HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 23 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
January 23, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Member Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Sam Crawford
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2001 -023)
Crawford nominated McShane.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.80.730, LAND CLEARING AND
20.97, DEFINITIONS (AB2000 -391) (HEARING ON THIS ITEM WAS
CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9 TO THIS EVENING'S COUNCIL
MEETING)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is a follow up from the January 9
discussion. He submitted a compiled version of all the changes. This version
incorporates language adopted through the ordinance in 1999 and the changes that
have come through this long process they've been discussing and the land clearing
moratorium efforts. Before the committee is the culmination of everything that
should be in the ordinance.
McShane stated the substantial changes that needed to be made are done.
There are some minor edits to make. The committee may want to have a
discussion regarding threshold review. Councilmember Nelson raised this issue.
Councilmember Hoag had some small changes to make also.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Hoag asked to take care of the minor changes first. She moved to amend
section 20.80.730(1), "...review criteria for land clearing in connection with
conversion...." That is what this section is all about. It's about land clearing in
connection with conversion option harvest plans.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Hoag stated section 20.80.730(4) should say "have" instead of "has" at the
beginning of line three. She so moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.730(5)(c) at the end, "...WCC
20.80.730(5)(ed)(i- iii)."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend a typo on packet page 101, section
20.80.730(7)(a)(ii)(C), "All development n9eFateFiuFn moratoria imposed...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.80.730(7)(b), "...Hearing Examiner when
all of the requirements..."
Crawford stated language from the previous amendment should be, °(C) A+4
development moratorium..." They are talking about a specific moratorium.
The committee concurred.
Crawford stated the language from this proposed amendment should be the
same, "Any development moratorium... ". He so moved.
Crawford's motion carried unanimously.
Hoag's earlier motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked for input from staff regarding the issue that was raised about
a forest conversion land clearing threshold. The concern is that there are a variety
of thresholds. They seem confusing. The concern is that, from the public's
perspective, it would be confusing. On a larger scale, staff could be confused.
There may be confusion regarding water resources special management resource
areas.
Olason stated there are two ways to look at it. As it relates to this proposal,
if it is changed, the public notification regarding SEPA didn't recognize any changes.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
At this time, since they've had the hearings, SEPA review, and additional review
from DNR, this package has not been intended to address this issue. They don't
want to modify this today because it would start the process all over. Part of the
issue with Lake Whatcom is that it is a contained basin. It's different than the
Nooksack River, which has an area of much large lot zoning, so it is not intensively
developed. Areas in cities have other control mechanisms for clearing. The
Drayton Harbor watershed is different also because it's a shellfish protection
district. They are not drinking the water. They are concerned about the near shore
impacts and general agricultural impacts. The reason the different areas are
special is because they are different. The Nooksack drainage basin and the Lake
Whatcom watershed are different land forms and have different land uses within a
different watershed area. If they start to generalize, it might lose some of the
effectiveness. Regarding this proposal, if they want to review it, then take it as a
separate action to figure out why it really is troubling. They were trying to
specialize those kinds of additional review to those areas that are the most
sensitive. Some of the areas within the other watersheds aren't sensitive. If they
want to review it again, then docket it for a different action.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that anytime there is a question
of legislative intent, they look at the legislative history. If there are any questions
about this, he could probably answer them. He has been involved since the first
clearing ordinance. The first ordinance was so encompassing that a landowner
needed a permit to rototill a yard. There was no threshold. That was the problem.
They needed to figure out where it was really important, how much clearing is
incidental to a building permit, and when they need to start looking into it. The
development standards for most of the areas of the county still have to be met
even though there isn't a permit. They still have to do erosion control.
McShane asked if setting up different thresholds for different areas is
problematic. Middleton stated at times it is, but not enough to create new
legislation.
McShane asked if it would be problematic if they came up with two additional
water resource special management districts in addition to the ones they have.
Middleton stated that if he can't identify it on a map, it becomes a problem. If the
review requires a specialist for everything that comes in the door, that is when the
administration starts to slow down.
