HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 21 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
May 21, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 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:
Barbara Brenner
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR HAL HART REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2002 -184)
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, introduced the
County's shoreline administrator, who has signature authority for shoreline permits,
which he and Roland Middleton review and discuss, if necessary.
Jeff Chalfant, Land Use Specialist II /Shorelines, stated he is responsible for
the administration and implementation of the Shoreline Management Program. He
processes various permits, including shorelines exemptions, shoreline substantial
development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, and
appeal. He also provides technical support on enforcement actions, reviews all
building permits in the shoreline jurisdiction, responds to general inquiries, and
helps to develop administrative policies that help insure equitable implementation
of the code. One of his primary goals is to help people realize their dreams in
accordance with development rules, but he also has to implement the code as it's
written. In doing such, he often has to tell people difficult things that they don't
want to hear.
Whatcom County adopted the Shoreline Management Program in May 1976,
in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act. The co- manager in this effort is
Barry Wenger with the State Department of Ecology. The purpose of the Shoreline
code is to protect and preserve shorelines and foster responsible, sustainable
development. The State wants to preserve those resources. Pressure for additional
uses are placed on the shorelines every year. That necessitates increased
coordination for their management and development. The legislature determined
that unrestricted development of privately -owned and held shorelines was not in
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
the public interest. As a result, the legislature adopted the shoreline management
program.
Whatcom County shorelines include over 130 miles of marine shoreline, 60
miles of lake shore, 220 miles of stream channels, and all bogs, marshes,
floodways, and upland areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. The
shorelines contain natural resources that attract people to this community and
represent a valuable cultural, environmental, and economic resource for the
community. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and Whatcom
County jointly manage the Shoreline Management Program. Whatcom County is
the primary agency responsible for implementation. The DOE is responsible for
supervising the administration of the code and assuring property implementation.
Barry Wenger, Department of Ecology, provided information on his
background. This law is different than any other for a couple of reasons. The
Shoreline Master Programs deal with balancing the private land on the shore with
the public bodies of water that belong to all the people. In 1971, the legislature
recognized that the public bodies of water belong to all the citizens in the state in
perpetuity. For that reason, it's both a land use law and an environmental law. It's
a plan and associated implementing regulations that go with that plan. In 1971,
Washington State was the first state in the United States to approve a shoreline
management act to protect those special resources. The federal government was
moving in the same direction by recognizing that coastal areas are unique. In
1972, the federal government approved the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Program. Washington State's Shoreline Act was already written, and was adopted
as the first coastal zone management program in the United States.
One of the unique things about the Washington State Coastal Zone
Management Program is that there is a partnership between the State and local
governments. He provided information (on file) on the coastal zone management
programs. There are enforceable state, federal, and local policies and regulations.
Because they are a part of the federal program, the federal agencies have to
comply with them also. When the Navy Home Port was developed in the City of
Everett, they had to get a shoreline permit from the City of Everett to be consistent
with the coastal zone program. That's what gives this program so much power.
The Department of Ecology makes the decision on consistency with the State,
federal, and local coastal zone programs.
DOE is not just regulatory. They also provide Section 306 planning grants.
Growth Management didn't replace Shoreline Management. They need to be
integrated. He is available to give technical information and to provide guidance in
resolving issues in the land use arena.
McShane asked how Whatcom County is doing compared to other counties on
public access. Wenger stated Whatcom County can do better. Whatcom County's
master program is excellent. It does have some weaker spots. Counties are very
large and diverse entities. Cities tend to have better public access plans because
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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
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.
they are much more finite. Whatcom County's provisions are better than almost all
the counties. Implementation is where the difficulty is. There is a lot that is
misunderstood about public access. Education helps.
Chalfant stated that the shoreline master program is a very ambitious
ordinance. It is very far - reaching in its goals, policies, and regulations. Due to the
ambition of the program, the ordinance is very complex. The regulations must be
read together with the goals and policies. The regulations are often misunderstood
because they are not read together with the entire program. He asked the
councilmembers to encourage constituents who own shorelines to purchase a copy
of the ordinance to read it and understand it. His job becomes much easier when
people understand what the rules are.
