HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil June 13 20001
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
49
50
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
June 13, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Point Roberts Community Center, 1487 Gulf Road, Point Roberts,
Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
Robert Imhof
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
ANNOUNCEMENTS
No announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: BOARD OF
HEALTH FOR APRIL 25, 2000; COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY
2, 16, AND 30, 2000; REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 2, 16,
AND 30, 2000; SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MAY 23,
2000; SPECIAL COUNCIL (WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION) FOR
APRIL 11 AND MAY 23, 2000
Brenner moved to approve the minutes, including the substitute pages
distributed prior to the meeting. In addition, she moved to make a correction to
the substitute of packet page 316, line 31, "...She talked with received emails
from."
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN SESSION
Ted Mohr, 2137 Culp Court, stated there is a problem with the southbound
traffic on Tyee Road. There are three lanes going northbound and one lane going
southbound. It would be easy to make that western -most northbound lane into a
two -way left turn lane. That would allow all the traffic a protected left turn. The
turn into Johnson Road is extremely difficult at night because of poor visibility.
Also, potholes need to be fixed.
Brenner stated she will contact County staff regarding these issues.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 1
1 Angela Mohr, 2137 Culp Court, stated they need more striping on Boundary
2 Bay and Benson roads. Benson Road is a highly traveled street. They need some
3 asphalt on some of these dirt roads.
4
5 Patricia Coombs, 102 Mill Road, concurred with Mr. Mohr about the
6 intersection of Johnson at Tyee. There is no illumination on the road at night. The
7 northbound traffic on Tyee, going to the border, tends to move into the very lane
8 that the person would try to turn left on. It is dangerous spot. Put a four way stop
9 sign at the corner of Johnson and Mill roads.
10
11 Frank Lucci, 1785 Heather Way, stated he was concerned about Tyee Road
12 traffic as well. He spoke with Assistant Director of Engineering Bruce Mills
13 regarding this. He was told that they were going to finish the engineering on Tyee
14 Road. Once they have done that, they would put in the left -hand turn as soon as
15 they could, possibly this year.
16
17 Dawson explained the Council will check into this and get back to the Voters'
18 Association.
19
20
21 PUBLIC HEARING
22
23 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY (AB2000 -208A)
24
25 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, gave a staff report and stated the
26 property came to the County through tax foreclosure. This is a lot in the Glenhaven
27 Lakes subdivision. The County's cost for this property was $1,124.23. This
28 resolution would allow a person to bid on the property during a public auction in 60
29 days. This resolution sets the minimum sale price at no less than $1,124.23. The
30 administration urged the Council to approve this resolution. The adjacent property
31 owner applied to put this into auction. The County has held possession for some
32 time. The County will occasionally sell property when it is in excess of the County's
33 needs, and there is a willing buyer of the property.
34
35 Imhof stated the request is only to set the minimum bid at $1,124.23.
36 Desler stated they are also asking to pass the resolution.
37
38 Brenner questioned whether the neighbor would do a lot line adjustment.
39 Desler stated that probably would occur because of the zoning requirements that
40 exist in that area.
41
42 Dawson opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
43 hearing.
44
45 Imhof moved approval with a minimum bid of $1,124.23.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
50 ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
51 ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV -S, REVISE RV STANDARDS
52 IN THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE URM, R,
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 2
1 RF AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
2 ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
3 RV'S (AB2000 -215)
4
5 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, gave a staff report and stated
6 that the County Council asked staff to look at the number of recreational vehicles
7 (RV's) per lot in the rural and rural forestry zones. They also had requests from the
8 Peaceful Valley area to look at RV standards for RV's on individual lots. When they
9 looked at the Lummi zoning, there was a request to look at RV's as an allowable
10 use on the Lummi Reservation. They used to be allowed. When the permanent
11 zoning was adopted, they were no longer allowed. At the same time, there were
12 complaints about a lot of RV's in Point Roberts. There were several complaints from
13 Birch Bay residents also. The current regulations in the Rural, Rural Forestry, and
14 Resort Commercial zoning are that a person can have one RV per lot. In the Urban
15 Residential and Rural Residential zoning, which is about half of Point Roberts, no
16 RV's are allowed on private property. The only place they allow RV's in Urban
17 Residential zoning is in the Foothills subarea. The definition of a recreational
18 subdivision is very specific on the subdivisions in the Foothills, Mt. Baker Rim, and
19 Paradise Lake. Currently, RV's are not allowed in Point Roberts, other than on the
20 Rural and Resort Commercial zones. There are not a lot of standards in the Rural
21 and Rural Forestry zones. There are standards for RV's in the Resort Recreational
22 subdivisions.
23
24 The Planning Commission proposal is in the Council packet, beginning on
25 page 207. Minor text changes are proposed for RV's in the Urban Residential and
26 Rural Residential zones that only deal with the Foothills subarea. Staff concurs with
27 the Planning Commission, and recommends that the Council adopt those.
28
29 The second section of the proposed amendment deals just with Point
30 Roberts. That is a proposal to amend the Point Roberts special district, which is an
31 overlay zone for Point Roberts to allow RV's on individual lots in Point Roberts.
32 That would allow one RV per lot, anywhere in Point Roberts, as a permitted use.
33 The people would not be required to have a septic tank, but they would have to
34 have some method of wastewater disposal. There is a requirement that the RV's be
35 screened from adjacent properties that don't have RV's. There is also a
36 requirement that the RV's be licensed. Staff has some concerns about that
37 recommendation. They do not recommend that the Council accept the Planning
38 Commission recommendation on that issue. In this approval process, which is to
39 have something outright permitted as opposed to administrative approval, there is
40 no chance for the County to do review to determine if there are adequate
41 wastewater or septic tanks, whether there is screening, and whether there are
42 other health issues that are related. There are some issues that could be
43 addressed through an administrative approval.
44
45 Staff also has some concerns about allowing RV's permanently to remain on
46 a site that doesn't have septic because of health issues. The Planning Commission
47 also doesn't restrict RV's to certain areas. They can be allowed anywhere on the
48 Point. There are some recreational areas in Point Roberts that are seasonally
49 occupied by cabins, where RV's may be appropriate. There are also some very nice
50 subdivisions that have primarily single family houses where the RV's may not be
51 appropriate. Also, the Planning Commission recommendation would allow new RV's
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 3
1 to come into the Point, not just existing RV's. There is no sunset clause. Any
2 number of new RV's could be brought into the Point.
3
4 Relating to Point Roberts, the staff is not giving a firm recommendation
5 because there are several different options. If the Council does allow RV's in Point
6 Roberts, the staff recommends that they be administratively approved, that they be
7 required to have a septic tank or some other evidence of adequate wastewater
8 disposal. If they don't have onsite wastewater disposal, the RV's should not be
9 allowed to remain on the lot, but should have to be removed and go home with the
10 owner so the wastewater could be dumped at a dump station. Staff also
11 recommends that they be required to have screening, and that the Council limit the
12 areas where the RV's are allowed so they won't have RV's in some of the newer,
13 larger lot subdivisions that are predominantly single - family homes.