McShane questioned whether avoiding a detailed review as much as possible
is advantageous for staff. Middleton stated it is. He wants to look at small
percentage of the real problems, not look at everything to catch the one or two
percent that are problems.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they are looking at, in the
future, eliminating this section of the code entirely and combining land clearing and
erosion control with stormwater, critical areas, shorelines, and Endangered Species
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, Page 3
1 Act (ESA) regulations. She realizes that it is getting complicated with the special
2 districts. It will get more complicated with the ESA and state update of critical
3 areas. Any bandaid should be done with a separate action. This deals with how
4 they treat forest conversions within these categories they already have. The
5 special water resource special districts have already been created, and this doesn't
6 modify that much, other than by clarifying how they treat land clearing for timber
7 within those areas. Further work needs to be done. She would like a simpler
8 system, but it is not the best time now.
9
10 Hoag stated the thresholds are excellent.
11
12 McShane stated there is no concern with the thresholds. The concern was for
13 the many different areas.
14
15 McShane moved to recommend approval as amended.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Nelson stated he was somewhat mollified by the staff's position, but was still
20 hesitant that this will be looked at again. His concern was that the different
21 management areas have different criteria, which is difficult for staff and the public.
22 It is not tied to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) yet. There are two things the
23 public has to look at. They are creating more and more layers of regulation. If this
24 is temporary, he approved. Goodwin stated it might be a year and a half before
25 they look at this again.
26
27 Nelson stated this is the beginning of a nightmare as more areas become
28 critical. He recognizes that Lake Whatcom has the press's eye. When they adopt
29 laws that are limited is scope and size, they are treating certain classes of citizens
30 differently than others, and are also creating problems in other areas that might
31 eventually become impacted. Middleton stated this section of the code is five
32 trillion times better than what they had before. It is much easier for staff to
33 administer and to explain to the public. He agreed with Councilmember Nelson
34 regarding the multitude of regulations. In addition to the CAO and land clearing,
35 there are now zoning thresholds for impervious surfaces and development
36 standards from two or three jurisdictions within Whatcom County. From whichever
37 way they go with critical areas and shorelines, they have to pull all the regulations
38 together into one environmental code. That is the only way for the public and staff
39 to understand. Right now, staff has to take each section and put them together for
40 the right answer for development. They are handling the clearing permit now, but
41 he agreed it is layer after layer of regulation.
42
43 Nelson questioned what happens to a person who clears over 5,000 square
44 feet on a slope in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
45
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Hoag stated that if it is more than 5,000 square feet, it automatically gets
reviewed, regardless of slope.
Middleton stated a clearing permit will be required. They have folded that in
with the building official into one review so the staff does not expand on the review,
and instead takes care of it all at once.
Nelson questioned what happens to a person who clears 2,500 square feet,
who is not within 200 feet of the lake, but who is near a creek. Middleton stated
they would have to see how close to the creek the person is, and determine if he or
she is within the CAO.
Nelson stated they are going to spend time on each and every property.
Middleton agreed. The Land Use Division did nearly 6,000 reviews last year.
Goodwin stated that is why the Council funded an additional .5 employee just
to deal with the Lake Whatcom watershed. They have a staff person at the counter
who meets everyone developing in the watershed and helps them go through all of
these issues.
McShane stated the committee wants to get this done. Councilmembers
need to think about whether they want to reopen the issue of amending this code.
Goodwin stated the Council would docket it as a suggested amendment for June.
Nelson stated there could be a better way to do this to help the public
understand what they are trying to do. They want people to do things honestly and
feel like they are going to be treated fairly. People in the rural areas begin to feel
like they are getting stepped on and have to do all the protection for the
development that occurs in the urban areas, which creates 80 percent of the
problems. He understood that land clearing can have impacts upon the watershed,
but there are fewer impacts that occur from other things such as traffic and
fertilizers. Those are the same issues that occur whether on the Nooksack River,
Lake Samish, or other water bodies in the county. They are creating a morass of
problems in the future if they continue to do this process because of special
management districts. They need to find one way to do it. Middleton stated he
asked what the Council would look for from land use in the future. He told the
Council previously that he would ask for a new process for the new changes in the
code. They can do well with the codes they have now. The changes that were put
forward helped a tremendous amount. He didn't ask for more staff because he
didn't know what they would end up with. Resources will be needed to accomplish
the task of reducing the code.
