HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 12 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
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
March 12, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, submitted proposed changes
(on file) regarding housekeeping items that needed to be done. The committee left
off discussion no protest agreements. The first housekeeping item is to change the
well location setbacks to roads and easements everywhere. A motion was made
and approved to change the well location setbacks to roads and easements to 50
feet. However, the committee only did that in the one section dealing with private
wells. He proposes to make that identical change throughout the ordinance, except
in the sections dealing with spring sources. They want to stay 200 feet away from
those sources.
Brenner moved to reduce the setback area to 50 feet in every section except
the sections regarding spring sources.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested an amendment to Council packet page 144 to strike
definition (28) for a "Two Party Water Supply" and replace it with new language per
his memo dated March 12, 2002, ' "'Non Group B Two Party Well or Water Supply"
means a water system using one well to serve two single family residences for
which the director has waived all public water supply development and monitoring
standards found in WAC 246- 291 - 030." Insert the new definition in the correct
alphabetical order in the definitions section.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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.
Brenner moved to eliminate definition (28) for a "Two Party Water Supply"
and replace it with new language per his memo dated March 12, 2002, " "Non Group
B Two Party Well or Water Supply" means a water system using one well to serve
two single family residences for which the director has waived all public water
supply development and monitoring standards found in WAC 246- 291 - 030." Insert
the new definition in the correct alphabetical order in the definitions section.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested amending the section titles in all sections necessary,
Determining Adequacy of Water Supply for Building
Permit Applications Proposing to Use an Existing Public Water System."
Regina Delahunt, Interim Health and Human Services Director, stated
someone had an issue with the title being misleading. People would think this is all
they had to do for a building permit. The language reads better as amended.
Brenner moved to amend the section titles in all sections necessary,
Determining Adequacy of Water Supply for Building
Permit Applications Proposing to Use an Existing Public Water System."
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested adding a new section (2)(e)(i) to Council packet page 148,
"(i) Building or building overhang, 5 feet." Renumber the existing items in
subsection (2)(e) and make the same change in language in all other appropriate
sections.
Brenner moved to adding a new section (2)(e)(i) to Council packet page 148,
"(i) Building or building overhang, 5 feet." Renumber the existing items in
subsection (2)(e) and make the same change in language in all other appropriate
sections.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested amending language on Council packet page 160, section
(3), "...submit a completed Water Availability Notification Private - 1 Home Well
Subdivision Water Availability Form...." This is in the platting section. Since they
began writing the ordinance, the department wants to change the way it does
business. Instead of calling it a one home well form, they want to use one form for
all subdivisions called a subdivision water availability form. The process to go
through to get a subdivision improved is slightly different than what one has to go
through to get a building permit. If they use the same form for both, they get
confused. It's less onerous, and will remove confusion.
Brenner moved to amend language on Council packet page 160, section (3),
"...submit a completed Water Availability Notification Private - 1 Home Well
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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.
Subdivision Water Availability Form..." and on Council packet page 164, section (4),
"submit a completed Water Availability Notification Non -Group 8 - 2 Home Well
Subdivision Water Availability Form...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek stated that if the committee wants a 200 -foot setback from sewage
and manure lagoons, then they need to amend all the language to incorporate
those changes and setbacks to roads and easements. Right now, it says that if
someone has enough clay, he or she can get within 50 feet of a road or easement
as long as the person is 100 feet away from a manure or sewage lagoon. He needs
to change the language throughout the ordinance.
Brenner stated sewage and manure lagoons setbacks should be 200 feet, not
100 feet. She asked if there is a process for the owner to apply for a variance if
there are site constraints. Chudek stated it is possible. There is a variance
procedure.
Delahunt stated the owner would have to show mitigation to get a variance.
Brenner moved to amend language from 100 feet to 200 feet from sewage
and manure lagoons everywhere in the ordinance that references a water source
setback. Incorporate change in roads and setbacks.
Crawford asked if there are many sewage and manure lagoons out there.
Delahunt stated there are not a lot of sewage lagoons, but there are many manure
lagoons.
Chudek stated there are over 200 active dairies.
Brenner stated most manure lagoons are in agricultural lands. She couldn't
imagine a farmer putting a house closer than 200 feet to a manure lagoon.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested amending language on Council packet page 149, section
(h), ...for an approved water reservoir large enough...."
Brenner moved to amend language on Council packet page 149, section (h),
for an approved water reservoir large enough...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Chudek suggested correcting a numbering error on Council packet page 162.
Subsection (h)(i)(A) should be (h)(ii), and subsection (h)(i)(B) should be (h)(iii).
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 3
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 Brenner stated numbering errors do not need a motion for approval.
2
3 Chudek suggested adding language to section (h) on Council packet page
4 162, "(iv) The director may require the applicant to provide the results of four hour
5 pump tests that the applicant conducted simultaneously for all wells spaced less
6 than 50 feet apart."
