several huge problems. The Whatcom
County Council, rather than supply and demand, would determine what is good or
bad agricultural business in Whatcom County. He is very concerned with the
consequences of this legislation. He asked if the Council has evaluated how many
parcels there are in Whatcom County with a square 220- to 240 -acre tract under
one owner, with the compost yard dead center on the property. In Whatcom
County, if there are any, there would be few. Under this proposed legislation,
every horse stable, dairy farm, or agricultural business that sells compost would be
severely negatively affected. It should be the duty of the County Council to support
agricultural businesses in the agricultural zone, so they have the freedom to
provide for this generation and for generations to come.
McShane asked why this would jeopardize all the composters. Meenderinck
stated selling horse manure would be considered a commercial composting yard.
McShane stated there is other language in the County code that says that if
someone produces compost associated with agricultural activity, he or she doesn't
even require a permit.
Brenner stated that if the composting use is an accessory use to a farming
operation, then it is exempted from the ordinance. Meenderinck stated that
Whatcom County Code section 20.40.164 would be amended to include commercial
composting.
Crawford stated the proposed addition to the code is to the conditional uses
for the agricultural zone. The allowed accessory uses for the agricultural zone,
which is in another section of the code, include composting that is ancillary to the
primary agriculture use.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is a six -month interim regulation while the
Planning Commission makes a recommendation for permanent regulations. This is
an ordinance for interim regulations until a final ordinance can be drafted to
address the lack of siting criteria that currently exist.
Brenner suggested including a reference to the section in the code that
allows composting that is ancillary to farming, to avoid any more confusion.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed.
Mike Brennan, Bellingham /Whatcom Chamber of Commerce, stated there is a
great deal of confusion by the agricultural members over this issue. There is a
company who wants to locate in the eastern part of the county to do mushroom
composting. It is a good economic development tool in the agricultural zone. The
concept could be to create a primer on the issue that describes the "before" and
11after" requirements of the regulations. Also, talk to the folks at the Agricultural
Extension Office and see if there is an unintentional hang -up due to the regulations.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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.
Crawford stated that is what Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber is proposing
to do when it goes to the Planning Commission. In the meantime, an interim
ordinance is proposed. He asked if there is a way to allow the company to go
forward with their project in a community - friendly way, while this process goes on.
Brennan stated the consultant's report has been filed with the corporation. It is a
major U.S. based corporation that wants to do work in Whatcom County that
includes product shipment into Canada. He suggested that they get the principals
to sit down with someone in the County to discuss the specifics.
Crawford asked if the six -month interim would stop this project and kill the
deal. Brennan stated that is a possibility.
Brenner stated the problem is that if someone does creates a facility within
the six months, they are grandfathered into the circumstances and criteria that may
be too stringent or not stringent enough. She received phone calls from three
different potential operations that want to move here. She wonders why Whatcom
County is so popular with this industry all of a sudden. She's concerned about all
the money the County spent to get someone at the current facility to at least
respect the neighbors. If the proposers are going to operate in good faith, they
don't have anything to be concerned about. Brennan stated the problem is the
confusion, and he's asking to eliminate the confusion. One of the issues they will
see in the future is a software email -based manifest system for crossing the border
by commercial traffic. The issue tends to be that the commercial operator needs to
email U.S. or Canada customs within a half hour of crossing the border. The half
hour drive time to the Canada border makes the Whatcom County location for an
international shipment company appropriate. That may be the trigger that
companies are looking at.
Brenner stated her question is still why the companies aren't locating in
Canada. Canada has regulations that are strictly enforced against nuisance odors,
especially in residential areas. Whatcom County doesn't have that.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this company has a track record and knows what
it's doing. Brennan stated it does.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her goal is to introduce interim regulations for siting
criteria. Hopefully, the Planning Commission can come up with a recommendation
by the end of the year. She hopes the company can wait six months, knowing it
will receive the support of everyone locally on where the company chooses to site
its business. That would be a more open process than what has been done in the
past. The Canadians have elaborate requirements for composting and steep
penalties. Whatcom County is going to attract these kinds of businesses, and it's
important to site them correctly.
