HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Planning January 30 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Planning and Development Committee
January 30, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 12:40 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE
20, TO REVISE STANDARDS AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HOME
OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS ZONING
DISTRICTS (AB2000 -251B)
Nelson stated he was reluctant about the material. He was concerned about
the definition of Cottage Industry.
McShane stated corrections were made previously. They can move discuss
those areas again since more Councilmembers are present. The committee would
discuss section 20.97.087(8).
Hoag asked if they've done anything with subsection (7).
McShane stated they have not. He had no suggestions.
Hoag asked if a person working with wrought iron would be covered in that
section. Someone working with wrought iron should be allowed.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that wrought iron tends to
be heavy and large. She didn't think it would be covered.
Hoag stated people make decorations for yards and homes with wrought
iron. Goodwin stated that would be considered a small handcrafted item, but it was
vague. The Planning Commission recommended "manufacturing shall be limited to
the assembly of already manufactured parts or production of small hand - crafted
items..." but they ended up not being happy with it.
McShane stated he felt they should adopt the Planning Commission
recommendation. Goodwin stated the intent was to limit things that are to be
melted and fabricated. That does raise the issue of whether some people should be
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
able to make boat trailers. That is a question for the Council. In the rural business
section, the Planning Commission wrote a weight limit for some of these uses to
differentiate between things that are big and things that could be done in a garage.
Brenner stated she didn't like the limit being whether something could be
done in a garage. Her husband has been a welder for personal use. There isn't a
problem if they are inside an area that is appropriate. She asked why they are
getting so specific. Say instead that it must fit within an appropriate area.
Hoag stated it gets back to the impacts. Until they nail down the impacts,
she was leery of changing this part. Fiberglass assembly and repair can be fit in a
barn, but doesn't belong in a rural area. If they adequately control the impacts,
then they don't need to address the size. If they don't control the impacts, then
limit the size as a means of controlling impacts. She preferred to control the
impacts directly, because it isn't the size that causes the problem for the neighbor.
Nelson stated he proposed language to address what they are trying to
accomplish regarding manufacturing and its impacts. He didn't like the term
cottage industry, and would use the term "home business" instead. "Home
business should be limited to the manufacture and assembly of finished products
that shall not include the primary manufacture of petroleum products, rubber,
plastics, chemicals, paper, asbestos products, or primary metal industries. Such
uses shall be sufficiently enclosed to mitigate potential impacts." They could then
discuss the impacts, which they still have to address in subsection (6).
Hoag questioned whether fiberglass would be considered a plastic.
Nelson stated fiberglass chemicals would be covered.
McShane stated he liked the proposal. If they accept the language, make
sure the list is exhaustive enough.
Nelson agreed.
Hoag stated she liked the intent. She was concerned that if they try to write
that in this section, and neglect to include something they should have, they would
be in trouble. She would be more inclined to state what they are looking for in
cottage industry to define the intent, and then use Councilmember Nelson's
language as exceptions. If someone has a use that would fit under this list, they
are okay, but the neighbors are still protected. In the agricultural zone, someone
wanted to site an agricultural implement manufacturing company. They were not
allowed to because they were told it had to be small -scale assembly of already
manufactured parts or manufacturing of small items. She agreed with that
decision. However, that use could end up in a rural area given the proposed
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
language. It's a question as to whether or not it falls under Councilmember
Nelson's exceptions.
Brenner stated she wanted to see something like Councilmember Nelson's
language in subsection (7). Subsection (7) scares people as it is. It's so restrictive
arbitrarily. It's all about impacts. The fiberglass manufacturer issue was about the
fumes. Mainly deal with addressing fumes so that staff has an ability to regulate
people rather than doing the entire thing. She liked Councilmember Nelson's
language instead of the current subsection (7). Current language is misleading to
the intent.
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recommended similar language in
subsection (10) of their rural business section. That language is also in Light
Impact Industrial (LII) and Small Town Commercial (STC) zoning districts. She
read it into the record.
Nelson stated his language calls the section home business instead of cottage
industry.
