HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 11 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
July 11, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RVS, REVISE RV STANDARDS IN
THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE URM, R, RF
AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
RVS (AB2000 -215)
Hoag moved to amend sections 20.20.056 and 20.32.056, subsection 1(3)
on packet page 142, "All recreational vehicles located on the property for more than
120 days per year shall be screened...." It seems a bit burdensome to require that
all RV's be screened. Many people testified that they bring their RV's to Point
Roberts for only a week or two during the summer, and then take it back home.
Crawford asked if that would apply to all zones.
Hoag stated it just applies to the sections listed on page 142, sections
20.20.056 and 20.32.056.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the first section applies to
all of Whatcom County, but the only place in Whatcom County where RV's are
allowed in this category is in the Foothills subarea in the preexisting recreational
subdivisions.
Brenner stated this is for all Urban Residential and Rural Residential zones.
Goodwin stated that subsection .056 specifies preexisting recreational subdivisions
of the Foothills subarea. Those are the only areas allowed.
Brenner asked if Councilmember Hoag is talking about other areas in the
County.
Hoag stated she was only talking about the Foothills subdivision.
Crawford stated that one source of complaint is a neighbor with a parked RV.
He questioned whether those camping on the Nooksack River are in the Foothills
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
49
50
51
subarea. Goodwin stated they are in Rural zoning, which is the next section on
packet page 143.
Brenner stated she did not notice that it was just in the Foothills subarea.
She asked about the other Rural Residential and Urban Residential zoned areas in
the county. Goodwin stated no other Rural Residential and Urban Residential zoned
areas in the county allow RV's. The rest of the county doesn't allow RV's. They are
not proposing to add any. The only place to have RV's in these zones is the
Foothills.
Crawford stated this code change has to do with those who stay in their RV's
for 120 days. Hoag's change requires screening for those who leave their RV's.
Hoag stated that is correct.
Crawford stated it would be exempt from the screening if it is unoccupied
and next to a single - family residence. If it is sitting there by itself, it must be
screened. They don't differentiate between the storage of an unoccupied RV and
the RV that is sitting on a lot that is not being occupied or stored.
Hoag stated she was trying to loosen up the requirement because it requires
everything to be screened, only if the owner takes it to the lot for a week or two.
She only wanted to require screening on those RV's that stay on the lot.
Crawford asked for clarification. He didn't want to have to screen an RV if it
is stored adjacent to a single - family residence. Goodwin stated number eight
covers it, but they can add one unscreened, unoccupied RV if they want to clarify it.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford moved to amend sections 20.20.056 and 20.32.056, subsection
1(8), on packet page 142, "...the storage of one unoccupied recreational vehicle is
permitted, and is not subject to screening requirements."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to delete section 20.20.056 and section 20.32.056, subsection
1(9), on packet page 142, "A" F atienal . ehieles shall have nt ehiele
lieensing and " She questioned whether there is any reason the County
has to require them to be licensed while they are sitting. Goodwin stated state law
requires someone to license something within 30 days of purchase. If they want to
violate state law, that is between the individual and the state. They County's point
was that the County gets a little bit of revenue from those license fees. Because
they wanted to make sure that an RV was moveable, they brought this
recommendation forward. If it is not licensed, it is difficult for someone to haul it
away.
Brenner stated they shouldn't have to require the RV to maintain a current
license if it doesn't go anywhere. Tabs and insurance are only necessary if it is
going to be driven.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
49
50
51
Crawford stated he was in favor of it here, but not in Point Roberts. Part of
the point there is to make sure they are moveable. The County's share of the
revenue generated from the license is a miniscule amount of money.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Brenner questioned whether other areas in Urban Residential (UR) and Rural
Residential (RR) zones are allowed to have an RV stored on their property.
Goodwin stated she would look it up in the code, but she believed that other uses
incidental to the primary permitted use would allow storage of an RV on a property
with a single - family residence.
Brenner stated there is a problem if someone can't have a guest bring and
stay in an RV.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated the code is interpreted so that if
one is staying in an RV it is not storing an RV. It is beyond incidental to the use. If
one owns an RV and parks it along side the house, it is an incidental use.
Brenner stated people with small acreage can't have anyone visit in their RV
and stay overnight. Middleton stated that is correct. If one lives in Tweed Twenty
and has a visitor stay in an RV, and the neighbors call to complain, he will issue a
correction notice.
Brenner stated that is a UR zone. She is talking about the RR zone.
Hoag questioned whether it is complaint driven, so the County isn't doing
anything for someone staying a week or so. Middleton stated it is complaint driven.
Right now, one can park an RV in a setback area if it is allowed as an incidental
use. The changes just approved would require that it be outside the setback area.