Brennan stated they also need to look at the basic taxing rate against a
corporation in Canada versus the same rate in the United States.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 5
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.
1 Fleetwood asked if it's reasonable for a mushroom composting industry
2 business to expect to install a bio- filter or equivalent technologies. Brennan stated
3 the company is out of Pennsylvania. The State of Pennsylvania has more significant
4 regulations for this issue than the State of Washington. He's sure the company is
5 very aware of those specific issues. They want to put an operation in here and
6 have it last for a long time. That initial investment would be the carry- forward
7 investment for the company.
8
9 McShane stated that if the company is planning to install a bio- filter, then it
10 shouldn't have any concern about this ordinance at all. Maybe the company has
11 another method planned. That is his concern right now.
12
13 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
14
15 Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, stated that two weeks ago this
16 committee approved an amendment to apply the 1,500 -foot setbacks only to
17 mushroom composting. She supported that amendment. Other concerns came
18 forward, such as concerns about critical aquifer recharge areas and leachate issues.
19 Those types of concerns are already dealt with in a number of ways, such as
20 through the critical areas ordinance, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
21 process, and the conditional use process. She recommended that the
22 councilmembers move forward with the interim ordinance, with the amendment to
23 the setback requirement. That buys them time. The Planning Commission and
24 staff will deal with the zoning text amendment docketing ordinance during the
25 docketing process. Give more direction to the Planning Commission. When the
26 Council dockets a zoning amendment, it is the language that the Council is asking
27 the Planning Commission to consider. If that is not what the Council wants the
28 Planning Commission to consider, then give them more direction.
29
30 A definition of an accessory use is that it occurs on the same site as a
31 primary use. That would not allow a group of farmers to join together to do
32 composting as an ancillary use to farming operations off -site.
33
34 McShane asked if there are farmers currently working together doing
35 composting in Whatcom County right now.
36
37 Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated he hesitates to answer
38 because some people have mutual operations that include composting. He's not
39 sure whether to define each and every participant as a farmer. There are
40 composting operations that involve more than one party and /or parcel. Even within
41 a farm operation, there are involved parcels that have somewhat different
42 ownerships.
43
44 McShane asked if the Council should consider the definition of accessory use.
45 MacConnell stated it would be useful to spend some time clearly articulating what is
46 meant by the existing ordinances that they have, such as defining commercial
47 composting, further defining ancillary use, and further defining a farm. At this
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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
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.
point, there is a lack of clarity. He is interested in facilitating agriculture and the
economic sustainability of farming. There is potential for confusion and possibly
detrimental action in the future.
McShane stated he is under the impression that Mr. MacConnell did not point
out to the citizens that section of the code and that there was an effort to expand
composting in the county in relation to farming. If that is an issue, they may need
to expand it more to help farmers with the product. He is interested in going there.
It may be a separate issue. He was not pleased with the comments, where they
were coming from, and how the comments were generated. Some of those
comments may have come from Mr. MacConnell and others in the Agricultural
Extension Office. MacConnell stated he raised concerns about the ordinance as it
was originally drafted because of confusion about the language. When the original
discussion occurred about changing the language in the agricultural zone about
composting, it didn't appear that it would have the consequences that he thought of
when he saw the interim ordinance. It seems that this body is moving toward
regulating odors from agriculture. The right -to -farm ordinance says one can expect
an odor. He had not told people to look at the other sections of the code, but the
realization of where this is heading is new to him.
McShane stated this has been before the Council for some time. He didn't
get a call from anyone at the Agricultural Extension Office until the last minute.
When he did get a call, they had the point of view that the County could have done
a better job. He doesn't like to criticize, but he has a right to do that because the
County contributes funds to that office. MacConnell stated he received unsolicited
calls due to the article in the Bellingham Herald. He's still concerned about it.