Hoag questioned where that language addresses the issue in the agricultural
zone regarding the farm implement manufacturer. She questioned what primary
manufacturing is.
McShane stated primary metal manufacturing is making the metal itself. It
would produce significant air emissions. That language would not cover the
assembly of large implements.
Hoag stated that if primary metal manufacturing means making the metal,
then the language allows anything beyond that. Converting raw metal into other
shapes or sizes doesn't belong in a rural area or agricultural zone. It is very
different than what they've envisioned for cottage industries.
McShane stated this is good language, but he has the same concerns as
Councilmember Hoag. They should not adopt the language with the idea that it
would satisfy the conditions in subsection (6). They will tighten up language about
what a person can and can't do when he or she comes in for a permit. The critical
thing about nuisance is the noise and vapors. It is the key element in resolving
this. He moved to approve the language proposed by Councilmember Nelson for
section 20.97.087(7).
Hoag stated nothing they do is cut in stone. If they adopt legislation that is
in two parts, they stand a good chance of someone getting rid of the protective
part. On the other hand, if they word both parts adequately so the intent is clear,
they stand a better chance that everyone understands the intent. Her concern was
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
that the proposed language doesn't fit what they've been trying to allow as cottage
industry. It sounds like someone could set up a business of manufacturing railroad
lines. It's opening a huge floodgate. Cottage industry is for people who want to
have a small side business that won't affect the general character of the
neighborhood. This proposed language makes it much larger. What they allow and
limit as impacts go hand -in -hand.
Nelson stated he understood Councilmember Hoag's concerns. This language
addresses the utilization of materials to make products. One gentleman in his
neighborhood uses metal to make art objects. It didn't bother the three nearby
homes. The idea is to not get so verbose and focused that they do not let people
use their innovation and opportunities to develop economic bases in rural areas that
would help the County's economy. When they limit businesses to manufacturing
and assembly without specifying that the result must be a finished product, it
doesn't say they want to create an industrial base out there that is creating raw
materials. The business owners are utilizing those materials to create products and
put them together.
Brenner stated it would be easy to put more specific wording in there. They
do not want big vats of metal, but reforming sheets of metal is okay.
McShane stated they could add uses if the list is not exhaustive.
Hoag stated the production of small handcrafted items is allowed. She asked
what kind of language the committee and the others present feel would give them
what they are looking for in a cottage industry, without opening the door to
unwanted uses and that would adequately protect against the farm implement
business in the agricultural zone.
Goodwin stated farm implements are allowed in the agricultural zone.
Hoag stated Dairy Tech wanted to relocate in the agricultural zone. They
manufacture farm implements. They were stopped because it was determined that
it was manufacturing more than just small -scale assembly of already- manufactured
parts. It wasn't allowed in the agricultural zone. Goodwin stated the denial was
more to do with the fact that the business did other stuff that wasn't just for
agriculture. In the agriculture section, there is a provision for allowing manufacture
of agricultural implements by a conditional use permit. The issue there was that
the City of Lynden felt that the manufacturing should be within the city and that it's
an issue broader than just agriculture. There were some agricultural folks who
thought they shouldn't be using up prime agricultural land on manufacturing. The
denial wasn't because of the assembly of the parts.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
Hoag stated the Hearing Examiner relied on part of the code that limited
what could be manufactured outside of an industrial zone. She wanted to make
sure they don't throw that language away. She questioned what sort of language
could protect it.
McShane stated changes to subsections (6) and (1) regarding size and scale
of operations being in keeping with uses in the surrounding area. They are not
going to tighten up cottage industry language in just one bullet point. There are
going to be at least ten bullet points. This is just one of the other bullet points. If
there is a concern about tightening it up, he would be interested in language that
would prevent that. He didn't see that this subsection would preclude them from
doing that. It is better language than currently exists.
McShane restated the motion to accept Councilmember Nelson's language.
Hoag asked if there is any limit on the size of a cottage industry. Goodwin
stated there are limits in another section. The Planning Commission draft was to
allow up to 10,000 square foot buildings, but other drafts allow up to 1,200 square
foot buildings in Rural Residential zones and 2,500 square foot buildings in Rural
zones.
