HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Planning March 15 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
47
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Planning and Development Committee
March 15, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Sam Crawford
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 -2518)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she submitted a memo
dated March 8, 2001 with the most recent updated version of the ordinance.
Hoag stated that the committee had not added the last sentence beginning,
"No more than 25 %..." in section 20.97.087(9) of the new version.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that subsections (8) and (12) are redundant.
Hoag stated that the committee had approved different language in section
20.973.087(11) of the new version. It should be, "New The portion of the
structures housing..."
g...
Goodwin asked if they want to address new structures.
Hoag suggested language, "...requirements on new structures for permits,..."
McShane stated they don't need to worry about old or new structures.
Goodwin stated it doesn't address the concerns of Planning Commissioners
Gilda and Wiesen, who would like to waive building code requirements.
McShane stated that the purpose of this language was because there was
misunderstanding that the County would require people to upgrade their buildings.
The owner is required to upgrade anyway. The County doesn't need to spell it out.
Building codes and fire codes are what they are. It is a reminder for anyone putting
in a cottage industry to look at the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and fire code.
Leave the language to say, "New The portion of the structures..."
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
47
48
Hoag stated that the sentence beginning "Existing structures
grandfathered..." gives people an idea of where they are at. Goodwin stated it
would make Planning Commissioners Gilda and Wiesen less nervous about the
building codes. It addresses their concern.
McShane stated it doesn't make much difference.
Hoag moved to amend language in section 20.97.087(11), "New The portion
of the structures housing the ... to address safety concerns specific to the proposed
use."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag asked if the accessibility requirement is only for four employees.
Goodwin stated that is the reality, but it is unclear because the federal ADA doesn't
have specific standards.
McShane moved to delete language in section 20.97.087(12) in the March 8,
2001 version, "...plastics, chemicals, paper, asbestos..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag stated that subsection (12) does not include wood treatment, which is
something they were concerned about. The current language only talks about
primary manufacturing.
McShane stated the scale of wood treatment could vary from small to large.
He suggested limiting the volume of use of hazardous materials. He suggested
looking at Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) levels, which lists sites that
use chemicals above certain levels.
Hoag stated cottage industry must be both flexible and protective. If
something deserves more scrutiny, then remove it and make it a conditional use.
She also wanted reference to persistent bio- cumulative toxins. Goodwin stated
they dealt with that issue with the Lake Whatcom overlay, and she couldn't find
anything at that time that specified household use versus larger uses. She would
look for some standard to use for thresholds.
Hoag suggested that cottage industries that do not meet RCRA levels be
approved administratively, and others who exceed those levels be approved by a
conditional use permit.
McShane stated it comes down to the list and what they absolutely don't
want to see as cottage industries. They haven't included anything on the list about
fiberglass.
Hoag suggested, "...of finished products other than fiberglass, wood
treatment facilities, or the primary manufacture of petroleum..."
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
47
48
McShane stated they would move on, and come back to this item later so
they could come up with new ideas.
Goodwin stated she would look at the RCRA and DOE regulations.
Hoag moved new language for section 20.97.087(7) of the new version, "No
equipment or process shall be used in such cottage industry which creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference beyond the property line in
sufficient amounts and of such characteristics and duration as is likely to be
injurious or cause damage to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or
which unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property." It is the
language she quoted from the nuisance regulations from the Northwest Air Pollution
Authority (NWAPA), section 530.1, 535.4, and the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173 - 400 - 040(5). This only would apply if impacts are beyond the property
line.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Goodwin suggested including language, "No equipment, e�r-process, or
material shall be used..."
Hoag moved to amend section 20.97.087(7), "No equipment, ai�process, or
material shall be used..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to strike section 20.97.087(8).
Hoag stated that they haven't finished working on language in subsection
(12), and suggested waiting until they do. The language in subsection (8) helped
people understand what they are doing, and is not in subsection (12). Consolidate
the two when they know what they want to do with (12). Goodwin stated the term
"small scale" is what the Planning Commission was concerned with.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Hoag asked to include language in the Cottage Industry section regarding
cottage industries with few employees being not considered a business for County
health regulation purposes.
McShane did not agree.
Hoag stated there is an example of a woman who rents out her house for
weddings. She is considered a business, and falls under the business thresholds for
the health department. The exposure that anyone has with her water is minimal.