Brenner stated the odor problem doesn't have to do with the right -to -farm
ordinance. The operation in Ferndale moved into a residential area. The problem is
the idea of what is farming and what isn't. Someone bringing a bunch of stinky
crap into an area is not farming. People are bringing their worst kinds of stuff here,
and selling the product out of the county. She would put up with anything that is
ancillary to farming, but that isn't what this is. She asked about the language in
section 20.97.005. If an ancillary use is happening on a parcel of land other than
the land that is being farmed, it may be permitted anyway. She would like to find
out if that is true.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated farms are often on multiple parcels. He
takes exception to the idea that a farmer can't haul manure for composting on
another parcel, as long as it is in the agricultural zone.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated she wanted that intent in writing and given to
the enforcement people, because intent is not how the code is enforced. The code
is enforced by its language. It doesn't use the word "parcel." The code uses the
word "lot." "Lot" has a specific definition.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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
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.
Olason stated the lot contains the farm that has the cows, and another lot
could have another farming use.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated the permitted use has to happen on the second
lot. She's always told her dairy farm clients that they don't need a permit for
composting. It was clarified in the code provisions in May, 2001. It is an ancillary
use, as long as it happens on the same site. Now, folks have begun to buy the
buildings on another farm where nothing is happening but composting. She's said
that, at worst, the person would need a conditional use permit. Now, at worst, the
person would need a conditional use permit with 500 -foot buffers or 1,500 -foot
buffers without a bio- filter. They can clarify all of that by saying that the buffers
only apply to mushroom composting. That appears to be the intention. The
committee clarified that intention at the last meeting. Move that ordinance forward
as amended, and it takes care of the issue.
Brenner asked why the language couldn't be changed to allow the
composting on another parcel in the agricultural zone. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated
they don't necessarily want to do that as part of the interim ordinance. They need
to give more thought about how they are going to put something together.
Brenner asked if the farmers are prohibited from doing it as an ancillary use
now. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they need to get a conditional use permit.
McShane stated that the committee already made the motion to specify
mushroom composting for the setbacks.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she would like to keep it broad. They don't
distinguish between mushroom and other types of composting. Ms. Starkenburg
has her father's green waste composting pending. That's why she's advocating that
the buffers be just for mushroom composting.
Fleetwood stated the committee approved a recommendation two weeks ago
to recommend this language, with the inclusion of the word "mushrooming."
McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance, as amended two
weeks ago.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the resolution initiating a
docketing of a zoning text amendment to establish nuisances as an
additional conditional use criteria and setting new criteria for the siting of
commercial composting as a conditional use within the agriculture zone
district (AB2002- 191C), as amended two weeks ago.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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
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.
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING A DOCKETING OF A ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH NUISANCES AS AN ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND SETTING NEW CRITERIA FOR THE
SITING OF COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING AS A CONDITIONAL USE
WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE ZONE DISTRICT (AB2002 -191C)
See the above item.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 — SUPPLEMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS, CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
AND CHAPTER 20.97 — DEFINITIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002-
222)
Caskey- Schreiber referenced section 20.71.302(5) on Council packet page
72. She preferred the first option for that section.
McShane stated he preferred the second option for that subsection.
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated the first option grandfathers all preexisting
nonconforming uses. The second option would grandfather in those uses, but if the
owner decides to redevelop 50 percent or more, then the property would have to
come into conformance.
Crawford asked if that means the owner could possible reduce the amount of
impervious surface.
McShane stated that is correct.
Brenner asked if there are size limitations on the buildings and impervious
surfaces in the overlay areas.
Pederson stated the previous sections (1) through (4) outline the maximum
square footage, depending on the zone. Items (1) through (4) are for new
development. Item (5) deals with existing development and remodels.
Crawford asked the number of properties outside the City of Bellingham that
exceed the impervious surface requirements.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated the trend is to buy older
houses along Lake Whatcom and put in a much larger home.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is fine with the second option, even though she
liked the clarity of the first option.