14
15 They do have a lot of lots in Point Roberts that are very small, the land
16 doesn't perk, the soils are not good, and there are no septic tanks. There is a
17 committee. The water and sewer district is looking at sewers for Point Roberts.
18 Once sewers get to Point Roberts, many of these areas could be developed with
19 single - family houses. At this time, there are still a number of areas where the lots
20 are not suitable for individual single - family houses. That is one of the areas where
21 there are many RV's.
22
23 Another option to consider if they want to prohibit RV's would be to give
24 some period of time where the existing RV's would have time to relocate. The
25 existing owners would be given time to sell their property or build a cabin. She
26 recommended that they be given at least a year to five years. At that time, they
27 could be phased out rather than having them all have to relocate this summer.
28
29 In the Planning Commission recommendation, there are also some changes
30 relating to Rural and Rural Forestry areas. They've had some comments earlier
31 today at the Planning and Development Committee. She recommended that they
32 keep the record open on Rural and Rural Forestry issues so they can get more
33 testimony at the next meeting in Bellingham. There were several people who
34 wanted to comment but couldn't or didn't want to drive all the way up to Point
35 Roberts for this meeting. Particularly, there is a letter from Bob Carmichael
36 commenting that the acreage requirements and the number of lots allowed on
37 individual Rural and Rural Forestry parcels isn't enough. Sometime, there are
38 several families who want to camp together. Allowing one RV and one guest RV
39 isn't enough RV's in those rural areas, in his opinion.
40
41 The last sections of the code that the Planning Commission recommended
42 add changes to the Resort Commercial zone and some definitions that help clarify a
43 recreational vehicle. They added a definition for Park Models. They clarified that a
44 mobile home is not an RV. Those are good recommendations.
45
46 Crawford requested clarification on the staff recommendation that there be
47 onsite sewer or septic of some sort if RV's are allowed, or the RV's should be
48 moved. Goodwin explained that there needs to be a septic tank or a Health
49 Department approved holding tank if the RV is staying on the property
50 permanently. If someone comes in for the weekend with the RV, the RV has a
51 holding tank, and the RV will be taken home at the end of the weekend, then she
52 doesn't have a concern.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 4
1
2 Crawford questioned whether the recommendation is that an administrative
3 approval is needed for the weekenders. Goodwin stated they wouldn't want an
4 administrative approval each time someone comes to the Point, but they may want
5 to take a look at the site to make sure it has some screening. She didn't have a
6 firm opinion on that. Also, there is a map of all the RV locations.
7
8 Dawson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
9
10 Pat Maloney, 2060 Johnson Road, stated he built an upscale home late in
11 1995 and is concerned about having Point Roberts turned into a trailer lot. His
12 investment in Point Roberts has created a number of jobs in the area. To have the
13 rules change after the fact is not appropriate. There is no way of putting controls
14 on the trailers. Many trailers look nice, but there is also a lot of garbage as well.
15 There is garbage on the streets because their garbage system is not appropriate.
16
17 Frank Lucci, 1785 Heather Way, Point Roberts Registered Voters' Association
18 Vice - President, expressed appreciation that the Council met in Point Roberts. On
19 behalf of the 510 registered voters, the residents, and the property owners that
20 signed the petition that was submitted to the Council on April 18, they would like to
21 re- emphasize that they do not want the current RV laws to change. They want the
22 code enforced. They submitted more than three detailed reports regarding the
23 detrimental affects of the proposed amendments. He summarized them briefly.
24 The first is that it lowers property values, taxes, and revenues to the County.
25 Second, resident and vacation cabin owners subsidize RV owners. Third, Point
26 Roberts is changing from a summer cabin enclave in the 1960's to a residential
27 community that focuses on recreation and tourism. These amendments, if passed,
28 will discourage that development. Fourth, enforcement of the code has been
29 sporadic and very ineffectual. The proposed amendments are far more complicated
30 and virtually impossible to enforce. Fifth, it will discourage investment in the
31 community and will ultimately lead to unemployment in their one non - service
32 industry, which is their construction business. They have over 47 people employed
33 in that industry. That 47 doesn't include those working at the golf course right
34 now. Of the number of voters that voted in the last two elections, 202 signed the
35 petition. He hoped the Council would represent the Point Roberts constituency.
36
37 Angela Mohr, 2137 Culp Court, stated she did not see the potential for an RV
38 park in Point Roberts. She didn't understand how a travel trailer that is parked on
39 a lot is defined. She questioned whether that is defined as an RV. She and her
40 husband are concerned about a neighbor across from their road. He is a former
41 Canadian living in Scotland. He received a notice of this issue, and it scared him
42 into coming to the Point every six months instead of every two or three years, in
43 order to preserve his property. His trailer is well covered and is in good shape.
44 This is the kind of thing they would support. They didn't want to see him lose the
45 investment he made over time in this property.
46
47 Ted Mohr, 2137 Culp Court, stated there is no need to change current laws.
48 All they need to do is enforce the laws. The new regulations would be more difficult
49 to enforce than what they have now. He suggested they step up the enforcement
50 to see that the laws are upheld.
51
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 5
1 Syd Wallace, 528 South Beach Road, stated they are in the RV predicament
2 because the ordinances were not enforced. Laws are established by the certainty of
3 their enforcement. A lack of enforcement negates the law. If the principle of
4 certainty had followed, they would not be here. In the past, he asked that the law
5 be enforced. Surrounding jurisdictions enforced their restrictions, making Point
6 Roberts a haven for unwanted RV's. Because of the lack of enforcement, there are
7 now two groups of unhappy people before the Council. One group is the voters
8 who stated that the 1977 ordinance must be enforced, as it is the law. The second
9 group is those who continued to ignore the law and believe that privilege should be
10 continued because the law was not enforced. Enforcement is lax at Point Roberts.
11
12 Brenner asked Mr. Mohr about the neighbor from Scotland. Ted Mohr
13 explained that they did not want their neighbor from Scotland to have to move his
14 trailer.
15
16 Dawson stated the current law does not allow RV's at all.
17
18 Nuala Maddox, 1484 Edwards Drive, stated she is against any change in the
19 ordinance. They should leave it as it stands and enforce it.
20
21 Mike Terry, 1911 Matia Way, stated their RV has been in place for 24 years,
22 since 1976. When they bought the property, they were not advised that the use
23 was illegal. Many people are in the same situation. They have been clumped in
24 derelict RV's, even though their property is well maintained. They are also well
25 suited to their neighborhood. Of the four adjacent properties, one is vacant,
26 another contains a singlewide mobile home, one has a newer manufactured home,
27 and the last one has a huge wetland. Being forced to vacate the property would be
28 a hardship. The RV was purchased from Point Roberts. It is American, so they
29 would have difficulty bringing it into Canada. They would probably have to get rid
30 of it somehow. They intend to leave it to their children, who spent their childhood
31 summers on the Point.