The Shoreline Management Program regulates all aspects of shoreline
development, including but not limited to setbacks, bulk and dimensional
requirements, uses, and natural resources management.
The interpretation and implementation of the Shoreline Management
Program is very different than any other land use regulation because it is liberally
constructed, which means that the code is to be interpreted in favor of the resource
when there is a gray area.
"Shoreline exemptions" is a confusing term. Someone may think that if he or
she meets one of the shoreline exemptions, then he or she is exempt from the
program completely. That's not at all the case. The program is very clear in saying
that an exemption from the shoreline substantial development permit process or
requirement is not an exemption from compliance with the goals, policies, and
regulations of the Shoreline Program or Shoreline Act. Most developments are
required to have some sort of written approval from Whatcom County in the form of
a formal shoreline substantial development permit or a written statement of
exemption. Even though it is exempt, it still requires a written statement of
exemption and formal approval from the County. Exemptions are to be construed
narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of a listed
exemption can be approved under that exemption.
Brenner asked where the teeth to this regulation is. One specific violation is
still going on. She asked how this is enforced, and if enforcement is effective.
Chalfant stated a stop work order has been issued and no activity is occurring on
that specific site.
Brenner stated it is still occurring.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated he will not comment on
the specific violation because it will come before the County Council. He's issued a
stop work order. He's reviewing the fine assessment right now.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
Enforcement has been discussed on many other land use regulations. Staff
is bringing forward a compliance ordinance that will cover all aspects of land use,
including the shoreline program. Once the County Council adopts it, staff will work
with the Department of Ecology to implement it as the new enforcement arm within
shorelines. They've done some changes to try to increase their enforcement
leverage. The new code will add to that. Like anything else, if people are going to
ignore it, the County will have to continue to go after them to the point of using
collection agencies and sending people to District Court. They are trying to get that
process implemented for shorelines. It's part of the new code enforcement
ordinance. The County will send people to District Court for these issues. They
won't have to go through the Prosecuting Attorney. Staff can give violators a daily
infraction. He receives more positive action by violators by sending them to District
Court, because it goes on their credit report and criminal record. It goes beyond
just being a cost of business. Many people now just include the fines in their
operating costs because it is worth it to take action today rather than waiting for a
permit.
When they had the storm at Sandy Point, several properties were damaged.
Mr. Chalfant had an idea of issuing those statements of exemptions right on the
beach to each individual person instead of having the homeowners come into the
department and fill out paperwork. Staff brought the paperwork to them. Mr.
Chalfant met with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Barry Wenger to
coordinate it. Staff was able to assist those storm victims right there on the beach.
They are now doing joint enforcement with the Department of Ecology.
That's a benefit for the County, the resource, and the person who is in violation.
Otherwise, staff would take the person through the violation process. Once the
person is finished with the County, then DOE would start on their portion of the
violation process. It was very cumbersome. Usually, everyone lost through that
process. Now, going through joint enforcement, which Mr. Wenger and Mr.
Chalfant have established, staff can address the issue right up front and get it
done.
Hart stated they are going to take the program to the community through
education. Staff is first going to speak to the Lummi Island community. The
permit loads are up this year. He will ask DOE to partner with the County and go
into the community to speak to different reaches. They are going to target the
marine shoreline this summer. Next year, he wants to target the inland waterways.
Fleetwood asked for an example of how the program works and what triggers
the permit requirements. Chalfant stated a landowner would first talk to staff at
the permit center about where the property is located, the owner's desires, and the
project. They talk about which shoreline designation the property is located in.
There are many different levels of protection along different areas where different
uses are allowed or not allowed. The use is or is not approved, depending on the
shoreline designation. For example, the conservancy designation requires a 75 -foot
setback from the top of a bluff. Staff would review a project for shoreline
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
consistency along with the building permit process. Different shoreline locations
have different shoreline requirements.
Wenger stated the public often misunderstands a shoreline jurisdiction versus
a setback. The jurisdiction is 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. That
doesn't mean there is a 200 -foot setback. It means the law only applies within that
200 feet zone. There are three kinds of shoreline permits: a substantial
development permit, a conditional use permit, and a variance.