Hoag didn't agree that this ordinance should be temporary. Coordinating
with other codes is a good idea. She didn't agree with making a one - size - fits -all
code that ends up not adequately protecting one spot while having excessive
regulation for other areas. It makes more sense to have a specific problem
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
addressed with a specific solution rather than trying to impose something
countywide. This language was adopted last year when Councilmember Nelson was
on the Council. It seems odd that he objects now. When the issue was in front of
them, they had the benefit of all discussion from everyone that was interested in it.
Now, it's being addressed by one party with one view.
McShane stated there is a misunderstanding of where Councilmember Nelson
is coming from. It is a valid concern. The question is for future consideration.
Hoag stated there are no findings for this option. She asked staff to look at
the findings to make sure they are appropriate. Olason stated the original packet
included findings for option one, which this is. They are on packet page 131
through 134. They were included with the original packet. The findings will be
pulled from the findings on those pages.
Hoag asked for staff review to make sure that the findings are still
appropriate.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO REVISE THE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS
ZONING DISTRICTS (AB2000 -251B)
McShane stated the committee already started this, and got to section
20.97.087(6). The changes in numbers one through five are not included in the
packet. Instead of going over those, they would start at subsection (6).
Crawford read a statement into the record.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford continued to read his statement into the record. He has not
experienced a large number of people endorsing this concept. Many are describing
serious reservations about the wisdom of these regulations. Violators are an
enforcement issue, not a regulatory issue. If the issue is protecting agricultural
land from conversion to commercial or other industrial use, then they need to
proceed cautiously in promoting economic opportunities for the agricultural
landowners. Allow them the freedom to develop cottage businesses as they see fit
with minimal regulatory oversight. He would abstain from any further committee
votes as they are proceeding. He would vote against any changes in future
regulations unless a future proposal incorporates significant opportunities for
regulatory relief for hardworking entrepreneurial families.
Hoag stated there has been a misperception of what these regulations do and
don't do. It's not a matter of being stricter. Some things are more lenient. They
are trying to make things more flexible in some areas and trying to eliminate
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
conflicts in others. Rather than attack the ordinance as a whole, stick to particular
issues. There are a couple of specific things that this ordinance doesn't address.
She wondered if there was some language the Council could add that would define
home occupations in the health code as an occupation and not a business. Address
the number of employees that are there and the individual situation. Address
legitimate problems without subjecting people to unreasonable regulation.
Someone had asked if they could have a separate work session on this or have a
committee that would deal with this. She didn't support that. Otherwise, they
would end up with a whole new version. It is a good idea to have a separate work
session. Look at issues such as a boarding stable in an agricultural area, noise and
glare not being detectable off the lot, and other issues. The people she's talked to
support it. Those who've opposed did not understand what the Council is trying to
do.
Brenner stated she would like to make changes and hoped Crawford would
keep an open mind. The ordinance used to say that home occupations are in the
home or in a separate building if there is enough property. This ordinance forces
people into cottage industry regulations. One complaint was about the fiberglass
manufacturer. Part of the problem was that there are no regulations that could
deal with that. The neighbor couldn't get the Northwest Air Pollution Authority
(NWAPA) enforcement there in enough time. Neighbors should not be made sick.
She proposed more flexibility with home occupations.
Crawford stated his statement was that he hadn't experienced large numbers
of people endorsing the ordinance. Also, he would vote for regulatory relief.
Dawson stated there was a concern about a business on Everson Road. The
employees are more than two people. The number of cars is large, but it just
occurs during the Halloween season. She couldn't see where it would fit in the
regulation. She'd never heard any complaints about the place. The question is
how to define a reasonable impact off the lot.
Hoag stated the nuisance law says it should not affect the reasonable use or
the enjoyment of a person's property. That's why she suggested it.