32
33 Hoag questioned whether Mr. Terry's RV would be grandfathered in since the
34 RV was put in 1976 and the ordinance was passed in 1977. Goodwin explained that
35 zoning was changed in 1974 from unclassified to General Protection zoning. In
36 General Protection zoning, RV's were not allowed. In 1977 the interim zoning map
37 was adopted for Point Roberts. If someone could show that he or she had a non -
38 conforming use, they could be recognized as a non - conforming use. Not many of
39 the existing RV's have been able to show that they were actually there and
40 established that non - conforming use. The Land Use Division determined that the
41 date is June 8, 1977 that they are going by.
42
43 Terry questioned the number of RV's on private single family lots in Point
44 Roberts. Goodwin stated there are 81, according to their records, but there were
45 99 names on the RV owners' list.
46
47 Terry stated they are not all RV's. Some are sheds, boat trailers, or utility
48 trailers.
49
50 Patricia Coombs, 102 Mill Road, stated her house was built a couple of years
51 ago. Point Roberts has always been an area where RV's were welcomed.
52 Storeowners loved the Canadians who came down and spent money. She
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 6
1 suggested that they keep current laws, and enforce the current laws. They must
2 have a septic system, however. Most of these are on smaller lots that wouldn't
3 support a proper house and are hidden behind overgrowth. She refused to sign the
4 petition because if some of those in the higher echelon of the organization wouldn't
5 have had the problem. They should have let them be. They are not significant. Not
6 everyone is looking to have condos or high -rises on Point Roberts.
7
8 Joan Roberts, 1876 Washington Drive, stated she and her husband own three
9 parcels of land in Point Roberts and has seen her property value decrease by
10 $100,000. She employs 20 people seasonally through her business in Point
11 Roberts, which drops in half during the winter. They should concentrate on how to
12 increase the residency in Point Roberts on an annual basis, not on a seasonal basis.
13 She is concerned about the health issues.
14
15 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
16
17 Roberts continued to state that those not on a sewer system would create a
18 health issue in Point Roberts. Enforcement seems to be what the issue is based on.
19 Changing the ordinance would create more enforcement issues. She asked the
20 Council to preserve property values by not changing the ordinance.
21
22 John Gallinger, 65 Victoria Way, stated he purchased the lot in 1987. The
23 previous owners never mentioned anything about zoning. It may have been in the
24 small print in his bill of sale. He assumed that trailers would be allowed because he
25 spent many years in Point Roberts and there are numerous nice trailers. There are
26 other trailers near where he lives. Putting up a trailer seemed to be a natural
27 thing. He put the trailer on his lot in 1989. For the most, it is used for holidays
28 and weekends. The trailer is worth about $8,500. A cabin would cost around
29 $65,000. He can't afford a cabin. If he were forced to sell the trailer, he would end
30 up selling the lot. He questioned what good that would do for Point Roberts.
31 Numerous lots are for sale in the same vicinity. He comes down every weekend
32 and patronizes the local businesses. There are 45 or 50 trailers, and the majority is
33 well maintained.
34
35 George Barton, 77 Victoria Way, stated he purchased his lot in May 2, 1977.
36 At no time was he informed that it was illegal to have a trailer on the lot. In
37 preparation for their trailer, they installed a septic tank system, hooked up to the
38 Point Roberts water system and to Puget Power. The trailer has been licensed since
39 1978. During the time they were mobile, they traveled throughout the United
40 States during their vacations. The trailer remained on the lot for the rest of the
41 time. Since it is an American trailer, it is not allowed in Canada, except while in
42 transit from Point Roberts to the customs at the Peace Arch. After 1984, they sold
43 their towing vehicle. Now, it would take a considerable expense to upgrade the
44 brake and lights to be allowed on the highway. They come down twice per week
45 during the summer and weekly during the rest of the year to maintain the lawns,
46 flowers, and shrubs. They also have an annual get- together with the family. The
47 neighbors are supportive of his situation. At no time has there been any
48 complaints. He planted hedges and screens to ensure their privacy. The trailer is
49 no longer mobile so it would probably have to be destroyed. It is doubtful, without
50 their trailer, whether they would have the incentive to maintain their property in
51 the pristine manner it now is. This is a vital part of their retirement life.
52
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 7
1 Shirley -Ann Hastings, 146 Fir Road, stated she is a taxpayer, contributor to
2 the Point Roberts economy, member of the Maple Beach Property Owners'
3 Association, and member of the Point Roberts Recreational Owners. They
4 purchased the lot in 1991 with the intent of putting a trailer on it until they have
5 sufficient plans to build. The realtor was aware of this and never mentioned that a
6 trailer could not be on the lot. When they purchased the lot, it was an eyesore and
7 used as communal dumping grounds. They have landscaped the lot. They have
8 septic, water, and power. The lot is well screened with cedar hedging. They never
9 had a complaint from their neighbors. Last summer, the neighbors signed a
10 petition that they did not have a problem with trailers on Maple Beach. It is not an
11 eyesore. It is well maintained. This property is their family's summer get -away to
12 meet with their American relatives. They have many family gatherings during the
13 summer. She requested that they be allowed to continue the use of their trailer on
14 their property as they have done in the past.
15
16 Ann Christi, 1509 Edwards Drive, stated she feels empathy for both sides.
17 She signed the petition to enforce the law. She came here a little over a year ago.
18 They scouted for property for many months. Her choice in property was made
19 because it did not have RV's across the street or next door. There were many
20 complaints from people who were showing their homes that they were not being
21 sold because of the poorly maintained RV's. There are certain areas where there
22 are RV's exclusively. One lot has three RV's, a mobile home, and a car dump.
23 There are lots nearby that are for sale. She questioned who would want to buy
24 those lots. Point Roberts is not a trashcan. It is a beautiful area. The people who
25 owned their RV's before the zoning should be grandfathered in. The RV's should be
26 screened and have appropriate septic systems. She didn't want to rebuild this
27 home and try to preserve her home, when someone next door can throw anything
28 on it with no concern.
29
30 Larry Musselwhite, 145 Tyee Road, stated he is the liquor agent in Point
31 Roberts. A number of his customers have expressed their concern about what is
32 going on today and what will happen to them. He's been asked to say a few words
33 to the Council. Point Roberts is very unique. He has been here for five years. The
34 area swells to 4,000 people in the summertime. It drops to 600 people in the
35 wintertime. The RV owners are landowners and they pay taxes. Point Robert's
36 property is stirring and is starting to sell. A brand new golf course will be open next
37 year. The perks associated with that golf course will increase the value of
38 everyone's property. He questioned the argument about RV's devaluing property is
39 valid. Standards for RV's do need to be set by the County Council. Obviously, one
40 can't park something on a lot and do whatever he or she wants. He asked the
41 Council to come up with a set of guidelines for RV owners that will appease the
42 landowners, homeowners, and the RV owners.
43
44 Bert Gendron, 1821 Shaw Crescent, stated they moved to Point Roberts from
45 Seattle four years ago. Two years ago, he bought a lot next to his lot. There was
46 nothing in the contract that said no RV's were allowed. They have to tell the people
47 before they buy the lot that they cannot put an RV on it. That is the law. He didn't
48 agree with the argument that the people want to improve their property value at
49 the expense of others. That is not justice for all.