Brenner asked if the plan is involved in accidental spills. Chalfant stated the
State issues an order to the person who caused the spill to bring it into compliance
with the Clean Water Act. The County shorelines administrator reviews that order
to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Program. They also have
provisions for emergency exemptions. When there is an emergency situation, an
applicant is allowed to proceed with cleanup activities, and to obtain any required
permits after the fact. There are provisions for people to address any immediate
threat to property or life, without having to contact every agency.
Wenger stated there is a specific cleanup statute that the Department of
Ecology administers. It's not a part of the Shoreline Management Program. The
Shoreline Program does allow for emergency exemptions.
Chalfant stated the code provides for severe emergencies, where there is too
little time to even contact him. A person can proceed without a written statement
of exemption. However, if something is built as an emergency measure that would
not normally be allowed, it will eventually have to be removed. He doesn't have to
be contacted until the emergency has abated.
McShane stated this is one of the more important environmental programs in
the county. The community trusts what they are doing.
Wenger stated the County has an excellent planning staff. They do a
tremendous amount of work very professionally.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. 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)
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is trying to do some preventative action for
composting activities that have gone on in the county. Because of those activities,
citizens have experienced quite a bit of hardship. Realizing that they don't have
any specific siting criteria for any commercial composting facility, she brought this
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
ordinance forward. She proposes an interim control that would allow the Council to
run the proposed ordinance through the Planning Commission, Agricultural Advisory
Committee, Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), Health Department, and
Public Works Department.
She doesn't foresee this going beyond the end of the year. They are talking
about six months for holding off on the acceptance of new applications so they can
figure out where they want this kind of activity to occur. Right now, it is only
allowed in the agricultural zone. She's proposing to allow it also in the heavy
impact industrial zone. The Planning Commission can decide whether it would
support that proposal.
McShane asked if the biggest concern is composting in general or mushroom
composting specifically.
Caskey- Schreiber stated her original target was mushroom composting.
After several meetings with the Planning Department, she believes that staff would
like to take this opportunity to look at siting criteria for green waste as well. One of
the concerns is that green waste is an activity they should be wary of when in an
aquifer recharge area, because a lot of leachate comes off the use. They need to
be careful about what will come off of the operations and if it affects the water.
The ordinance does not affect any farm compost, which is a permitted accessory
use. The ordinance also does not apply to anything that exists today, including a
composting project on the Van Buren Road for which she is receiving complaints,
even though it is a permitted use. That is one of the problems. They need to look
at where they want to allow these uses and whom they will affect.
Fleetwood stated the Council's packet includes the resolution that will initiate
the docketing of this through the Planning Commission process. Tonight they will
discuss the interim ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is correct. An emergency moratorium is in
place right now on the acceptance of conditional use applications for commercial
composting. The interim regulations would put something in place for six months
that would carry out that moratorium, so they can figure out what they want to do.
Fleetwood asked if the interim ordinance is an exemption to the moratorium.
The interim ordinance says that they can do certain things during the period of the
moratorium.
McShane stated someone could do certain things if they pass Exhibit A of the
interim ordinance. One could still apply, but would have to comply with what is in
Exhibit A. The direction is to open the discussion with the Planning Commission and
other committees and departments to work out a lot of other issues that go with
composting. This committee will make a recommendation to the full Council on
whether or not to adopt interim zoning, which is Exhibit A, while a broader look at
composting is taken on by the Planning Commission. They are not going to get into
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
the details of that broad look at this time. At this point, they can consider
amending Exhibit A.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the ordinance is to enact the interim
controls. The resolution is to authorize docketing the language on the Planning
Commission agenda for consideration.
It is a matter of trying to define what it is that they are composting. That
will be a lot of what they talk about. A wide range of materials can be handled.