7
8 Brenner moved to add language to section (h) on Council packet page 162,
9 "(iv) The director may require the applicant to provide the results of four hour
10 pump tests that the applicant conducted simultaneously for all wells spaced less
11 than 50 feet apart."
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Chudek suggested amending language on Council packet page 150, section
16 (k)(i), "...meeting the requirements of ` "'AC 246 Whatcom County Health and
17 Human Services Water Availability Approval for a Contaminated Well Source (as
18 amended) or, Whatcom County Health and Human Services Water Availability for a
19 Private Surface Water Source (as amended) to reduce the levels...." The
20 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) cited is the rule for group A water systems,
21 which are things like the City of Bellingham water system. There are some fairly
22 onerous requirements there, which the department would never require of anyone.
23 The department really wants someone to do the same thing it's required for the
24 past ten years, which is to use the process outlined in the documents referenced.
25 Those are the two documents he currently uses to figure out what the treatment
26 systems should look like.
27
28 Brenner moved to amend language on Council packet page 150, section
29 (k)(i), "...meeting the requirements of WAG 246 Whatcom County Health and
30 Human Services Water Availability Approval for a Contaminated Well Source (as
31 amended) or, Whatcom County Health and Human Services Water Availability for a
32 Private Surface Water Source (as amended) to reduce the levels...."
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Brenner moved to eliminate all references to the no- protest agreement
37 requirement, wherever they appear in the ordinance. If someone can maintain his
38 or her treatment system, the person shouldn't have to do this. If a person doesn't
39 maintain his or her treatment system, the person should be required to maintain
40 the system. If someone is maintaining his or her system properly, then showing
41 the water test results can prove it. That would exempt a person from having to
42 hook up. If the person can't prove maintenance or water quality, then he or she
43 can be forced to hook up to a public system at that time because the water doesn't
44 meet water quality standards.
45
46 Chudek stated these are siting requirements. They don't have the
47 enforcement capacity.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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.
Brenner stated that a person with a good treatment system, who has spent a
lot of money, and has water that meets standards shouldn't have to pay again. If a
person is not maintaining his or her system, it will come to light eventually.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many people are in this situation. Chudek
stated 87 people are in this situation. There are about 50 people around Lake
Samish. There are more around Lake Whatcom, and then there are a few in other
areas in the county. That totals 87 people in the last ten years. Since December
15, 2000, there haven't been new lots created with a contaminated water supply as
a private source. This applies to legal lots of record prior to December 15, 2000.
Crawford asked how a signed no- protest agreement is enforced legally.
Delahunt stated the utility local improvement district (ULID) would assess the
property owner.
Crawford asked what happens if the property owner can't afford to pay the
assessment.
Brenner stated the property is foreclosed.
Chudek stated the applicants in this situation knew when they applied and
got approval that they were signing a no- protest agreement, and they were
agreeing to hook to a public supply. That's a different situation than a developer
putting in a utility line past someone's house, and then assessing that homeowner
for the road frontage. That's not fair, but it goes on all the time. In this situation,
the property owners knew in advance what was coming.
Brenner stated they knew in advance, but if they didn't sign the agreement,
they wouldn't have been allowed to build. They were forced to sign under duress.
That isn't right. Some of the districts are charging frontage and a hook up fee,
without giving an owner a choice. The Council can disallow a district to do that. A
district could charge a latecomer fee instead. They should have done that with
Birch Bay. The County is getting people foreclosed.
Crawford stated he liked the idea of a latecomer fee. The person who
benefits should pay the bill. He asked about the public health perspective. Chudek
stated private treatment systems are not very reliable. In fact, even small public
water supplies, with a lot of treatment, struggle to meet the minimum
requirements. The Health Department doesn't consider them to be reliable sources
over the long haul.
Delahunt stated these treatment systems aren't designed to treat for
everything. Many of them are on surface water supplies like Lake Samish. They
treat for coliform.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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 a private homeowner accepts the hazard, and he is
uncomfortable not letting the homeowner control when he or she hooks up and
pays.
Brenner stated they are not accepting a hazard if they maintain their system
to meet the minimum contaminant level (MCL), just like a public water supply.
Chudek stated a public water supply is required to sample on a continuous basis,
and make adjustments to the treatment based on the sampling results. The private
water supply is tested one time, and that's it. If anything changes around the
private water supply, the property owner will never know.