Hoag stated that came from the Planning Commission. Middleton stated that
if they have an open lot with an RV, they want the RV to meet the setbacks.
Hoag moved to amend sections 20.20.056 and 20.32.056, subsection 1(6),
on packet page 142, "the locations of parked RV's on vacant lots shall observe..."
Goodwin stated they are talking about recreational subdivisions. The
setbacks and lots are fairly small. If they aren't meeting the setbacks, someone
could park right up to the road and cause a visibility problem.
Middleton stated one could only park in the side and rear yards. The
visibility in the front yard has to maintain visibility, by setback definition.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.20.056 and section 20.32.056, subsection
1(6), on packet page 142, "...single family residence. RV's parked adjacent to
single family residences shall not be parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
49
50
51
Brenner stated that it never would have occurred to her that it was not legal
for someone to come visit and stay in their RV in a Rural zone. She has two acres
with a house. She is completely screened from everyone. It would never have
occurred to her that was illegal.
Hoag suggested that Councilmember Brenner bring forward language at the
evening meeting.
Crawford referenced subsection 1(3) on packet page 142. Someone was
concerned that they couldn't cut down trees on a lot if it has an RV. He moved to
amend that language on packet page 142, "...natural vegetation that provide visual
screening shall be maintained in all side and rear setback areas that are adjacent to
the recreational vehicle."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane referenced subsection 1(7) on packet page 142. In the other
locations, it always seemed that placement of an RV must be on a foundation or
that wheels must be removed. He questioned why that language is not in this
section. Goodwin stated that this area is only for those recreational subdivisions
designed specifically for RV's. Most are on foundations, have porches, or have
roofs. That is what they were designed for and that is what they are.
McShane questioned whether it is okay to take the wheels off in those parks.
Goodwin stated both Planning Commission and staff made that recommendation.
Hoag referenced packet page 143 regarding Point Roberts. She moved to
amend section 20.72.051(3), all recreational vehicles located on the property for
more than 120 days per calendar year, shall be screened...." It isn't necessary that
someone visiting for a week screen his or her property.
Crawford stated he was opposed to that on Point Roberts. He wanted
everything screened.
Motion failed 1 - 2 with Hoag in favor.
Dawson questioned the grandfathering policy. Goodwin stated the people
had to have been there prior to 1974.
Crawford questioned whether the people have to have kept the same RV
since 1974. Goodwin stated yes. There is only one that is grandfathered in Point
Roberts.
Dawson asked that they can change the grandfather provision that allows the
people to buy a new RV. Goodwin stated the staff can interpret it if the people
have a historic use of an RV.
Middleton stated the General Protection Zoning was adopted June 8, 1977.
People have to prove that they had a legally established use prior to that date.
Several people have applied. Only one was established as a legal nonconformity.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
47
48
49
Most of the other people had a 12 -foot travel trailer in the 1960's. They showed
photographs of having a picnic in front of a travel or tent trailer. What they have
on there now is a 35 -foot fifth wheel. They are debating whether the size of the
trailer matters. He was hoping for clarification from this process.
McShane questioned whether they should look at the memorandum from
Planning and Development Services about the issues.
Hoag stated the issues that they brought forward are the same ones they've
been discussing and that have been brought forward in the hearings. She didn't
see a point in going over them. It is the same choices they've been looking at.
McShane stated he wondered which option they wanted to pursue, or if they
are going to dance around them.
Hoag stated they are not dancing around the options. They are looking at
what is in front of them and making changes they feel fit the situations. In doing
that, they are choosing which option they want to pursue. If they take the time to
go through the memorandum and decide which option to choose, then they have to
go back to the document to figure out the wording to implement that option.
McShane stated that is what he is suggesting, to choose which option so that
they are talking about the same changes when they are making changes.
Hoag stated that is a waste of their time. They have a very short amount of
time. People were informed that they needed to come prepared to this meeting.
All of the issues have been outlined in the packets.
McShane stated it has never been clear to him from the other
councilmembers which option they are pursuing at Point Roberts. He questioned
whether they are pursuing permitted, not having them at all, grandfathered, or
another option. When they are talking about the changes they are going to make,
it makes a difference on what changes he thinks would fit.
Hoag stated that is one of the six options. They didn't get this until today.
They haven't had a chance to go over these ahead of time. If they take the time to
go over this in committee, they won't be able to consider the changes that did need
to come to committee today. The specific things that she suggests, spell out what
happens. If they go through all the documents, they are going to duplicate efforts.
She didn't want to do that.
Brenner stated that she agreed with Councilmember McShane. If the
councilmembers say yes to one or two options, then it doesn't change any of the
other stuff. It is something they haven't come to grips with. She liked the idea of
an administrative approval. That would end a lot of the concerns. Everything else
would stay as they are. It is an issue that was brought up. The Council said it
would come to a conclusion on it at some point. That part is not addressed in
Councilmember Hoag's suggested changes.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
49
50
51
Hoag stated it is in the packet. If they allow RV's as an administrative
approval use, then they have to set up criteria for the administrative approval.