Nelson suggested they keep in mind that many of the homes in rural areas
have a home business in a garage or barn. Many businesses have home
occupations that are startup businesses in a variety of forms. They need to protect
that nurturing ground. People have home businesses in the city as well. It is not a
new concept. Keep in mind that there is more impact in rural areas, which are
noisy. Rural areas are not peaceful and tranquil.
Hoag questioned whether a farm selling craft goods would violate the code
by doing that. Goodwin stated they are not violating the code. There is a provision
to allow selling agricultural products as an accessory use to farms.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Hoag asked about a craft show. Goodwin stated it might have to be a
cottage industry.
Hoag questioned whether it would have to be a cottage industry even if the
crafts are sold along with the agricultural processes. Middleton stated it's not a
problem under his watch. His job is to interpret the code. They interpret the one-
time seasonal events to be an accessory use. That is not an issue. The issue is
that, under the current code, what is legally allowed is what people are complaining
about, such as an espresso stand in an agricultural zone. He is spending overtime
money doing enforcement work to catch noise and odor violations. He has to prove
the violation by firsthand experience. For him, this is a winning situation no matter
what they do because the Council is going to decide what home occupations and
cottage industries are going to be. If his staff gets raked over the coals on what
they've approved, the staff can say it was the Council's decision.
Hoag asked if occupations are allowed in barns and garages. Goodwin stated
a home occupation has to be in the dwelling unit. Cottage industry can't be in the
house. It has to be in a separate structure.
Middleton stated a home occupation doesn't allow an employee on the site.
That means the businessperson can't have a bookkeeper show up on site. That
doesn't work with home occupations. One or two employees coming and going fits
within the realm of a single - family residence. Staff is pushing to allow that.
Hoag stated the rural noise does not occur 24 hours per day. Typically, the
rural areas are at about 30 decibels. Towns and cities are at 50 decibels.
Industrial areas are at 70 decibels.
McShane stated two issues were raised that he wanted to address. He
encouraged Mr. Crawford to participate. They are opening things up to a degree.
Councilmember Crawford's viewpoint is critical in crafting good language.
Otherwise, there would be many one -to -one votes and the committee won't get
anywhere.
He spoke about individuals who testified who had a specific business and
were worried. As the committee goes through this, it is critical to come up with
reasonable language. Think about those individuals to decide if their's is a business
that the Council would want to see anywhere in the county. Craft language that
would incorporate that business so as not to be harmed by the ordinance, or craft
language that would prevent that sort of business from being brought in. Business
people contacted him and he made notes on whether someone like them could or
could not start a business like theirs. They may not want to stop certain types of
business development, and they may need to stop other types of businesses.
The committee is not going to get through this today. The committee left off
at section 20.7.087(6). He suggested that they break out the language on noise
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
and fumes, "6) Noise levels exceeding 50 decibels at the property boundary on a
time - weighted average for a period of greater than 15 minutes between the times
of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. At other times, noise at the property boundary should
not exceed 45 decibels."
Middleton stated the ambient noise level is 52 decibels in the rural areas. If
they are going to go to a specific definition of noise, they need to specify whether
they are class A or class B standards. If staff is going to cite someone, the staff
has to go to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and cite two different
criteria.
McShane stated he was talking about a class A weighted decibel scale.
Middleton stated it has been tough. They have cited only one person, but
have quieted a few by using the noise meter. People have spent thousands of
dollars to avoid a permanent citation. The freeway noise can be up to 60 decibels.
Hoag stated that if they set a specific decibel level, then they have to
measure the level to prove a violation. The suggestion was to say, "which creates
nuisances." It refers back to the nuisance ordinances she described. It
distinguishes between what is a problem and what is not a problem.
McShane stated he was concerned about that suggestion.
Nelson questioned what the standards are in the current WAC. Middleton
stated it specifies the noise level at the property line for the sending use and the
receiving use. Noise from a residential lot to a residential lot is allowed differently
than noise from an industrial lot to an industrial lot.
Nelson asked if it would be better for administrative purposes if they
reference the WAC's. Middleton stated it would. His concern was that there are
different levels. There is the overall direction from the Council, from planners, and
from Land Use Division staff. They have the reasonable standard anyway. The
difficult issues are subjective. The more they take the subjectiveness out, the
better they are.