She doesn't have the threshold level number of employees and operating hours.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
44
45
46
47
48
McShane stated that those are the health standards for serving food and
drink to the public, whether it is a small or large gathering. He agreed with the
standards. The reason for them is because the risk of a lot of people becoming ill is
high. He sympathized with her situation, but didn't agree.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated it doesn't fit in here. It is a health code issue.
Hoag asked for staff assistance on it.
Goodwin stated the difference between a home occupation and cottage
industry is that a home occupation is within the residential structure instead of an
accessory garage or shop and is also allowed on smaller residential lots.
McShane moved to amend section 20.97.087(12) on cottage industry, "Herne
pis Cottage Industry..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag moved to amend cottage industry section 20.97.087(5), "...zoning
district of and is appropriate..."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend cottage industry section 20.97.087(5), "...the
applicable zoning district of and is appropriate...."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to amend home occupation section 20.97.180(4), "No traffic
shall be generated by such home occupations in greater volume than would
normally be expected in a Fesidential neighbeFheed the applicable zoning district of
and is appropriate...."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to amend home occupation section 20.97.180(5) "... for
each non - resident on -site employee."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag suggested amending home occupation section 20.97.180(6), "No
equipment, process, or material shall be used in such home occupation which
creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to
the neFn9al senses off the lets beyond the property line or outside the dwelling unit
if conducted in a duplex or multi - family structure in sufficient amounts and of such
characteristics and duration as is likely to be injurious or cause damage to human
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
health, plant or animal life, or property, or which unreasonably interferes with the
enjoyment of life and property. In the case of electrical interference..."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
McShane moved to strike the last sentence in home occupation section
20.97.180(6), beginning, "In the case of electrical...." It is covered by "electrical
interference" in the first sentence."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Crawford stated more types of electrical transmissions are occurring around
the county. Modern technology will necessitate new controls of other types they
have not encountered before.
McShane moved to strike section 20.97.180(7) in the home occupation
section and replace it with section 20.97.087(12) in the cottage industry section.
The difference between cottage industry and home occupation comes down to the
available floor area, where it is occurring, and the number of people. The owner
won't be able to use much space to do anything very large. If they don't change
the language, they still have to deal with what is or isn't considered small.
Hoag stated she would rather see the language the way it is
Motion failed 1 -1 -1 with Hoag opposed and Crawford abstaining.
Hoag moved to add language from cottage industry section 20.97.087(9) to
home occupation section 20.97.180(8), "...a beauty salon), catalog or e- commerce
sales or other products related to or incidental to the primary business."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag moved to add language to home occupation section 20.97.180(10),
"The portion of the structure housing..."
Goodwin asked if they wanted the separate sentence.
Hoag stated they are fine.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Goodwin asked if they want to add the language from section 20.97.087(12)
to the home occupation section.
Hoag stated no.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
47
48
Goodwin stated section 20.32 is for Rural Residential zones. This is where
the standards are for number of employees and building size. It was slightly
different for some of the zoning districts.
McShane moved to amend language in section 20.32.135 "...no more than
two people on -site other than..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Crawford stated that in the existing code under permitted uses in the
Residential Rural zone, home occupations are listed as accessory uses. He
questioned whether cottage industries are administrative approval uses or
conditional uses. Goodwin stated they were conditional, but are now administrative
approval. Because it has not changed, home occupations would remain as a
permitted use.
Crawford stated he would have proposed to do exactly that.
Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission defined an on -site employee in
more detail, and also allowed for seasonal part -time employees.
McShane suggested a definition for off -sites employee, and moved to add to
section 20.32.135 "(5) Seasonal employees working less than 21 days per year
shall not be counted as employees if they are engaged in work directly related to
agricultural use or forestry use on the property or the vicinity." They are not going
to deal with someone who needs to bring in a bunch of people for an agricultural or
forestry use project. If someone brings in people for other types of work in another
district, he or she can still do it but it must be a conditional approval use. Keep it
simple for administrative approval. Anything else should be worked out elsewhere.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to amend section 20.32.135(4) to change the sign size from
four square feet to eight square feet.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Goodwin stated they are only looking at cottage industries, not home
occupations, which hasn't changed. It is a permitted use and remains so. Any of
the things they are changing here wouldn't change what is allowed for a home
occupation.
Hoag stated that is appropriate.
McShane moved to amend home occupation section 20.97.180(1) "...no more
than two on -site persons..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Goodwin stated that the Rural Residential Island zone is the same as the
Rural Residential zone.