Nelson restated his suggestion to amend section 20.97.087(7) to read,
"Home Business should be limited to the manufacture and assembly of finished
products that shall not include the primary manufacture of petroleum products,
rubber, plastics, chemicals, papers, asbestos products, or primary metal industries.
Such uses shall be sufficiently enclosed to mitigate potential impacts."
Hoag asked if the language should specify cottage industry instead of home
business. She suggested that for a friendly amendment.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
Hoag asked if one could manufacture the finished product.
Nelson stated one could.
McShane stated that it would have to be done following size and other
constraints.
Hoag questioned what protects against fiberglass building and repair. Grant
stated they would be stuck with a state regulation from the state Department of
Ecology or stated Department of Transportation.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
Hoag stated when an issue went before the Hearing Examiner, the Northwest
Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA) said things like that are sited normally in an
industrial zone, and it makes the assumption that the activity would be in an
industrial zone to start with. Therefore, regulations aren't written with the idea that
it be located outside of an industrial zone. This doesn't stop the use of fiberglass to
manufacture boats.
McShane stated he would be interested in building on this language.
Nelson stated many farmers use fiberglass to repair equipment. Regarding
manufacturing with fiberglass, they are saying it needs to be sufficiently enclosed to
mitigate potential impacts, as listed in subsection (6) regarding noise, smell, and
fumes.
McShane stated he was concerned about the use of styrene, which has harsh
effects. They need to limit that use. He understood how a small amount is used
for patching.
Nelson questioned whether those are the types of businesses that are in light
industry zones.
Hoag stated it is allowed as a cottage industry right now.
Nelson stated that, typically speaking, rural areas have far less density than
in the urban areas where it is already allowed in industrial areas that are next to
residential areas. They mitigate the impacts
McShane stated the buffer distance is the issue. That is an issue of how far
away the neighbor might be.
Motion failed 1 -1 -1 with Hoag against and Crawford abstaining.
McShane stated that if Mr. Crawford doesn't participate, it would all come up
on the floor at the full Council.
Hoag asked to put Councilmember Nelson's language in as a subsection (11).
She didn't have any problem with the intent, but the language is misplaced. Just
say that cottage industries will not include the list of uses that Councilmember
Nelson listed in his proposed language, so it's clear that the County doesn't want
those uses in those areas.
McShane stated the reason to put it in is that the current language in
subsection (7) is confusing, because it's ruling out allowing any manufacturing at
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
all. The language proposed will do exactly what Councilmember Hoag wants, and
gets rid of the definition of small -scale assembly and manufacturing.
Hoag stated the language doesn't preclude the production of small hand-
crafted items, furniture, or other wood -based or agricultural products. To her, the
production of small items is what they are looking for to approve.
McShane stated his concern is the definition of what would be small.
Subsection (7) is meaningless. The size and scale of the area is addressed in
subsection (1). He liked the specificity of the language to rule out certain items.
He would entertain ruling out even more if it is not an exhaustive enough list.
Hoag agreed. She supported getting that language in on an added
subsection. It puts the language in front of the committee. She moved to add
Councilmember Nelson's language as a new subsection (11). In terms of
controlling impacts with size, a lot of damaging things can be done in a garage.
The motion would be to add a section, ° (11) Cottage industries shall not include
the primary manufacture of petroleum products, rubber, plastics, chemicals, paper,
asbestos products or primary metal industries. Such uses shall be sufficiently
enclosed to mitigate potential impacts."
Brenner stated the motion doesn't address what Nelson's language
addresses. It only adds more restrictions. It makes the regulation more heavy -
handed, rather than clarifying what they want.
Hoag stated she only wanted to get the language in the draft for now to look
at it later. She was trying to provide flexibility for cottage industries and also
protection for neighbors. It does help to accomplish that.
Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining.
Crawford clarified his position to abstain from the votes. He understands the
frustration of the chair. His intention is to present an alternative ordinance at the
time this goes before the full Council, which would start the entire process over.