50
51 Virginia Baker Waurpler, 9710 Harvey Road, Blaine, stated she was born here
52 75 years ago. She has maintained property on the private road and at the top of
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 8
1 the hill. She is speaking to have their own RV's on their own property. They have
2 owned their property and made the proper improvements since 1902. Since 1908,
3 when the Bureau of Land Management in Washington D.C. gave them the right to
4 purchase the acreage, they have had their original deed. For 98 years they have
5 owned their property, and they have 92 years of paying taxes as well as
6 improvements. The County Council has to look into all requests, even though some
7 can be very wrong. They still have to take time to study the issue and carefully
8 judge what will be best in this situation. They cannot just prohibit RV's. They have
9 to listen to all sides, which is being done tonight. In her opinion, RV's and cottages
10 are just fine. It gets down to the owners. The Voters' Association should not judge
11 them all by a few bad apples. If the Association is going for the 'Palm Springs'
12 look, they are going to have to condemn many of the homes on Point Roberts also.
13 She feels that her property rights have been challenged.
14
15 Dawson asked if she tried to get her RV grandfathered. Waurpler stated it is
16 grandfathered.
17
18 Mary Jane Anderson, 1025 Sunset Avenue, Bellingham, stated she is a
19 property owner. The previous speaker is her aunt. Her family has been in the
20 family since the early 1900's. She hoped the councilmembers had a chance to see
21 for themselves what is at the Point in different neighborhoods. The majority of the
22 homes are cottages and cabins, principally owned by Canadians. There are some
23 new, single family subdivisions. People have been coming to Point Roberts for
24 generations to enjoy the peaceful rural setting, the beautiful beaches, and the
25 friendly atmosphere that exists among these neighborhoods. RV's have existed
26 with these neighbors, with no problems, for all of these years. They could apply for
27 nonconforming status on her property. However, she didn't know that they could
28 meet the standards. She doesn't have proof that she had an RV prior to 1977.
29 Since 1977, these people have been coming to Point Roberts for 23 years with their
30 families to enjoy family reunions and to frequent the stores and gas stations. The
31 Planning Department staff came up with a solution to identify areas where this has
32 been going on for years. They are identified on several different maps that the
33 Planning Department has. Meeting the suggested criteria will not be an
34 enforcement nightmare. It will help enforcement because people will have to apply
35 and see that they have to meet the criteria. Property values have been coming
36 down for the last six or eight years because of the Canadian dollar. If RV's are
37 removed from the property, the owners will not maintain them. The property will
38 become blackberries and brush. She would rather have a properly maintained,
39 screened RV next to her property than a lot full of brush and garbage. She asked
40 that the Council consider the Planning Division staff recommendation for
41 administrative approval in certain areas where RV use has been existing for years.
42
43 Al Hartl, 31 Diane Circle, stated his family has been coming to the Point for
44 45 years. They have an RV on the property. The RV has septic, water, and power.
45 They planted trees to create a barrier between them and the mobile home next to
46 them. They fully support ridding the Point of run -down RV's, but not the ones that
47 are well kept. They support RV -only areas so they do not create giant trailer parks.
48 At no time were they ever advised that they could not put a trailer on the land.
49 They pay their taxes for the entire year but they can only be in Point Roberts for
50 180 days per year, as required by Immigration. A precedent has been established
51 since 1974 or 1977 that this regulation has not been enforced. They seek common
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 9
1 ground on the issue and possibly administrative approval to those who have
2 conformed to the health and neighborly issues to this date.
3
4 Mike Tan, 2121 Whalen Drive, stated he has no problem with well -kept RV's.
5 His objection is to the ill looking, poorly maintained RV's at Point Roberts. He is a
6 former resident of New York State. He is a fulltime citizen of Point Roberts. Two
7 years ago, he sold his practice and moved to Point Roberts. Since then, Point
8 Roberts has been their home. He has made an investment in Point Roberts by
9 building his dream house. The reason he moved to Point Roberts is because of the
10 beauty. He would not like to see his new hometown become an uncontrolled RV
11 park. He urged the Council to see that the town is well kept and that RV's are well
12 kept. Being a physician, he is aware of the health hazards. That should be
13 considered.
14
15 Hoag questioned whether Dr. Tan wanted the current law enforced. Tan
16 stated he believed the well- maintained RV's are the ones that follow the
17 regulations.
18
19 Hoag stated the regulations don't allow RV's at all. The codes that have been
20 in place since 1977 do not allow RV's at all, even if they are screened, well
21 maintained, and have a septic system. The Council is considering allowing the RV's
22 that meet those criteria. Tan stated he preferred the existing rule.
23
24 Bob Lewarne, 245 Bayview Drive, stated he has a summer home, and he is
25 representing his mother who has an RV in Point Roberts. His mother lost her
26 cottage by a mudslide three years ago. She invested almost $10,000, using Piont
27 Roberts services and materials, to upgrade the property so she could put an RV on
28 the site. When the trailer was moved down the road, which is very narrow, all the
29 neighbors were glad to see his mother put something on the site that would be
30 useable and workable. The community on his private road upgraded the drainage
31 system so they wouldn't have to worry about mudslides anymore. When they put
32 the RV on site, they continued to upgrade the property. Unfortunately, when the
33 enforcement issue came forward, they had to stop that upgrade. His mother is an
34 upstanding, hardworking pillar of the community. Her husband helped to bring
35 Canadian water to the Point. She has been here for over 30 years and is a valuable
36 asset to the Point.
37
38 He is also the president of the Point Roberts Recreational Owners
39 Association. He is the vice - president of a company that has almost 1,200
40 employees in 23 different locations. One location is in Lynden. He's always told his
41 managers to bring him solutions instead of problems. He offered a middle ground
42 solution to this problem. He spoke with a person from the Maple Beach Property
43 Owners' Association, since this person is on record of being on one side of the issue
44 and he is on the other side. After speaking with this person, they agreed on a
45 middle ground solution. He read from a letter from the Maple Beach Property
46 Owners' Association that said it would have no objection to existing RV users in the
47 Maple Beach area that have been using their trailers on their property for many
48 years, to be able to stay provided that they conform to septic standards and
49 screening from neighbors. This is an example of reasonable people addressing
50 community issues and finding an acceptable compromised position. He urged the
51 Council to ignore the extremes on this issue. The price is far too high for the
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 10
1 residents, whether they are fulltime, seasonal, or businesses. He recommended
2 that the Council listen to the liquor vendor because he knows everyone.
3
4 Bob Hawes, 2168 Garth Road, stated his family started coming to Point
5 Roberts in 1922. They outgrew their property and purchased three more
6 properties. His property has RV's on it. He spoke in favor of the administrative
7 approval, as detailed by the Planning Department. Much has been said about the
8 hardships that property owners would face if they were required to remove their
9 RV's. That information is fact. Much has been said about the devaluation of
10 property due to RV's. That is speculative, not fact. Property values have been
11 reduced because of the over abundance of small lots, impacted by the reduction in
12 the Canadian dollar. Most RV's are on small lots with septic systems approved for
13 cottage style dwellings. If the RV's were removed, one could only build a two -
14 bedroom home at a maximum. He thanked the County staff, Planning Commission,
15 and County Council for their efforts to arrive at an equitable solution. They have
16 been thorough, patient, and understanding of the situation.