There is also a wide range of siting standards and operational standards that may
make an operation appropriate or not appropriate, depending on how it is
conditioned. One of the things that would be valuable is to look at allowing the use
in other zones. They could have composting activities that have nothing to do with
agriculture and that are in the agricultural zone because that is the only place it can
be. Not all composting is going to be an obnoxious process. There could be certain
types of composting suitable in a wide range of zones. As they get into the
development of the standards, staff can have direction to condition these things.
Right now, staff doesn't have that ability. Staff hopes to identify the types of
materials, and then categorize where they are appropriate. It's another project,
but it's a good project. They also should have composting available for the County
to deal with the waste stream.
Brenner stated she saw a presentation about Seattle's clean green having a
high level of contaminants. Clean green is not as benign as they think. There can
be hazards connected with it.
Fleetwood stated the Agricultural Preservation Committee (APC) had some
concerns about this. He spoke to Henry Bierlink, who reiterated their concern. He
asked if Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber had talked to him about the interim
ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. Bierlink never called her. She spoke with Craig
MacConnell and Kraig Olason, who are on that committee. Composting for farms is
a permitted accessory use. It is not related to this at all. This process will allow
the APC to review the ordinance. The APC might even like it because, right now, all
commercial composting has to be done in the agricultural zone. She is going to try
to also allow it in the heavy impact industrial zone, which would provide an
alternative to using agricultural land.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated the ordinance describes
how and what will be in effect. Right now, there is an emergency moratorium, so
they are not taking in any applications. He will work with Mr. Olason and others to
come up with the best language for the new code.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
Fleetwood asked if there is a likelihood that this won't impact anyone in the
next six months, based on the history of past applications. Middleton stated he
knows of two companies that want to look at doing regional composting. Right
now, the County cannot take their applications for conditional uses. Those are the
two he knows of. He's received numerous phone calls from dairymen and others
who are concerned about composting as a way of handling agricultural nutrients.
The dairy composting is not affected by this ordinance at all.
Fleetwood asked what the two regional composting facilities are interested in
doing. Middleton stated they want to come into the county, bring in all sorts of
material, compost the material, and then sell the compost.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated the interim
control will take effect when the Council lifts the moratorium. Anyone who wants to
apply for a new conditional use permit for commercial composting within the
agricultural zone will have to comply with the interim controls. Those interim
controls appear to have been structured to deal with mushroom composting. Now
they've expanded it to all types of composting, there are some types of composting
that are not a problem. By indicating that the interim controls apply to all types of
commercial composting, they put all types under the same regulations. They are
saying all types of composting are a problem, and should all have to have 1,500 -
foot buffers or 500 buffers if technology and a bio- filter are used. That is an
extraordinary buffer for something that is not a problem. Because these are
conditional uses, anyone who wants to apply for a permit to commercially compost
will have to go through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, the
Hearing Examiner process, and show that the project will not be offensive to the
neighboring property or that the project is conditioned so it will not be offensive.
She proposes that they limit the ordinance just to commercial mushroom
composting, or amend Exhibit A to limit the buffers to mushroom composting, and
indicate that the mushroom composters will have the 1,500 -foot buffers, but not
everyone. Allow the SEPA and Hearing Examiner processes to determine the
appropriate buffer for other composting operations.
She recommends that the Council make that same type of change in the
material sent to the staff and Planning Commission for the permanent ordinance. If
the intent is to not make all composters comply with those extraordinary buffers,
the resolution should state that.
The nuisance language in the permanent proposal being sent to the Planning
Commission would apply to all conditional uses in the county, not just composting
or mushroom composting. In the interim ordinance, the nuisance language would
be adopted just for the composting facilities, which is appropriate.
Benner stated they are structuring the ordinance to deal with odors. There
are certain types of composting operations that have never had odor problems.
Now, they are finding out there are other potential problems besides odors. They
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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
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.
could make the ordinance broader to deal with more than just odors. There are
other types of composting besides mushroom composting that cause odors.
Recomp's attempt to compost solid waste is an example. Until they get this stuff in
place, they are not going to know the potential nuisance composting. She
suggested they address nuisances in general rather than just odors.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the resolution and the
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 zoning
district (AB2002- 1918).