McShane moved to approve the second option for subsection 20.71.302(5),
"If 50 percent, or greater, of the preexisting nonconforming impervious area is to
be redeveloped, then the applicable impervious surface limitations shall apply per
WCC 20.71.302(1), (2), (3), and (4)."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced section 20.71.302(6). She asked why they chose not to
exceed 1,500 square foot for a mobile home. Mobile home dealers have said that is
a small size for a family in a mobile home. Pederson stated that came out of the
Lake Samish overlay district. It was proposed by one of the mobile home park
managers. Residents of the park opposed that size limitation. It would be limited
by the size of the lots.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that at Lake Samish,
there are many mobile home areas that exceed the impervious surface regulation.
This regulation says that, within a mobile home park, they don't have to come into
compliance at all. That section would conflict with subsection .301(5). Staff will
reword that section. The mobile home park owner was concerned that, since the
singlewide homes are already over the threshold, they could not be replaced and
would deteriorate. It's hard to even buy a singlewide mobile home now. A
doublewide mobile home is about 1,500 square feet.
Brenner suggested that they clarify the language to allow replacement of a
mobile home with the same size mobile home, if it is over 1,500 square feet
currently.
Crawford stated the homes in mobile home parks are not 2,000 square feet.
Crawford referenced section 20.71.302(4). He recalled that this language
was put in the ordinance because the small Sudden Valley lots were 5,000 to 6,000
square feet in size. The concern was that they allowed enough room for a 2,000
square foot house, plus a driveway, as a minimum and as an exception to the 50
percent rule. He asked from where the change to the 2,000 square foot threshold
came. Pederson stated the 3,000 square foot minimum came out of the Lake
Samish group also. They agreed that 3,000 square feet would be sufficient. The
2,000 square feet is consistent with the Bellingham overlay district. Staff proposed
2,000 square feet threshold to be consistent with Bellingham.
McShane moved to add language to section 20.71.301(4), "...per WCC
20.80.325, except the use of lawn decorative pervious material." The runoff
coefficient for decorative pervious material is not 100 percent, compared to
forestland.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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
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.
Baumgarten asked about a situation in which a person already uses a lawn
as part of an open space in a cluster subdivision.
McShane stated they've already slipped through the regulation.
Baumgarten stated this addresses converting forested area to lawn, and still
calling it open space. If it already exists as a lawn, meadow, or field it would not
apply.
McShane withdrew his motion. That situation makes it too complicated.
Fleetwood asked for a scenario where the cluster rules would apply to Lake
Samish, which is currently zoned rural residential, two units per acre (RR2). There
has been consideration of changing it to rural, one unit per two acres (R2A).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Pederson stated there are many small parcels that are already subdivided, so
it wouldn't apply to most of the RR2 parcels. Someone with ten acres in the R2A
zone would have to put five parcels together in a small corner of the parcel, and
leave the rest in open space.
Fleetwood asked if there are landowners at Lake Samish who are
contemplating a development where the cluster requirements would apply.
Pederson stated that is correct. Cluster subdivisions are already required in the
overlay districts, but there are no standards. The only thing required at Lake
Samish and Lake Whatcom right now is that all land divisions of five lots or more
have to be clustered. There are no cluster design standards or reserve tract
standards.
Brenner referenced section 20.71.352(1), and suggested that the language
change from "may" to "shall."
Caskey- Schreiber agreed.
McShane moved to amend 20.71.352(1), "...an open space reserve tract may
shall be retained...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.80.633, "...as deemed
necessary to protect county drainage facilities, neighboring propertyies and water
quality."
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, 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
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.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.80.634(2), "...and sediment
control (ESC) that prevents, to the maxingum extent pessffible-,- the transport of
sediment from the site...."
McShane asked how staff feels about preventing sediment from leaving a
site. Baumgarten stated it agrees with the State Department of Ecology (DOE)
manual. The practicality of it depends on how the seasonal restriction on clearing
goes. A lot of it depends on the field interpretation. They have to be able to work
with people on site. That language is difficult to work with.