Hoag stated the agricultural zone is allowed industrial levels of noise. If they
use a noise standard for cottage industry, they are allowing industrial uses that
would be a terrible impact on a neighbor in an area that is typically quiet. They
should not reference the WAC. Her suggestion on the nuisance is that it kicks it
over to interfering with a person's reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her
property. Middleton stated that as they change the codes, make sure they aren't
closing up the entire agricultural zone to take care of the industrial uses.
Hoag stated the farmers have that protection.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
McShane suggested specifying the WAC, but agricultural areas should
continue to be allowed to make agricultural noise levels for agricultural uses. He
asked if that was something Middleton could use. Middleton stated that if they are
concerned about a use, tell him what it is and the level so he can enforce it.
Nelson suggested having staff look at it, knowing the legislative intent. Staff
is going to have to administer the regulations.
McShane stated there are two things to look at. One is the original staff
report, which they are looking at now. It makes the references to being detectable
at the property line.
Goodwin stated the staff suggestion was to use the Planning Commission
version, which goes back to the WAC and NWAPA. At this point, that motion was
withdrawn. She suggested going back to the WAC and specifying it for the
residential or rural receiving area. The WAC has different decibel levels in the
different zones, but they could treat it as a residential area. None of this applies to
agricultural uses.
McShane stated the sending source would only be created by the cottage
industry.
Middleton stated the WAC is already a standard in Title 20. If the Council
wants to tighten it up, then start from the WAC's.
McShane stated the WAC refers to hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
He asked how that applies to the middle of the day. Ultimately, he was concerned
about someone who is running a large band saw all the time, for example. He
didn't have any problem with occasional sounds.
Brenner suggested using either the WAC or the ambient level, but not allow
any noise that exceeds whichever is higher. Middleton stated the code already
does that.
Hoag stated it is an enforcement nightmare. The staff would have to run
around with meters and establish pre- existing conditions. After a business makes
an investment and establishes its business, the investment would be lost if they
exceed what was pre- existing and they can't control the noise.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hoag stated the point is to make cottage industry allowable without negative
impact to neighbors. The WAC is already there and NWAPA is already there, and
they still have complaints. The solution is not to point back to the WAC, but to put
something in the code that refers to it being a problem when the neighbors are
bothered. The only wording that does that is nuisance.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Dawson asked what was objectionable about that.
Middleton stated that is not objectionable. When he goes before a judge, he
has to prove a nuisance to the judge already. Anything to prove a nuisance would
be helpful.
Hoag suggested defining a nuisance as it is defined in the WAC. Then the
regulation only refers to the interference of a person's reasonable use and
enjoyment of his or her property.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.97.087(6) "...which creates nuisance noise
(as defined in WAC xxx), vibration..."
Nelson stated he would want to see the WAC definition. A person moving
into an area might complain about a business that has existed for 20 years without
complaints.
Hoag stated a nuisance WAC does not refer to decibels. It refers to
interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of one's property. The person
who moved in would have to prove that that the business interfered with the
reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her property. She read from the NWAPA
regulations, which are based on the WAC.
Nelson questioned what Mr. Middleton's action would be. Middleton stated
he would prioritize and investigate the complaint. If the complaint is something
that happened once, then they will talk to the person making the complaint to
determine whether it is an ongoing noise. If it is, he may set up the noise meter
and do a noise calculation. If there is a noise that is in violation of the code, they
will issue a correction level.
Goodwin stated the code has another standard under Disorderly House that
is more objective, and is administered by the sheriff.
Middleton stated that some people have decided to make the extra expense
to reduce noise instead of fighting with the neighbors and the County. If the
business chooses not to come into compliance, he will issue the business a ticket
and they can explain it to the judge why they are not in compliance.
McShane asked if this regulation would apply to pre- existing businesses.