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is comfortable adopting the interim regulation
as it is. If an owner is having problems with these setbacks, it's not unreasonable
to ask the owner to wait for six months so the County can make sure it doesn't get
into the same situation it is in with Recomp. A large -scale operation will affect
someone. The point of this language is to get input on the best place to site these
uses.
Fleetwood asked how the 1,500 -foot setback was chosen.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it came from two directors of air pollution
authorities. They both felt it was needed to offset odors that could come from
composting. Green waste stations will create nuisances also, including traffic and
noise.
Brenner stated that people who live more than 1,500 feet away could be
affected. They can't substitute distance for good technology.
McShane moved to amend Exhibit A, section 2, "20.40.164(2) At a minimum,
mushroom composting facilities will adhere to the 1,500 -foot setback...." That
distance is to try to minimize the mushroom composting impacts. They have
concerns about other types of composting and want to make sure criteria are
established for a variety of those, but he is only worried about mushroom
composting in the short term.
Caskey- Schreiber stated part of the problem is that they don't have the
criteria to differentiate between different types of composting.
Motion to amend carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
Motion to recommend the resolution and the ordinance, both as amended, to
the full Council carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE /TIMBER (AB2002 -209)
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Brenner left the room to avoid an appearance
of fairness issue.)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, stated there are four open space /timber
applications and one open space /open space application. The first application is
from Janet Hrutford for open space /timber designation.
McShane moved to recommended approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olsen stated the next two applications are by Brenner /Morris and Zethraeus
Revocable Trust for open space /timber designation. They are each nearly 20 acres
being taken out of a designated forest classification, which are parcels of land that
are over 20 acres in commercial forest production. These two parcels are smaller
than 20 acres, so they have to be reclassified. The recommendation is for approval
for both.
Nelson asked if the Brenners' would have to pay back taxes on the acre
removed from designation if they ever built a house on the property. Olsen stated
they would have to pay back taxes on that acre.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is a housekeeping item because the property
was divided and reduced to less than 20 acres, and if there is a significant financial
gain for the owners from a tax difference. Olsen stated the forestry designation
would have a better tax break, because it would be a larger operation.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the Brenner /Morris and
Zethraeus Revocable Trust applications.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olsen stated the next application is from Johnston for open space /timber
designation. A timber management plan was not needed for the previous owners.
The property was segregated from the original parcel of land. Because of that, a
new timber management plan is necessary to keep the designation on this new
parcel. The recommendation is for approval.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the Johnston application.
Motion carried unanimously.
Olsen stated the last application is from Weden for open space /open space
designation. The land is almost submersed in water. The owners have opted to put
it in with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife enhancement area. The upland
area to the north was in an open space /agriculture designation, and part of it will
remain so. The recommendation is for approval.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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
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 moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee took a ten - minute break at 3:00 p.m.)
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PROJECT (AB2002 -085)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the social and economic analysis is
part of the watershed management planning process and the environmental impact
statement (EIS). He submitted the economic sectors for inclusion in the socio-
economic analysis of watershed management plan (on file). That element is all
they are talking about today. There are eight suggested sectors. A comment was
made that construction should be separated from the trade and services sector.
Part of the debate in this process is trying to understand the possible
economic impacts of a water resource management policy decision. The list of the
sectors in the handout focus on those industries that may have a direct impact of a
policy decision. He recommends that they not try to focus on direct impacts. The
sectors should also include indirect impacts.
The U.S. Census Bureau suggests a list of economic sectors, which is
included in his handout. Follow this model, which deals with all economic sectors.
He asked for the Council's approval to allow him some discretion in how some of
the sectors may be combined to be simplified, so they don't grow the cost of the
contract while dealing with both direct and indirect economic impacts.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Monsen continued to state that these are the sectors being analyzed through
the Port of Bellingham and Western Washington University's exercises. Those are
the defined sectors that will receive a local level of detail added. It will be
worthwhile for the County to parallel some kind of activity.
Brenner stated she likes this list better, however forestry is not included.
John Sproul, Program Specialist - Watershed, stated that according to the
Center for Economic Business Research's interim director, forestry is not large in
terms of monetary return for the County.