Motion carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend section 20.80.634(4), "and constructed
to pi=evide the level of pi=eteetien against prevent overtopping, flooding, erosion...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked if it is more appropriate to go to a 72 -hour storm standard
instead of a 24 -hour storm standard for Washington State, because they have long
gentle rains. Baumgarten stated the DOE manual is going with the 24 -hour
standard.
McShane stated that most stormwater designs are from areas where there
are extreme rainfall events of a short duration and heavy intensity. Here, some of
the damaging storms are those where it rains an inch and a half every day, for
many days. That's when they have flooding problems.
Chris Brueske, Engineer, stated that is something new out of Spokane. DOE
is still not yet requiring their continuous model. Whatcom County is still using the
24 -hour storm because it is compatible with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
method for calculating runoff. They do use curve numbers that are designed to
reflect antecedent moisture conditions typical of the winter. Those numbers are
typically higher, indicating that the soil is saturated and runoff will occur. DOE
should set the standard first.
Roy stated there is a strong indicator that fecal coliform in the Drayton
Harbor area is significantly affected by a storm event that lasts for several days in a
row.
Brenner referenced section 20.80.636(1)(b) and stated that someone may be
doing maintenance to the outside of the house, such as new windows or exterior
paint. The owner may not do those things if he or she thinks that they are going to
trigger a stormwater requirement. It should not be based on assessed value.
Brueske stated the intent was to catch people who buy a lot, demolish the house,
and add a new house on the lot where they are not increasing the amount of
impervious surface, but they are building a new building. Using assessed value is
used for building permits.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 12
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.
Fleetwood agreed that this is overly broad language.
Brenner stated she would rather say what they mean instead of referencing
the assessed value. Baumgarten stated that they could include an exemption for
anything that will improve the efficiency of the house.
McShane moved to amend section 20.80.636(1)(b), "...Interior remodels, af�d
non - polluting roof replacements, house maintenance, and energy upgrades shall be
exempt from this requirement."
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(b), "...and mulching of
exposed soils as specified by the development standards."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner suggested that the committee add language to section
20.80.735(2)(c) so that phased clearing is required only if necessary. Baumgarten
stated that language is subjective. They would need to establish thresholds. He
could look into what other jurisdictions have done.
Brenner suggested that the committee add language to section
20.80.735(2)(e)(i) to specify that the applicant doesn't have to retain existing trees
in the building footprint or fire buffer. Goodwin suggested that the two sentences
in that section be switched, so it talks about the cleared areas first, "i. Cleared
areas, including the building site ... of the total lot area. Outside these areas, the
applicant shall retain...."
McShane stated that section has to be read in the context of subsection (e).
It is talking about landscaping and buffering requirements. The whole purpose of
this section is to retain trees.
Brenner suggested that the committee amend section 20.80.735(2)(h) so
that violation fines are 200 percent instead of 150 percent.
McShane stated the fine is 150 percent of the standard penalty, as provided
in Chapter 20.94. He doesn't know what that penalty is, so it's difficult for him to
suggest something different. Baumgarten stated the standard penalty is $1,000 for
the first offense.
McShane stated he is concerned about the court level that fine amount would
go to. He would like to have a legal opinion on that suggestion. Goodwin stated
staff would get a legal opinion, and bring it back to the committee.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 13
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.
Baumgarten stated they have to let a person know that they've done
something wrong while working on the property, and give the person an
opportunity to make it right, before levying a fine. However, if people knew that
there was a lightening strike for certain things, rather than just a slap on the wrist,
it would send a different message.
McShane stated it would be a good idea to discuss further how far the
Council is willing to go. They might want to view it as a different type of violation
altogether.
McShane moved to recommend approval as amended, and to schedule a
public hearing for the June 18, 2002 Council meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR HAL HART REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2002 -184)
This item was not discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/4/2002, Page 14