Brenner stated the County could require private water supply testing every
three years. Also, add disclosure during a real estate transaction that a system
could fail at any time. Don't force someone to spend money twice if he or she has
been good at maintaining the system.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't want a homeowner's choice to not
partake in a water system to cause an additional cost to the County. The
department should say that it is recommended that a water source be tested every
three years, instead of making it a requirement. Chudek stated private water
source owners have to submit maintenance and operations agreements that have
to be submitted to the Health and Human Services Department. Those agreements
include sampling regimes and schedules that the owner has to follow. To get a
building permit, an owner has to: 1. have a water system designed, 2. have a
water system installed, and 3. provide copies of a maintenance and operations
agreement. All of the people at Lake Samish who have signed the no- protest
agreement have gone through that process. He doesn't know whether any of them
follow their maintenance agreements. It is clearly their responsibility to maintain
that system.
Brenner restated her motion to eliminate the no- protest agreement language
in the ordinance. Instead, require disclosure on the real estate document.
Whatever requirements exist now for the maintenance of a contaminated system
would stay the same. It's between the buyer and seller.
Chudek stated it would be easier to require that documents be recorded.
Disclosure would then happen at closure. He has a list of documents that an owner
can record. This would be an amendment to the ordinance. He suggested
amended language.
Brenner amended her motion. Strike language in section (k)(ii) and replace
it with:
(ii) Signed and recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor's Office the
following documents:
(A) A document stating which State Department of Health Maximum
Contaminate Level (MCL) the untreated source water exceeded.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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.
(B) A document stating that the applicant has had a water
treatment system designed that meets Whatcom County Health
and Human Services Water Availability Approval for a
Contaminated Well Source (as amended) or Whatcom County
Health and Human Services Water Availability Approval for a
Surface Water Source (as amended), and secures a potable
water supply for the building.
(C) A document stating that the applicant has installed a treatment
system according to the design reviewed by the director and
treated water sample results that verify system performance.
(D) A document stating that the applicant agrees to adhere to the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan for the designed
treatment system.
(E) A document stating that the applicant understands that the
obligation to comply with treatment system design, installation,
operation, and monitoring lies with the applicant and not
Whatcom County (hold harmless agreement)."
Brenner asked if this would go on the deed. Chudek stated it would. The
buyer would get the information at the time of the purchase.
Brenner stated that her motion includes requiring that this information be
recorded with the deed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to make the same language change everywhere the no-
protest language appears in the ordinance.
The committee concurred.
Brenner moved to recommend a public hearing on the ordinance as
amended.
Delahunt stated staff would like to make the recommended changes to the
document, and submit it to the full Council for the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated he received a note from the Building Industry Association of
Whatcom County (BIA).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford read the letter into the record, which states that the dialogue
between the BIA and the Health Department has not resulted in a satisfactory
resolution of several key issues. Also, there has not been a satisfactory venue to
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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.
discuss these issues. The BIA noted that it seems the Health Department has not
found a proper forum to review the ordinance as it related to planning, public
works, and development regulation issues. The BIA asked that the ordinance be
sent to the Technical Advisory Committee for its recommendations.
Brenner stated she talked to the BIA representative during the previous
committee meeting. The representative said the committee addressed all the
concerns that the BIA had. There was a concern about the no- protest agreement.
She has no problem running it through the Technical Advisory Committee if it is a
priority and it gets done quickly. She moved to request that the Technical Advisory
Committee put it at the top of their agenda for their next meeting, and that it
comes back for a hearing within a month.
Delahunt stated that the BIA thinks it's more of a development and planning
regulation than a health regulation. They want it to go through the Planning
Department. That would delay the ordinance significantly.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning Department is totally bogged down.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Delahunt stated there is going to be a public hearing. The BIA can voice its
concerns at that hearing.
Crawford stated the key issue is the lack of input the BIA had with the Health
Department. He asked what the key issues are.
Brenner stated she spoke to several BIA representatives. She incorporated
their concerns into the ordinance. Those representatives told her that all of the
concerns have been addressed.
Crawford stated the letter was written after the previous committee meeting.
Chudek stated the BIA needs to be specific. He can't deal with generalities
like that. If the BIA doesn't like what the department has been doing for the last
ten or twelve years, then it needs to come forward and specifically say what they
don't like. They've had plenty of opportunities to do that, and have chosen not to
do it all, with the exception of one time when he went to the BIA office and
collected comments. He incorporated those comments.
Delahunt stated the Health and Human Services Department invited the BIA
to many meetings, and it didn't come.
Brenner stated that if the BIA has concerns, it could bring them up at the
hearing.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, 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
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 suggested that the County make an effort to make sure the BIA
gets a copy of the rewritten ordinance. Delahunt stated staff would contact them in
the meantime to see what their concerns are.
Brenner stated she already talked to them. All the issues brought up to her
were addressed.
Crawford stated he doesn't know about any of their issues, other than the
problem with the no- protest agreement. The committee already took care of that.
Councilmember Brenner did a great job on the ordinance.
Brenner moved to recommend the amended version of the ordinance to the
full Council for a public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 3/12/2002, Page 9