Hoag moved to make the same three changes for section 20.34 as were
made to section 20.32:
1. 20.34.135 "...no more than two people on -site other than..."
2. 20.34.135(4) to change the sign size from four square feet to eight
square feet.
3. 20.34.135 "(5) Seasonal employees working less than 21 days per year
shall not be counted as employees if they are engaged in work directly
related to agricultural use or forestry use on the property or the vicinity."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Goodwin stated that section 20.35 is Eliza Island, and they questioned
whether or not they want to even have this section.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.35.135 "...no more than two people on -site
other than..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag moved to approve the three changes from the other two sections for
section 20.36:
1. 20.36.135 "...no more than two people on -site other than..."
2. 20.36.135(4) to change the sign size from four square feet to eight
square feet.
3. 20.36.135 "(5) Seasonal employees working less than 21 days per
year shall not be counted as employees if they are engaged in work
directly related to agricultural use or forestry use on the property or
the vicinity."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Goodwin stated Rural, Agriculture, and Rural Forestry zones are the only
zones that allow conditional uses.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.36.161, "...no more than four people on-
site other than..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to amend 20.36.161(2), "...Hearing Examiner may shall
require..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
47
48
McShane moved to amend 20.36.161(3), "...signage of 1-6 32 square feet..."
Hoag stated that is too much in a rural area.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 3:06 p.m.)
Motion failed 1 -1 with Hoag opposed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin stated there is no provision for allowing a larger sign by approval of
the Hearing Examiner. There was that provision in the other version of the
ordinance. Now, this whole thing is a conditional use. It has been an issue in the
past.
Hoag stated there would be no point of establishing a limit if they allowed a
larger size from the Hearing Examiner. Goodwin stated they could create
circumstances that allow a larger sign.
Hoag stated that it could bother the neighbors. Sixteen feet is adequate.
McShane stated a plywood sheet in a rural area on a fast road that advertises
agricultural products should be okay. If the neighbors are okay with the conditional
use, the owner should have the option to have a larger sign.
Hoag stated a driver could see a four foot by four foot sign easily. The full
plywood sheet is billboard size.
Hoag stated the language in section 20.36.161(4) is reasonable as it is. She
suggested a word other than "consists."
McShane stated it is a scrivener's error. Goodwin stated she would come up
with the correct word.
Hoag moved to include the three changes to section 20.40.135:
1. 20.40.135 "...no more than two people on -site other than..."
2. 20.40.135(4) to change the sign size from four square feet to eight
square feet.
3. 20.40.135 "(5) Seasonal employees working less than 21 days per
year shall not be counted as employees if they are engaged in work
directly related to agricultural use or forestry use on the property or
the vicinity."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend section 20.40.135(4) from eight square feet to 16
square feet.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
47
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.40.158 to be "...no more than four persons
on -site other than..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to include the three changes to section 20.42.135, with a larger
square footage:
1. 20.40.135 "...no more than two people on -site other than..."
2. 20.40.135(4) to change the sign size from four square feet to 16
square feet.
3. 20.40.135 "(5) Seasonal employees working less than 21 days per
year shall not be counted as employees if they are engaged in work
directly related to agricultural use or forestry use on the property or
the vicinity."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated the remaining language is left the way it is. As an
administrative approval for forestry and wood -based cottage industries, there could
be ten employees.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.42.136, "...people on -site other than..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated section .164 at the bottom of page 9 of the March 8 version
is an odd one. It made cottage industry as a conditional use. Under the old code,
there was an exception that review and final decision be made administratively.
She questioned why they would call it a conditional use if it is an administrative
decision. Staff struck that language and kept it as a conditional use.
McShane stated they would look at this ordinance one more time in the
Planning and Development Committee.
Hoag stated they still need a good word in section 20.36.161(4). In section
20.97.087(12), there is still a question of what they are going to do. Also, they are
going to have to decide on whether to have a limit on the volume of hazardous
chemicals and if they are going to address wood treatment and fiberglass. They
need to get that finalized before going to the full Council.
Goodwin stated they didn't address the new category of Rural Business from
the Planning Commission.
Hoag stated people are saying not to do it.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, 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
McShane stated that was why they started with the original staff report. He
would schedule this item at the Planning Committee meeting on April 3. He will
limit the discussion to anything that staff catches that the committee missed, and
section 20.97.087(12)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Special Planning & Development Committee - Cottage Industry, 3/15/2001, Page 10