Brenner stated she thought the economic value had to be to anyone, not just
the County government. It would be a hardship to the forestry industry if they
don't allow logging because of watershed concerns. Monsen stated he isn't
suggesting that they not include the forestry industry. Maintain the broad range of
sectors that includes forestry. He is only asking for the Council's approval to allow
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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
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.
him some discretion in how the sectors may be packaged so the contract doesn't
become too expensive while including indirect impacts. Rather than the list of eight
sectors they originally came up with, use the 11 sectors and add forestry for a total
of 12 sectors.
McShane moved to recommend to the full Council to support the inclusion of
both direct and indirect economic sectors in the WRIA 1 analysis of economic
fa cto rs .
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISED LAKE WHATCOM REGULATIONS
(AB2002 -213)
McShane stated they would have an introduction on this item, and then begin
working on it at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting in two
weeks.
Fleetwood stated the Council is trying to put together a comprehensive list of
protections to justify lifting the moratorium. He asked if this draft proposal is that
plan, or a part of it.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated the moratorium ordinance
from December requested that policies be developed for single - family best
management practices for potential pollutant loading. The changes in this proposal
address that request. The moratorium ordinance also requested subdivision best
management practices and standards for stormwater management, roads, and
designs. Within the staff's abilities, they have looked at that issue as well, and the
proposal includes language regarding cluster subdivisions. He can't say if this
proposal fully addresses the intent of the moratorium ordinance. It probably does
not, because of the timeline and staffing levels. A third request of the moratorium
ordinance was to develop a stormwater program for new development to retrofit old
development at a gain of 110 percent. Staff didn't address that request. The last
request of the moratorium ordinance regards the surface water utility. This
proposal doesn't address that request, either. In summary, this proposal would
address the first two points of the moratorium ordinance.
Brenner stated the moratorium ordinance was to come up with standards for
an interim to create a net reduction in loading in the watershed, which would
include some kind of work with retrofitting. The County Executive said the staff
could do it in six months if it is a high priority. She appreciates what they've done,
but is disappointed because that was the one big target.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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.
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated the Title 20 changes addressed these
issues as best they could. This is just one item on a menu of items that are coming
forward. The stormwater special district standards have come out of the
Engineering Division. The other elements will come from the Water Resources
Division. Title 20 doesn't deal with roads. Title 20 doesn't deal with design
standards either, but they tried to come up with something through the cluster
design standards.
Baumgarten stated this proposal has three components that include the
water resource protection overlay district, the stormwater section, and the special
management district related to clearing. These are the three components of Title
20 that are combined here. He and Ms. Pederson would highlight the issues. The
water resource protection overlay district applies to Lake Whatcom and Lake
Samish. The stormwater special districts and the special management areas both
apply to Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, and Drayton Harbor.
In section 20.71.302(5) regarding impervious areas, the Council has the
option to maintain the status quo and not allow expansion or to apply the
impervious surface limitations of 50 percent of the impervious area is being
redeveloped.
Pederson stated the biggest change is to the cluster subdivision regulations.
The code currently just requires cluster subdivisions for land divisions creating five
or more lots. That's the only requirement. It is a long -plat.
Staff added language regarding the purpose of cluster subdivisions, cluster
design standards, and open space reserve tract requirements. Almost all of this
language was pulled out of the Point Roberts overlay district. They don't have
design standards for cluster subdivisions. Ideally, this would be referred to in Title
21, the subdivision ordinance, and the standards would be in Chapter four of the
development standards. In the meantime, staff put together this proposal.
The proposal is to require cluster subdivisions for all land divisions in the
watershed. There are requirements for the open space reserve tract and guidelines
on how to design those subdivisions.
Baumgarten stated section 20.80.630 is regarding stormwater. The biggest
change to the stormwater section is that they would defer to the new stormwater
special district standards that are in the process of being adopted.
They redefined small developments versus large developments. Generally
speaking, the Engineering Division hasn't reviewed small development. Large
development has. If a project exceeds 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces,
it would be a large enough project to be required engineering review.