That alternative ordinance would only incorporate the reduction of restrictions on
small businesses and cottage industries. Some of the ideas outlined here that
takes some conditional uses and makes them administrative uses would be in his
proposed ordinance. It would not incorporate any of the added prohibitions or
limitations on activities that they are talking about. If there was some way to work
toward that intent, he would be able to participate in this discussion. Subsections
(2) through (10) go against the grain of what he wanted to propose to the full
Council. He couldn't in good conscious vote on the amendments knowing that he
would not vote on them at the final vote.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
McShane suggested that amending these amendments may lead to a better
outcome for what Councilmember Crawford intends.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson stated a concern is the staff time that would take. If the policy
direction itself is a concern, then perhaps they need to meet as the Committee of
the Whole in a work session and discuss the policy direction for the process so the
staff can put together something the public can look at and make comments on.
Otherwise, they may end up wasting everyone's time. If that is a concern the chair
wishes to address, then do this as a Committee of the Whole, and don't waste
anyone's time.
Crawford apologized for creating that dilemma. Regarding the manufacture
of raw materials, he questioned when it was an issue. He questioned the purpose
of the law, and if it is to anticipate future problems. It seems like if they are
philosophically going to approach the law, they now have to anticipate problems
that they've never seen occur. There is a lot of law they can start writing. He was
not in favor of that. As they look at and amend the law, they need to look only at
what's not working and make it work. The problem with fiberglass has nothing to
do with the manufacture of raw materials. He was confused about why they are
approaching it like this.
McShane stated the County Council, before he and Crawford were elected,
felt this was a concern. He was okay with continuing on with the concern that was
raised a year and a half ago.
Hoag stated Councilmember Crawford's position wastes a lot of time. The
committee should be discussing the issues and come up with something that is
good legislation, rather than waiting to drop in a different proposal. Regarding
anticipating problems, that is a way to make good legislation. If they were always
putting put fires, it would be a problem. They should try to look at the entire
picture and figure out what cottage industries should be and how to adequately
protect the neighbors. In order to do that, they need to carefully define a cottage
industry and how to protect the neighbors. The most flexible way to do that is to
define what it isn't. That would leave open everything else that could be a cottage
industry.
McShane discussed section 20.97.087(8). He preferred instead the Planning
Commission language in subsection (10) of home occupations, which says, "Sales in
connection with the activity are limited to merchandise manufacture and repair on
the premises. Items accessory to a service, such as hair care products in a beauty
salon, and catalog or e- commerce sales." He would not want to include the portion
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, Page 8
1 regarding the Foothills and South Fork Valley subareas. He moved to replace the
2 language in section 20.97.087(8) with the language he just read.
3
4 Hoag asked for Councilmember McShane's rationale.
5
6 McShane stated they included language regarding the catalog and e-
7 commerce sales, which is appropriate.
8
9 (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
10
11 Hoag moved to replace the language in section 20.97.087(8), "Sales in
12 connection with the activity are limited to merchandise manufacture and repair on
13 the premises. Items accessory to a service, such as hair care products in a beauty
14 salon, and catalog or e- commerce sales or other products related to or incidental to
15 the primary business."
16
17 Goodwin stated she suggested that language.
18
19 Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining.
20
21 Hoag moved to amend section 20.97.087(7), "Manufacturing shall be limited
22 to the small scale assembly of...." It is similar to what the Planning Commission
23 recommended.
24
25 Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining.
26
27 McShane read section 20.97.087(9).
28
29 Hoag stated that section is reasonable.
30
31 Nelson suggested striking the entire thing. Otherwise they will get into
32 arguments of what is and isn't a legitimate time, depending on the types of
33 business. Those conditions should be addressed under the impacts.
34
35 Hoag stated the section is limited to customers and clients. People coming
36 and going before or after those hours in a rural residential zone is not appropriate.