Middleton stated it would. The standard is a standard to comply. They don't shut
down the use, but the use has to be in compliance.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Dick Gilda, Jenson Road, Bellingham, stated they've taken a small problem
and made a big thing out of it. Someone mentioned the receiving area. The
person who complains may be a mile or more down the road and hears the noise
once in a while if the wind is blowing in the right direction. Farmers have a right to
farm. If a person's business has been there, and someone moves in afterwards,
their right should not supercede the right of the business who was there before,
especially if the rest of the neighbors have not complained. Some of the problems
are perceived. What's going to bother one person may not bother another person.
McShane stated the Council is attempting to do exactly what Mr. Gilda is
saying. They don't want to make a big deal out of things unintentionally. Also,
they don't want to ignore problems.
Gilda suggested using the WAC, but measure the noise at the receiving end.
Brenner stated what she was talking about would cover any business that
would go in. No business can go in and immediately violate the WAC. What she
asked about was not about hurting a business that comes in because they still have
to obey the WAC. There are ambient noise levels and WAC noise levels. If there is
an ambient noise that is above the WAC level, there is nothing they can do about it.
If someone is not above the ambient level, it shouldn't be a problem. The person
already accepted the ambient noise level by moving to the area. Middleton stated
that if the ambient noise level is above the WAC level, that is what the meter is
going to read. He is not going to enforce anything other than what's on the meter.
Brenner stated a property owner shouldn't have to put up with any level
higher than what the WAC says on any part of the property. The only exception to
that would be if the ambient level is above the WAC level. She suggested that the
requirement be that the noise level shall not exceed the ambient level or the WAC,
whichever is higher. She questioned whether that would solve the problem.
Goodwin stated it still wouldn't address Councilmember Hoag's concern about the
WAC level in the agricultural zone being too high.
Brenner suggesting making an exception for agricultural zones. The noise
meter wouldn't find a noise if the ambient level is high.
Goodwin stated that if the Council went with a combination of the WAC and
WCC Chapter 9.40, which already deals with Councilmember Hoag's concern about
nuisance, then they've already got it covered without doing anything. That is
exactly what the Planning Commission said. Reference the WAC. If the Council
wants more specific language, it is already in the nuisance section of the County
Code.
Hoag stated there is a difference. The Disorderly House chapter specifies a
person of normal sensitivities. The decibel levels listed in the WAC are for the
daytime hours. The levels during the nighttime have to be reduced by ten decibels.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Regarding the noise level at the receiving property, that is the way the WAC is
written.
Regarding the ambient level, Councilmember Brenner suggested that the
new noise not be able to exceed background levels. If they did, then it would be a
problem. The County would have to establish background levels and the noise
levels after the business began. If the noise level was higher, the County would
shut the business down. That isn't the path she wanted to go down. It is very
convoluted and not in the best interest of cottage industry.
Regarding the Disorderly House chapter, it doesn't protect someone who may
be classified as being more sensitive. Goodwin stated it only refers to noise. No
one is chemically sensitive to noise. It only deals with noise.
Hoag asked what they are going to use to cover odors, fumes, and glare.
Goodwin stated they are separate issues. They are only talking about noise right
now. For that, they need to go to NWAPA or think about what else to do above and
beyond that.
Hoag stated she keeps hearing the argument that noise levels are already
covered. They've got a problem with the existing regulations. If someone wants to
operate a cottage industry, there ought to be something in that part of the code
that tells the business owner the rules that he or she must operate under.
Apparently, all the other rules are being ignored. Goodwin stated the County has
never had a problem with the noise of a cottage industry that she was aware of.
There have been other issues, but noise hasn't been one of the complaints.
Hoag stated the existing power plant, for example, is causing sleep problems
for people in the area. The power plant is supposedly covered under the
regulations that were mentioned, but there is no protection. There is nothing the
neighbors can do. The people who run the plant were asked to make changes, but
they won't do anything they aren't legally required to do. It's obvious that they
have a problem. The clearest, most concise way for the public to see what is being
addressed is if her motion was approved. Her motion is still on the floor.
McShane stated he would need to look at that nuisance WAC. They should
move on until they can see that WAC. He wouldn't support the motion at this time.
There is an interest in taking a look at that WAC at a future meeting. They won't
get it done at this meeting.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
McShane stated they would continue this issue at a later date.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Hoag left the meeting.)