17
18 Carol Tan, 2121 Whalen Drive, stated maintenance is the core issue. It is
19 hard to legislate what well maintained is. Enforcement of the existing code is one
20 way to get at one part of the problem. There is another problem that needs to be
21 addressed. That problem is the poorly maintained permanent residences. There
22 are many of those. This issue is a first step. She thanked the Council for coming to
23 Point Roberts.
24
25 Brenner questioned whether she is going after the permanent residences
26 next.
27
28 Tan question what the meaning was behind Brenner's comment.
29
30 Brenner stated Mrs. Tan commented that this is the first step. She was
31 curious about what was meant by that. Tan told Brenner not to read paranoid
32 things into her statement. She and her husband chose to move to Point Roberts.
33 They are full time residents. They love this place. They have a golf course. They
34 want controlled development on the Point. This is one way of doing that. It does
35 not indicate any kind of a campaign to do so.
36
37 Victor Stusiak, 253 Bayview Drive, questioned whether any action will be
38 taken on this ordinance.
39
40 Dawson stated action may be taken or they may refer the issue to
41 committee. They will discuss it after everyone has spoken.
42
43 Stusiak questioned whether there would be any decision by the Council.
44
45 Dawson stated there could be a decision.
46
47 Stusiak stated he has a summer residence and has been there since 1977.
48 He supports the position taken by the Planning Department even though he is not
49 an RV owner. His three neighbors are RV owners. Two of those three were
50 impacted by a slide, which took them from where they would have been legally
51 permitted to stay. He sees his neighbors from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
52 There is a great village atmosphere. He resented having action taken that says his
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 11
1 neighbors have to vacate because of something that someone else believes in. The
2 position taken by the Planning Department recognizes that Point Roberts is unique.
3 It is in the shadow of an urban community that is Vancouver. It is 30 miles from
4 downtown Vancouver. It has been a destination holiday area for many years. This
5 area needs a solution. He is concerned with the recommendation in the event the
6 Council does not choose to approve them. In that case, he suggested that the
7 Council consider a transition period of ten years so that people who have
8 investments in them have a chance to have an orderly withdrawal.
9
10 Andrew Zablocki, resident, stated he moved in from Seattle. To build here,
11 one has to have an expensive septic system. He questioned why some have to
12 spend this money and some don't. It doesn't matter who is staying for how long.
13 Times are changing. They need to enforce the law and have stringent health
14 requirements. The Health Department has to enforce the law like it does on all
15 other property owners.
16
17 Tom Holland, 1275 Brotton Lane, stated he is a mail carrier to the point.
18 There are 500 people on the Point. He has probably spoken to 200 people on this
19 issue. They are not really talking about RV's. They are talking about people.
20 People occupy those vehicles. People live beside them. There is a great amount of
21 effort to promote the Point and make it a destination point for tourists. They have
22 the golf course and the Lighthouse Park. They are working on a pier. The Parks
23 Board, of which he is a member, is developing trails. Property values are going to
24 increase on the Point. When that happens, the concern is about some of the
25 derelict structures that pull down property values. The feeling is that the people
26 who came to the Point with RV's weren't aware of the requirements. It wasn't too
27 many years ago they could go to Nielsen's Lumber, buy a building permit for $2,
28 and build anything. People didn't know what the regulations were. The people who
29 have these RV's should be allowed to leave them on their properties. They should
30 have to meet certain health requirements and aesthetic requirements. Anyone that
31 comes into the Point with an RV should be in a designated area. He suggested they
32 have a time limit of ten years. The regulations should be enforced for those
33 existing people. Those that break the laws or don't abide by the laws should be
34 forced to remove their RV's permanently.
35
36 Brenner questioned whether Holland wanted the law enforced as it is now.
37
38 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
39
40 Holland continued to state that RV's that have the sewage systems installed,
41 and visual impact are conducive to being good neighbors. They didn't know what
42 the regulations were when they came here. When he purchased land here, a
43 realtor misled him about his rights.
44
45 Gene Miklossy, 1594 Edwards Drive, stated he and his wife moved to Point
46 Roberts in 1992 because they liked the look of it. They moved from Tswassen,
47 British Columbia. They moved here because of the environment. When they
48 bought the lot, they had to find out what was required to build a house or put
49 anything on the lot. They've been talking about changes since 1977. They have a
50 problem with trailers now because there has been no enforcement of what has been
51 on the books. They can't keep everyone happy. A compromise has to be made.
52 He doesn't want RV's or trailers on single - family zoned lots. All property owners
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
have certain rights. It is the Council's responsibility to protect the community for
growth in the future. It is great to look back, but if they are not looking forward,
then they are going backwards.
Jim McGregor, 1503 Edwards Drive, asked if what they are discussing will
grandfather the existing RV's, or if they are going to be promoting RV's in the
future.
Dawson explained it would allow RV's as a permitted use with proper
guidelines. The existing ordinance does not allow RV's for residential use.
McGregor questioned whether they are dealing with the existing RV's.
Dawson stated they are dealing with the proposed permitting of RV's.
McGregor stated he wanted to make the differentiation between the existing
RV's and the potential future RV's. Typically, what could happen in the future
brings fear into people's hearts. They have property they want to protect. He does
not want to promote the RV's. He didn't want to invest money in his property and
have the potential for RV use next door. If they are going to deal with the issue,
then deal with the existing RV's, grandfather them it, and create proper regulation
to enforce the health and licensing issues. Allow the existing ones, but don't allow
any more.
Rick Woolever, 2117 Alder Street, Point Roberts, stated he has lived in Point
Roberts for five years. He is a full -time resident. People who own RV's leave at the
end of the summer. He has to stay here all year and look at the RV's. He doesn't
want the RV's, and wants the legislation enforced.
Jerry Bierens, 2081 Whalen Drive, stated he owns five acres. He has been
coming to Point Roberts since 1977. From 1977 to this date, he owned 29
residential lots and four or five acre lots. In the last two years, he sold all his
residential lots and acreage for about $100,000 to $120,000 each. The five -acre
lots were sold to a neighbor to $200,000 to $225,000 each. He has been hearing
comments that the trailers don't devalue the property. He disagreed. A lot of his
properties happened to be a single residential lot with a house. One house was put
on the market three years ago, and there has been a problem selling this one piece
of property because of the RV sitting across the road. The house was appraised
two months ago for $125,000. He kept reducing the price all the way down to
$96,000, but no one would buy it. He finally negotiated a deal with his renter, who
purchased the house for $86,500. That is quite a reduction from a $125,000
appraisal. The Council is not doing its job in protecting him, as a taxpayer, by
enforcing the laws. His attorney told him he had no rights to sue the County. He
would sue the County if he could.
Greg Higgins, 219 Bayview Drive, stated his first contact with Point Roberts
was almost his last. He has seen Point Roberts since 1956. They began to come
down periodically as visitors. The recently arrived residents are emphasizing the
property values. The reason why people like Point Roberts is because of the
people, who create the environment in Point Roberts. The reason why people come
to Point Roberts is to get away from areas they don't want. Families established
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 13
1 the Point Roberts environment years ago. This emphasis on property values will
2 destroy the true value of Point Roberts.