37 It is important to have the guidelines to protect the existing neighbors.
38
39 McShane read section 20.97.087(10).
40
41 Hoag stated Dick Gilda brought forward a concern that the County would
42 demand that people make their homes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
43 accessible. She questioned the threshold. Goodwin stated she could get more
44 information from Sam Ryan. Right now, the County is enforced to be ADA
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
compliant. If a business doesn't have more than four employees, it doesn't need to
be ADA accessible. What is required is an accessible parking space if customers
come to the business. If there are not a lot of customers, the business is not
required to upgrade the building. All of the requirements are required by the state.
The County is required to enforce them anyway. Dick Gilda talked to people with
the federal ADA, who said the federal rules aren't specific to what counties have to
do. There are state requirements that have to be followed anyway. This language
only alerts people to the existing state requirements. She would provide more
specific information on the guidelines.
Nelson stated it is already addressed in state law. Strike the section because
it talks about the structure of the building or house, not to the layout of the
driveway or any other state issues. It may become confusing to the public who
may think they would have to have an extensive remodel to meet ADA
requirements. The permitting will deal with it at an administrative level.
Goodwin stated the discussion at the Planning Commission level was that a
converted barn shouldn't have to be brought up to building codes. The fire marshal
and building official were concerned that if there is something potentially
dangerous, such as something flammable, the business should install protective
measures to protect employees. The Planning Commission wanted to waive
building code and accessibility requirements for businesses. That language is there
to make sure people are aware that the requirements still hold.
Hoag asked about things other than accessibility. She questioned whether a
person would have to have a barn inspected, brought up to code, and comply with
current building requirements. Goodwin stated the person would have to do
updates if the use will be for a different use from what it was previously. If there is
a house that holds a typing business, there isn't a difference. If a use requires a
different type of a building, it will have to be brought up to code.
Hoag asked questioned what would be required of a barn that is opened up
for storage use. Goodwin stated it probably wouldn't have to be changed. A
wooden barn is flammable snf would have to be upgraded to not be flammable.
Nelson asked if there are currently such codes. Goodwin stated there are
building codes on the books now.
Hoag stated the building codes are only for new structures. She understood
the need for updates, but the regulation could open a Pandora's box. She
suggested, "...requirements for permits specific to the new use, occupancy...."
Goodwin stated the fire code and building code are as they are, and cannot be
waived by the County. The County would have liability if it allowed a use with
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
employees in a building that wasn't built for that use. They may want to change
the way the County adopted the building codes.
Hoag stated she was not looking to change the building codes. She was
looking to not require upgrades that are not necessary for what is going on.
Building codes for homes have changed over the years, and have nothing to do with
whether there is a home business.
Goodwin suggested having the discussion with Sam Ryan, the County's
Building and Codes official. Making a loophole for cottage industries could be done,
but would require a change to the building code in addition to writing it in this
ordinance, because the County has adopted the state's uniform building code.
Hoag stated she wanted to restrict it to the particular use. Goodwin stated
that is how the building official has made her interpretations. The building official
has never required someone to rewire an entire house because the owner is putting
a business in a spare bedroom. That is not what they do. It is more related to the
type of use.
Hoag stated she didn't want it to be subject to what this particular building
official does or doesn't do. The language sounds like it is very wide open.
Nelson stated they currently have code requirements and currently have
cottage industries in rural areas. He questioned how they are administered now.
Goodwin stated it has been an issue, which is why the Planning Commission
brought it up. If someone is going into an old, wooden barn and putting in
something that is flammable, the owner has been required to bring up the
standards right now. The County is already are doing that, and the Planning
Commission doesn't like it.
Bob Wiesen, Planning Commissioner, stated they've defined small problems.
A lot of the activity is going on out in the County. Look at what's happening and
determine whether the County wants to shut the business down. He knows of
three or four small metal fabricating outfits in barns and pole buildings that have
been in operation for years. By all these definitions, they could not come up to
standard.
McShane asked if there is a building code standard they are not meeting
now. Wiesen stated they are in old buildings.