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission requested that the committee have
a meeting where they could attend and participate.
McShane stated the best way to go would be to put this in a special meeting.
That is one way to begin moving forward on this item. The committee has a pile of
things to deal with. They are going to have to schedule some special meetings. He
suggested a meeting on January 30. He appreciated the patience that the Planning
Commissioners have had. This is a painful process for people.
The committee concurred to meet on January 30th at 12:30 p.m.
Ron Roosma, Planning Commissioner, stated the Planning Commission spent
three hours on item (7) only under cottage industries. The Planning Commission
would like to see that a business owner could build whatever he or she wants in the
shop as long as it doesn't create noise or problems outside of the building or
property line. The person who has to interpret that item could have a tough time.
He would like to allow manufacturing as long as it doesn't affect the rest of the
neighbors.
Under home occupations item (9), the Planning Commission wanted to add
that the Hearing Examiner could make exceptions to the hours of operation.
Brenner stated the administrator could do it now. She asked why they would
want the Hearing Examiner to do it. It's quicker for the administrator to do it.
Roosma agreed.
Bob Wiesen, Planning Commissioner, stated they are trying to get at the
same goal. The Planning Commission spent a lot of time massaging this thing so it
works. It's frustrating to watch the committee nit -pick over every item. This issue
is extremely important to this county. They keep writing more and more
regulations. Regarding the noise, the staff admits that there has been no problem
with noise yet. They are spending all this time making sure something doesn't
happen that may not be an issue. He suggested a field trip to visit some of these
businesses to see what's going on and how the rules will apply to those people now.
Gilda stated the same language Mr. Roosma referenced for manufacturing in
cottage industries should be in the home occupation section. He was worried about
future interpretation. They need to change the language in section (10) for both
cottage industry and home occupations. In the County Charter, it says that no
regulation or ordinance shall be generated without consideration of and provisions
for compensation for those unduly burdened. Right now, there are 2,073
businesses in Whatcom County. They are paying personal property taxes. That
number does not include the cities. Ordinances adopting state codes can be
adopted in whole or part.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, 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
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS
(AB2001 -039)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner I, asked if there were any applications that they
wanted to discuss in particular.
McShane stated his inclination was to approve the recommendation. He had
a few questions. He questioned the application of George and Ann Lane on packet
page 239. It received a score of 58 points, well above the required 45 points. It
appeared that their property does not include tideland or anything below the
ordinary high water mark. He asked for more information on how that is believed
to be public access. Olsen stated it does extend down onto the beach. The extent
of the beach allows people to go back and forth from the common area to the north
to the common area to the south. There is no car access because there is no
parking in that area. Many people go to Lummi Island with their bikes. This is
where they can leave their bikes. There is a trail to walk down.
McShane stated he didn't have a problem because there was a trail.
Olsen stated that there is a request for David Davis. (Clerk's Note: This
application is under the following item, AB2001 -040.) Mr. Davis has 30 acres in the
Lake Whatcom watershed. He lives half the year in California. He is an elderly,
semi - retired geologist. He owns 20 acres to the east of this 30 acres. The 20 acres
is in open space /timber and has a small cabin he stays in when he is in town. The
applicant is worried that a large open space sign will invite people to ride their all -
terrain vehicles in the area and make a nuisance. The Planning Commission was
also quite concerned. Many people do go under the property and walk through it
quietly. The applicant doesn't mind that activity, and asks that the sign
requirement be waived because he is away so much of the time. There are two
gates on the property. One gate is the access gate to the power lines. It is always
padlocked. His gate is padlocked as well at the moment. She questioned whether
it is possible that the sign requirement be waived and that he be able to keep his
gate padlocked. It is something that is at the Council's discretion.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford moved to recommend staff's recommendations for all applicants.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag absent.
4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE /FARM AND AGRICULTURE
CONSERVATION APPLICATIONS (AB2001 -040)
Planning and Development Committee, 1/23/2001, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Crawford moved to recommend staff's recommendation, with a special
waiver for Davis regarding the open space access signage.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag absent.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 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, 1/23/2001, Page 16