3
4 Wilma Donaldson, 2124 Maple Street, stated she is tired of hearing about
5 people who bought property recently. In those years, there were already trailers
6 and RV's. She questioned why those people bought property here if it was so bad.
7 The only people who are complaining about it are those who purchased property
8 recently. She has lived on Maple Street since 1972. She has a mobile home, but it
9 is parked on their vacant lot across the street. They have been asked to move it.
10 They never use it except when they go on trips. It doesn't make sense to cater to a
11 chosen few who have view lots.
12
13 Kent Craig, 2099 Birch Street, Point Roberts, stated he is against the zoning
14 ordinance change. Nobody wants to see new RV's come in, which is what the
15 change will allow. He would be willing to see compromise. That is what a number
16 of people have mentioned. People who have RV's now get along with their
17 neighbors. They should deal with the health issues, which is very important. Over
18 the long -term, RV's do reduce the value and they are all concerned about that, to
19 pass on to their future generations. Once an old RV is there and not maintained, it
20 can't be moved. He would be in favor of leaving the zoning as it is, but coming up
21 with an ability to grandfather the existing uses.
22
23 Hearing no one else, Dawson closed the public hearing.
24
25 Dawson moved to enforce the present legislation. When they allow people to
26 continue violating the law, it confuses people that come into the area. She lives in
27 a similar location. She is familiar with the feelings on both sides. There are people
28 in her area that are grandfathered into the area. It is difficult to take enforcement
29 actions on them, but their presence does affect property values. Having a husband
30 in the real estate business, she knows that it does compromise the return on the
31 investment.
32
33 Hoag stated this was discussed in Planning and Development Committee.
34 This ordinance also covers the Foothills area and parts of Lake Whatcom. Speakers
35 asked during the committee meeting that the public hearing be held open and delay
36 action until their next meeting.
37
38 Dawson stated her motion would only be for Point Roberts.
39
40 Hoag questioned whether they can amend portions and still hold the hearing
41 open.
42
43 Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated they should only hold the
44 hearing open. They can make amendments, but they may change their minds after
45 the next portion of the hearing.
46
47 Hoag moved hold the hearing open.
48
49 Imhof stated they need to take time to go through the notes they've made,
50 look at the ordinance based on what they heard. They need to put this into
51 committee and hold the record open for two weeks, until June 27. They need to
52 listen to the people who want to speak on the other areas within the ordinance. It
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 14
1 might have some ramifications of what they do with the Point Roberts portion. He
2 moved to refer to committee.
3
4 Brenner stated she supported the motion to refer to committee. It is
5 important to work out something that works as well as possible for everyone. She
6 wanted the Council to work on something to show they are listening to everyone at
7 the Point.
8
9 McShane stated he supported referring to committee. He appreciated the
10 testimony. The people presented a complicated problem. There is a complicated
11 problem with this ordinance elsewhere, as well. Those areas need to be addressed.
12
13 Dawson restated the motion to refer in committee and continue the hearing
14 in two weeks. This makes sense since they have to evaluate the other aspects.
15 They will continue the hearing so people in the rural areas can come forward and
16 testify. They might want to take longer to come up with a decision. The Planning
17 Department has many issues, and she wanted to decide this quickly.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20
21 Bierens questioned why they can't make a decision.
22
23 Dawson stated she cannot allow him to argue with their positions.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: A nine - minute break was taken at 9:00 p.m.)
26
27
28 CONSENT AGENDA
29
30 Imhof reported for Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
31 moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through three and five through ten.
32 Item four was held in committee at the request of the administration.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
37 56, MICROFILMING SERVICES, TO ALL QUALIFIED BIDDERS FOR
38 FIRM PRICING ON VARIOUS MICROFILMING SERVICES, IN AN
39 AMOUNT THAT COULD EXCEED $30,000 (AB2000 -219)
40
41 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #00-
42 58, NORTHWEST AREA PRELEVEL PROJECT, TO THE LOWEST
43 RESPONSIVE BIDDER, WILDER CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
44 $342,150 (AB2000 -220)
45
46 3. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 998010
47 AND THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE INTERSECTION
48 SIGNALIZATION OF EAST BAKERVIEW ROAD AT JAMES STREET ROAD
49 AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
50 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SOTO & SONS
51 CONSTRUCTION LLC, THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, IN THE
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 15
1
AMOUNT OF $491,173.60 (AB2000 -221)
2
3
4.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
4
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
5
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND NORTH SOUND REGIONAL
6
SUPPORT NETWORK (NSRSN) TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR MENTAL
7
HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND
8
COMMUNITY -BASED SERVICES FOR WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE
9
AMENDED AMOUNT $52,726, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF
10
$276,628 (AB2000 -222)
11
12
S.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
13
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
14
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND BLACK FLAG EMPLOYMENT SERVICES -
15
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO PROVIDE AN INDIVIDUALIZED PROGRAM
16
FOR PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT
17
OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF THEIR DISABILITIES OR
18
OTHER BARRIERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,704 (AB2000 -223)
19
20
6.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
21
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
22
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND BLACK FLAG EMPLOYMENT SERVICES -
23
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT, TO PROVIDE PLACEMENT AND FOLLOW -
24
UP SERVICES NECESSARY TO ASSIST PERSONS WITH
25
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,908
26
(AB2000 -224)
27
28
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
29
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
30
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND LOCAL FOCUS TO OFFER COMMUNITY
31
ACCESS SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
32
DISABILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,500 (AB2000 -225)
33
34
8.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
35
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
36
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND CASCADE RADIO GROUP, TO PROVIDE
37
FUNDING TO RUN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON
38
PREVENTING INJURIES FROM FALLS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,000
39
(AB2000 -226)
40
41
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
43
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT -
44
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT FOR PLACEMENT AND FOLLOW -UP
45
SERVICES NECESSARY TO ASSIST PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL
46
DISABILITIES TO OBTAIN AND CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT FOR
47
REMUNERATION IN COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS, IN THE
48
AMOUNT OF $149,472 (AB2000 -227)
49
50
10.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
51
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
52
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND KULSHAN SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT -
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 16
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
49
50
51
52
GROUP EMPLOYMENT FOR JOB PLACEMENT, ON- THE -JOB TRAINING
AND FOLLOW -UP SERVICES WHICH PROVIDE SUPERVISED
EMPLOYMENT IN COMMUNITY SETTINGS FOR GROUPS OF WORKERS
WITH DISABILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,368 (AB2000 -228)
OTHER ITEMS
1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE SURFACE MINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(AB2000 -69C)
Civil or Geo- technical engineer:
Imhof voted for Art Anderson.
Hoag voted for John Matzinger.
Dawson voted for Art Anderson.
McShane voted for John Matzinger.
Brenner voted for John Matzinger.
Crawford questioned whether Art Anderson is a civil engineer. It doesn't say
so on his resume'.
McShane stated it didn't say so on his resume. He had that question as well,
but Mr. Anderson is a registered engineer.