Nelson stated he didn't know of any buildings that would meet these
standards. He didn't think they've ever been administered.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
McShane stated the question is whether to allow something that would not
be allowed in a building that is being built now, because of fire or structural issues.
He asked if that was okay.
Wiesen stated the standard Uniform Building Code (UBC) has grown. The
County adopts the UBC. The standards keep changing, and the cost keeps going
up, but the old buildings are working just fine. A lot of the standards are not
needed. This County makes it hard for businesses to start and survive. They have
to decide whether they want to shut down the businesses that have existed for a
long time.
Crawford stated the federal code incorporates the UBC, and requests the
states to adopt it as a minimum. The state requires the county and local entities to
adopt it as a minimum. Goodwin stated there are some optional sections of the
UBC. Those are issues that Sam Ryan would be most knowledgeable about.
Hoag stated she wanted input from Sam Ryan. In the meantime, she moved
to amend language in section 20.97.087(10), "The new structures housing the
cottage industry shall comply... including accessibility requirements. Existing
structures grandfathered under old code requirements will address any concerns
specific to the proposed new use which are raised by the fire warden or building
inspector." That amendment narrows it down and protects the County's liability,
but doesn't mean that they have to bring old buildings up to code. It means that if
the owner is proposing a new use that might cause a problem with the way their
building is constructed, it can be addressed.
McShane asked about grandfathering a cottage industry. Grant stated he
was thinking of non - conforming uses. There are uses that have been put to the
land prior to the initiation of the County's zoning ordinances and are considered a
non - conforming use and can continue. He recalled that the County Code gives
great deference to those non - conforming uses and allows expansions by conditional
use. There may be instances in which they would have otherwise impermissible
uses "grandfathered" in.
McShane questioned whether this would apply to a conditionally approved
use if they passed the current language. Goodwin stated the Planning
Commission's concern was for a barn built for one use that is converted. In that
case, the use wouldn't be grandfathered, but the structure would be grandfathered.
An issue is that some existing businesses can't be grandfathered because they
weren't legally established in the first place. That puts people in a bind because
they have to prove they had an existing, legal, non - conforming use when they did
not bother to get a permit and then couldn't get the grandfather non - conforming
status.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
Brenner supported Hoag's language. She questioned who determined what
the minimum upgrades would be to allow a new business in an old building.
Hoag stated that was why she included language about safety concerns
specific to the proposed new use.
Brenner questioned whether the fire marshal could do that legally. Grant
stated the fire marshal would be charged with enforcing fire codes, which are
separate from zoning. The fire code says that a specific business must have certain
standards. Other facets of other government regulation, such as the building code
and fire code would address some of the concerns.
Brenner asked if the County could write something flexible under the law.
Grant stated that if a zoning code conflicts with a building or fire code, it would fall
to the more specific regulation.
Brenner questioned whether the County would violate any law by allowing a
business in an old building to not meet all current UBC and fire codes. Grant stated
that in the broadest application of the question, the answer is no. They are going
to run afoul of regulations promulgated in state law. This is just a zoning ordinance
where they are going to allow people to do certain things in certain areas as long as
they comply with other laws. They can't answer all the potential questions and
problems in this zoning code.
Hoag stated that even though it's a zoning code, it is important that the
ordinance say all that is required. She asked if the fire warden goes out to inspect
existing grandfathered businesses for safety concerns. Just because a fire warden
addresses the safety concerns, he's not required to bring every building up to code.
That was what she is getting at with her language by specifying that existing
structures grandfathered under old code requirements will address safety concerns
of the proposed new use. Alleviating a safety concern is different than having to
meet all the building requirements. Grant stated that is what happens now. The
Hearing Examiner and conditional use permit routinely address many of the
concerns. He suggested that the conditional use permit conditions might be
another source of conditions to write into the ordinance.
Hoag stated the existing language is too strict. Any safety concerns specific
to the new use need to be addressed. Grant stated that fundamentally, the
question is where they want certain activities to take place. Do only that. Then, let
the other codes that exist address the necessarily connected issues. They are there
and will be handled.