Brenner stated she would like to lower that square footage threshold to
something like 3,000 square feet.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, 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
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.
Rich Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated this ordinance
would apply to all of Whatcom County, not just the overlay protection areas. A
house that has 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces is very big, but a five -
acre parcel with a driveway will reach that threshold easily. Staff will look at those
requests, but generally let them go if there is very little impact on a large parcel.
The Engineering staff is concern about small lots in a tight group of homes. If there
is 10,000 square feet of impervious area, the potential exists to cause damage to a
neighbor. Historically, the Engineering Division doesn't look at those things, but it's
something they should look at now.
Brenner stated she understood that this ordinance was for the three special
districts, not countywide. She asked if there is a way to do this so they are more
restrictive in the watershed, and it doesn't apply countywide. Duane stated there is
a way to do that. They've adopted the special district standards in the overlay
protection districts. They are more restrictive.
Brenner stated she would like to reduce the impervious surface threshold in
those districts to 3,000 square feet instead of 10,000 square feet. Baumgarten
stated they've already reduced it to 500 square feet for those areas. Anything over
that will be reviewed.
Brenner asked why they included the 10,000 square foot threshold. Duane
stated the Engineering Division made this recommendation. Even though it doesn't
apply to the watershed, there are instances where 10,000 square feet can impact a
neighbor and can cause damage.
Brenner asked if this requirement only triggers a review. Duane stated that
is correct. They will look at a preliminary stormwater proposal.
Brenner stated that Hal Hart was supportive of the concept that if people
want to have a private engineer okay a plan, the County would allow it. She agrees
with a higher level of oversight by the County for development inside the
watershed. Outside the watershed, she wanted to allow people to have review
done by a private engineer. Duane stated a building permit may come in with a
private engineering review, which will allow for a decreased review time by the
County. A person has the option of getting a professional engineer to design a
special system if he or she chooses not to comply with the cookbook stormwater
special district standards the County developed.
Baumgarten stated the rest of the stormwater chapter deals with the special
district. It removes language that was in Title 20 regarding when they do a review.
That is all contained within the stormwater special district standards. The changes
here make those two documents agree.
Section 20.80.730 is regarding land clearing. A lot of the changes here were
to reorganize the information for clarity. Staff removed the cumbersome thresholds
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 14
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.
that were not getting the review that was intended. The process was streamlined a
bit.
Pederson stated a number of thresholds were very complicated and very
different. The thresholds were streamlined, narrowed, and made easier to
administer. There are only three thresholds left instead of the original ten. They
still get the same amount of review; it's just easier to get through the code.
Baumgarten stated they removed all the language regarding slopes and
percentages, without losing any protection.
Section 20.80.735(2) is the seasonal limitation on clearing. It tries to get at
adequate sediment erosion control. There is stronger language about phased
clearing and soil stabilization.
Pederson stated language regarding tree retention was pulled from the Point
Roberts overlay district. There was some discussion about vegetation and tree
retention, so staff decided to include language.
The remainder of the amendments is for administrative clarification and a
code scrub.
McShane stated that at the next meeting, he would like to talk about an
impervious surface issue in section 20.71.300(7), and why the alternative surfacing
options listed are acceptable. They are partially impervious, but the
imperviousness will increase over time. They will not be nearly as good as
undisturbed forest.
Duane stated a 110 percent reduction in pollutant loading is tough to get
with a structural best management practice (BMP). Only through the enactment of
other BMP's, such as education and zoning, they will achieve the 110 percent
reduction. Retrofitting is not really a standard. That is more of an ordinance
enacting some kind of requirement.
Brenner stated they've heard that they can get the 110 percent net reduction
without zoning changes. It can be done through design regulations. Duane stated
that a standard couldn't require someone to go somewhere else to build a retrofit.
That would be required through an ordinance, not a physical development standard.
They can get 110 percent load reduction overall for the watershed through a bunch
of actions, such as rezoning, education, and many other things. Those other things
put together could achieve an overall 110 percent reduction.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/21/2002, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 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, 5/21/2002, Page 16