Crawford voted for Austin Huang.
Dawson questioned whether they need four votes to appoint someone.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated any action by the Council
requires a majority vote of the entire Council.
Crawford questioned what happens if there is not a majority approval.
Imhof stated they will wait until they get support of the members. They can
put it off until next week.
Crawford changed his vote to John Matzinger.
Matzinger was appointed to the civil or geo- technical engineer position.
Surface Mining Material User
Brenner voted for Cleo Callen.
McShane voted for Jeffrey Thistle.
Crawford voted for Cleo Callen.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 17
1
2 Dawson voted for Cleo Callen.
3
4 Hoag voted for Cleo Callen.
5
6 Imhof voted for Jeffrey Thistle.
7
8 Cleo Callen was appointed to the surface mining material user position.
9
10 Geologist
11
12 Imhof voted for Randall Scott Babcock
13
14 Hoag voted for Randall Scott Babcock.
15
16 Dawson voted for Randall Scott Babcock.
17
18 McShane voted for Randall Scott Babcock.
19
20 Brenner voted for Randall Scott Babcock.
21
22 Crawford voted for Austin Huang.
23
24 Randall Scott Babcock was appointed to the geologist position.
25
26 McShane stated he was pleased his former thesis advisor is going to be on
27 this committee.
28
29 Citizen
30
31 Imhof voted for Tom Brown.
32
33 Hoag stated Tom Brown stated on his resume that he is a gravel operator.
34 The citizen position is supposed to represent the public. It is inappropriate that
35 people who are in the gravel industry would apply for the only citizen slot on the
36 gravel committee. She voted for Harry Skinner.
37
38 Dawson voted for Harry Skinner.
39
40 McShane voted for Harry Skinner.
41
42 Brenner voted for Harry Skinner.
43
44 Crawford voted for Michael DeRosa.
45
46 Harry Skinner was appointed to the citizen position.
47
48 Surface Mining Industry Members (Two positions)
49
50 Imhof voted for Alvin Starkenburg and John Van Boven.
51
52 Hoag voted for John Van Boven and James Wiedman.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 18
1
2 Dawson voted for Alvin Starkenburg and John Van Boven.
3
4 McShane voted for John Van Boven and James Wiedman.
5
6 Brenner voted for Bradley DeHann and John Van Boven.
7
8 Crawford voted for Bradley DeHann and Alvin Starkenburg.
9
10 John Van Boven was appointed to the one of the two surface mining industry
11 member positions.
12
13 Imhof voted for Starkenburg.
14
15 Hoag voted for Wiedman.
16
17 Dawson voted for Starkenburg.
18
19 McShane voted for Wiedman.
20
21 Brenner voted for DeHaan.
22
23 Crawford voted for Starkenburg.
24
25 No majority vote was achieved.
26
27 Imhof stated they eliminate DeHaan, because he received the fewest votes,
28 and vote again.
29
30 Imhof voted for Starkenburg.
31
32 Hoag voted for Wiedman.
33
34 Dawson voted for Starkenburg.
35
36 McShane voted for Wiedman.
37
38 Brenner stated she would not vote for Starkenburg because he actively
39 endorsed her opponent. She voted for Wiedman.
40
41 Crawford stated he voted for Starkenburg.
42
43 Imhof stated they would vote on this in two weeks when Councilmember
44 Nelson can break the tie.
45
46 Forestry
47
48 Imhof voted for Tom Westergreen.
49
50 Hoag voted for Dave Chamberlain
51
52 Dawson voted for Tom Westergreen.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 19
1
2 McShane voted for Dave Chamberlain.
3
4 Brenner voted for Dave Chamberlain.
5
6 Crawford voted for Tom Westergreen.
7
8 Brenner stated they would vote on this in two weeks when Councilmember
9 Nelson can break the tie.
10
11 Representative for a Potable Groundwater Soply
12
13 Imhof voted for Jeffry Thistle.
14
15 Hoag voted for Peter Willing.
16
17 Dawson voted for Peter Willing.
18
19 McShane voted for Peter Willing.
20
21 Brenner voted for Peter Willing.
22
23 Crawford voted for Art Anderson.
24
25 Ecologist
26
27 Imhof voted for Dave Chamberlain.
28
29 Hoag voted for Bob Anderson.
30
31 Dawson voted for Bob Anderson.
32
33 McShane voted for Bob Anderson.
34
35 Brenner voted for Bob Anderson.
36
37 Crawford voted for Bob Anderson.
38
39 Bob Anderson was voted to the Ecologist position.
40
41 Environmental consultant
42
43 Imhof voted for Tom Westergreen.
44
45 Hoag voted for Charles Lindsay.
46
47 Dawson voted for Tom Westergreen.
48
49 McShane voted for Charles Lindsay.
50
51 Brenner voted for Charles Lindsay.
52
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 20
1 Crawford voted for Tom Westergreen.
2
3 Brenner stated they would vote on this in two weeks when Councilmember
4 Nelson can break the tie.
5
6 Dawson stated the positions that resulted in a tie vote are the surface mining
7 industry member, forestry representative, and environmental consultant. The
8 Council will vote on those positions in two weeks at its next meeting.
9
10 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOTION TO RESCIND A MOTION MADE AT
11 THE MAY 30 COUNCIL MEETING THAT ALLOWED FOR ADOPTION OF
12 ORDINANCE 2000 -024, VICTIM MEMORIAL SIGN PROGRAM. THE
13 COUNCIL'S ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT BE MADE TO
14 THE ORDINANCE FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES (AB2000 -197A)
15
16 Imhof moved to rescind the previous action on May 30, 2000.
17
18 Motion carried 5 -0 with Hoag abstaining because she was absent from the
19 meeting.
20
21 Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the prior ordinance would
22 have excluded the cases in which the guilt of the party driving the car had not been
23 established using a blood test. They successfully prosecute people for vehicular
24 assault and homicide without blood alcohol tests. The amendment is to allow those
25 folks in those cases to be memorialized as well as the others.
26
27 Hoag stated the language sounds as if it includes the drunk driver to be
28 memorialized.
29
30 Imhof stated a drunk driver wouldn't be convicted if he or she was dead.
31
32 Brenner moved to amend the ordinance in Exhibit A, section 12.56.010(H),
33 "...was shown to be driving while intoxicated (DWI) at the time of the accident
34 "
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 Motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried unanimously.