Hoag asked where that would leave the County legally if subsection (10)
were dropped in favor of leaving it up to the other regulations. She questioned
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
whether everyone would be required to upgrade to meet code requirements.
Goodwin stated they would either way. They may be able to amend the building
code and fire code to specifically address cottage industries by not defining them as
a manufacturing use. In order to do this, they can't leave the building codes as
they are and then not follow them in the zoning.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin continued to state that it doesn't work that way. The Building and
Code Division staff is reasonable now. They are not going to require someone to
upgrade an entire building to meet new building standards if the use is going to be
changed. The staff would only deal with those aspects of the building code that
affect the new use. If they want it to be more specific, then it would require more
amendments to the building code to see if there are optional elements that they
don't want to adopt.
Hoag asked if Goodwin and Grant agree that they can't write an exception in
the zoning code that affects the building code. Goodwin stated the exception would
not be in the zoning code, but in the fire or building code. The code applies to all
changes of use or new structures. If the use of a barn is changed from an
agricultural use to a manufacturing use, then there is a different set of building
codes that kick in. That has been the issue.
Brenner stated that when they adopted the UBC, the issue came up. People
were concerned that the UBC took away the County's ability to make those
changes. She was not sure it was true, but she was concerned about it. If they
make changes in the zoning code, she was concerned that they would have to do
away with the UBC.
Grant stated the state requirement is that they utilize the Uniform Building
Code. When the County passed it, it was a superfluous or redundant act, because
we're stuck with it anyway. He was not convinced that they have a lot of latitude.
Hoag withdrew her motion. She moved to either change language in
subsection (10), "The New structures..." or strike the subsection entirely.
McShane stated it doesn't matter one way or the other. He liked having the
language because it references the requirements to let people know during the
permitting process. The UBC is going to be required one way or another, and he
liked the reminder language.
Hoag stated she was concerned that they are adding another layer of
regulation for existing structures. Specify only new structures, and then change
the UBC.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
McShane stated they either comply with UBC or not. This language is
reminder language that is a good idea. The County can't require the regulations of
new structures only. They cannot do it in this ordinance. This subsection makes no
difference. The owner is either in compliance with the UBC or not. There is no
reason to change this subsection. It is only a reminder and it doesn't put any
excess burden on the applicant because the burden is already there through the
UBC and fire codes.
Grant stated subsection (10) is superfluous and there would be no impact to
taking it out of the ordinance. It doesn't matter if it is in the code. Within the
context of this ordinance, they cannot do away with the UBC requirements. This
section simply says that the applicant has to comply with them. It is a reminder
that the applicant must consider it.
Hoag stated that if they leave in subsection (10) as it is, it would imply that
the owner would have to bring everything up to new code, even if the UBC would
allow a more lenient upgrade. If they were to leave it in the way it is worded, then
it would apply to existing structures. She didn't know if that would be unclear.
Grant stated one would not get an occupancy permit without compliance to codes.
Hoag asked if the subsection would add any new requirement to existing
structures. Grant stated it doesn't. It doesn't matter if subsection (10) is in the
ordinance.
Brenner suggested, 'The portion of the structure housing..."
Hoag moved to amend section 20.97.087(1), "The portion of the structure
housing...."
Brenner asked for clarification on the necessity of the accessibility issue.
Motion carried 2 -0 -1 with Crawford abstaining.
Brenner asked if they are going to consider working on this ordinance
through the Committee of the Whole since Crawford is not going to participate.
She would support doing that.
McShane stated he was inclined to continue working on it through the
committee. The main issues were in the section they just finished regarding
cottage industry. Now, they are making sure home occupations mesh with cottage
industries. There are other small changes.
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, 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
25
26
27
Hoag stated she wanted answers to certain questions. She was concerned
that going through Committee of the Whole would bog the process down more.
There are pros and cons to both ways.
McShane that if they finish a version at the Planning Committee, it would be
easier for the councilmembers to compare it with Councilmember Crawford's
version. They are not that far from finishing it. They've put a lot of work into it.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Special Planning and Development Committee, 1/30/2001, Page 16