39
40 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPOINT BESS
41 CHRISTMAN AND ELLA MILLER TO THE NORTHWEST SENIOR
42 SERVICES BOARD (AB2000 -230)
43
44 Imhof moved approval.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
49 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR BAKERS EDGE GOLF COURSE,
50 8225 KENDALL ROAD, SUMAS (AB2000 -231)
51
52 Imhof moved approval.
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 21
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 5. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A NEW
5 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR BIRCH BAY ASTRO #852, 4485
6 BIRCH BAY - LYNDEN ROAD, BLAINE (AB2000 -232)
7
8 Imhof moved approval.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12
13 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
14
15 Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 1. RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON
20 CUP99 -0042 FILED BY SPRINT SPECTRUM (AB2000 -217)
21
22 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.20, WHATCOM
23 COUNTY SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICTS (AB2000 -188A)
24
25 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET, REQUEST #8 (AB2000-
26 233)
27
28 4. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 4, TOWN OF
29 GLACIER (AB2000 -234)
30
31 S. RESOLUTION VACATING ALL OF THAT PORTION OF JAMES WAY
32 LYING WESTERLY OF BIRCH BAY DRIVE (AB2000 -235)
33
34
35 OTHER BUSINESS
36
37 Brenner reported on two items in Public Works Committee. Both of them
38 were requests for direction. The committee voted unanimously to recommend the
39 direction requested. The first item was the Flood Control Zone District work
40 program. They requested that the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee
41 make recommendations on a priority list of projects they would like to see
42 completed, similar to the road program. The committee also asked that the
43 advisory committee provide a list of any necessary staffing. The committee
44 recommends that the full Council give that direction. She so moved.
45
46 McShane stated he was on the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
47 Committee last year. It was a committee that expressed its frustration at times.
48 They have been charged with what was initially a very simple thing. That was to
49 deal with bad flooding on the Nooksack River after two horrific years. Since that
50 time, things have become a lot more complicated. One of the technical people they
51 have hired has only been on staff for one year. Fifty to seventy -five percent of his
52 time is spent dealing with building applications in the floodway. The advisory
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 22
1 committee estimated that it takes four times longer to get permits for projects.
2 The County spent a lot of money on the flood program for the comprehensive flood
3 plan and for modeling of the Nooksack River. They would be throwing that money
4 away if they don't commit to implementing that plan. It will take staff to do that.
5 The Flood Advisory Committee came forward, and it took them a year to get the
6 courage up to do this, to ask for more staffing and direction from the Council. The
7 Council will have to be more involved. It would help if the full Council indicated
8 that it is receptive to that idea before they move forward.
9
10 Dawson stated that last year there were 13 different projects approved. This
11 year there has only been one project approved. The agencies are sending the
12 projects back to the County and asking for things to be repeatedly redone. There is
13 a staff issue here. There are items that have been sitting for quite a while before
14 being addressed, which tends to be another problem at the federal level. The
15 County may need to do some communication with these agencies.
16
17 Hoag stated she supports having adequate staff for the flood program. It
18 has been short - staffed. She questioned whether the subject of the armoring of
19 shorelines was brought up at all during the discussion. She didn't want to go there
20 without more information.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 Brenner stated the Public Works Committee also discussed a possible
25 amendment to the conditional use permit process to exempt small signs for
26 educational facilities. In discussing this with Land Use Manager Roland Middleton,
27 they came up with a recommendation for the full Council to approve.
28
29 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
30
31 Brenner stated they felt that signs above a certain size should be approved
32 by administrative approval. Signs above the size of the signs needing
33 administrative approval would still need a conditional use permit. Very small signs
34 could probably be exempted. They have had problems in the past with people who
35 have to spend more for a conditional use permit for a small sign than they spend on
36 the sign itself. These were not controversial signs. Right now, the Whatcom Day
37 Academy wants to install a sign, but it will cost $500 for the conditional use permit,
38 and their sign costs less than that. She believed that the cost should be reduced
39 for educational facilities, but Middleton thought it should be more general. She
40 spoke to Sylvia Goodwin and Sam Ryan about it. When she first brought the issue
41 up, she believed that non - profit organizations and educational facilities should be
42 given a reduced rate. The problem with that is it still costs the same amount to run
43 it through the process. Sam Ryan came up with the idea, after talking with staff, of
44 exempting those that are insignificant, require administrative approval for signs
45 that are medium sized, and retain the conditional use permit process for the regular
46 commercial and large signs. That is the direction they would like the Council to
47 provide. She moved to request the administration to submit to the Planning
48 Commission process a possible amendment to the conditional use permit process to
49 exempt very small signs, require administrative approval for small to medium sized
50 signs, and to retain the conditional use permit process for signs that are of a
51 significant size or are commercial.
52
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 23
1 Goodwin explained that this will be placed on the docket for a text change
2 before the Planning Commission for a hearing. The deadline to get it on the docket
3 is June 30. They are asking to place this on the docket for Planning Commission
4 consideration as a zoning text change.
5
6 Brenner stated that is her motion.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10
11 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
12
13 Hoag reported that the Chamber of Commerce invited Hoag and her husband
14 to be in the Ski to Sea van to view the race. It was very well organized. She
15 offered congratulations and stated she appreciated the invitation.
16
17 McShane stated the Planning and Development Committee began listening to
18 a possible change to the Lake Whatcom overlay regarding an issue they discussed
19 in the Water Resources work session a month ago. Bruce Mills brought forward an
20 idea. The Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County also brought
21 forward a letter from 1998 that reiterated their point, which is contrary to what is
22 being brought forward by Bruce Roll. He asked the Council to take a look at the
23 issue and the letter.
24
25 Hoag stated the item will be scheduled for June 27.
26
27 McShane stated the other issue is the draft scope of work for the watershed
28 resource inventory area (WRIA) #1 technical studies. They were distributed to the
29 councilmembers earlier in the day. There is a very tight timeline. Mr. Roll indicated
30 that he would like to have comments by the end of day on Friday. He asked that
31 comments be submitted to him or Mr. Roll. It is critical, if they are going to be
32 responsible about these WRIA water issues, that they take a look at it.
33
34 Brenner stated she will comment, but not by Friday. The tour of recycled
35 homes went well. Her home was on the tour. Over 500 people came through her
36 house. None of her councilmember friends came to the tour.
37
38 Crawford stated the Council received a letter from Water District #10 saying
39 they were caught off -guard regarding a $100,000 scope of work. He questioned
40 whether the County was also caught off - guard. He heard that a scope of work was
41 written to apply for that money.
42
43 Pete Kremen, County Executive, explained that the County was not caught
44 off - guard. The mayor was on one of his Russian visits at the time that staff from
45 the City of Bellingham put forth the proposal. When the mayor returned and the
46 management team met for the first time after the proposal was made, it was
47 decided that the proposal put forth by the City of Bellingham was not acceptable to
48 either Water District #10 or the County. They came up with a proposal that they
49 all agreed with. The letter that came from the Water District #10 commissioner is
50 a moot point. The County was not caught off - guard. The letter that came from
51 Water District #10 was well intentioned but a bit premature.
52
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 24
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
Crawford questioned whether the district was happy after that letter was
written. Kremen stated that, by the time the letter arrived to the mayor, the
proposal that was causing the ire from the Water District #10 commissioners was
non - existent.
Kremen asked that the annual reception honoring the Lummi Tribal
councilmembers, Nooksack Tribal councilmembers, and the Whatcom County
councilmembers be on July 13. Attendance by all is very desirable.
Dawson expressed appreciation of Kremen's effort in putting this together for
four years at his own expense.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he would like to set aside
an hour for an executive session on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of next week.
The meeting would exclude McShane.
Dawson thanked the community of Point Roberts for their attendance.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on July 11 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council Meeting, 6/13/2000, Page 25