They will not get done with that.
Brenner stated that administrative approval means that it meets all the
conditions that are in there. They have to go to the County and show that they are
doing it this way.
Goodwin stated there are criteria for administrative approval in the County
code section 20.84. They are the same as conditional use.
Brenner stated that an administrative approval is not the same as a
conditional use. Goodwin stated they are not, but the criteria are the same. It has
to meet the criteria for a conditional use permit. Criteria are usually about whether
it is compatible with the surrounding area and if it meets health and safety
standards.
Hoag stated that runs them all through an approval process, rather then
allowing or not allowing them to be permitted in a particular zone. They would be
tying up staff time and the citizens' time.
Brenner agreed.
McShane stated he just wanted to know which direction Councilmember Hoag
wanted to go.
Brenner stated it sounds like Councilmember Hoag wants them to be
permitted outright.
Hoag stated she wanted to make it clear about where these are and are not
allowed. That seems to have been muddled in the past. She wanted to do the best
she could to protect people's property values, but also allow people to use their
RV's as much as possible. Her suggestions were to protect safety and health
without becoming overly restrictive.
McShane stated he wanted to be clear on the direction. He concurred with
that direction. It would be important for Councilmember Crawford, as a committee
member, to understand that also.
Crawford stated he supported the permitted use at Point Roberts. He
supported most of the Planning Commission's recommendation. That includes
some administrative oversight on the large number of RV's on the Nooksack River.
Hoag stated that if they are going to get through this at this meeting, they
have to be quick.
Hoag moved to delete subsection (9) regarding licensing on packet page 143.
Brenner questioned whether Councilmember Hoag believed that it is okay for
an RV to stay there all year long.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated that it is appropriate in areas where it is a historical use. It isn't
appropriate in other areas. She will suggest language that separates the two.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to add language to subsection (2) on packet page 143, "(a)
Outside of recreational subdivisions as outlined in WCC 20.97.337, the maximum
length of stay of any recreational vehicle on a lot shall not exceed a total of 120
days per calendar year." This would allow RV's to be used on the Point, but would
not allow RV's to be stored all year long outside of designated recreational
subdivisions where they have been a historical use. Attached to this memorandum
from Sylvia Goodwin is a map showing where some of the RV sites are located. On
packet page 167, there is language that sets up the recreational subdivisions. The
Planning Commission recommended that they leave off of Birch Bay at this point.
The areas were designated based on a combination of public input, surveys, aerial
data, and plat data. Her motion was to add the language under item two that
breaks it out into two areas. Within those recreational subdivisions, people can
store the RV's all year long. Outside of those subdivisions, the maximum length of
stay would be 120 days. That way, they can protect people's property values while
allowing historical use to continue.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.72.050, subsection (1) on packet page
143, "All recreational vehicles shall be connected to a helding tank eF a permitted
on -site sewage system ; or a public sewer er shall dispese ef all sewage, ineiuding
gray wateF, at a recreational vehieles dump site, or have such sewage and waste
Hoag stated that if someone owns a lot on the beach, brings in an RV, and
wants to camp there for a week, then he or she should not have to have a septic
system installed. There are a number of these lots, as they stated in the Findings,
that can't support septic. Requiring them to bring in public sewer so they can use
their lot to put their camper on is being excessively restrictive.
McShane suggested a friendly amendment, "All recreational vehicles in
subdivisions that comply with the Health Department regulation, including approved
sewage disposal systems, and where connection to an approved sewage disposal
system is not feasilbe, the RV must have an adequate holding tank for wastewater
storage. If the RV is occupied for more than ten days, the owner of such RV shall
maintain a record of the dates and locations of wastewater discharge. shall be
cenneeted to a helding tank or a permitted en site sewage systern , public sewer er
shall dispose E)f a" __,, including gray wateF, at a reeFeatienal vehicles durnp
site, or have such sewage and waste wate. , e ... e,dl by a licensed sanitaFy dispesa4
wee.
Hoag stated that language was similar to what the staff recommended.
However, that would be difficult to administer and excessively regulatory. If
someone moves in with a fully self- contained vehicle, and they drive away with it
and dump his or her sewage somewhere else, she would not be concerned with
having a record of that.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
49
50
51
McShane stated that if a person is there for more than ten days, he or she is
pushing the limits. He would question what the people do with their waste if they
have been there for 120 days and don't have a system.
Hoag stated that many RV's have rolling tanks. When they get full, it gets
dumped at the nearest dump station. The RV still sits where it is.
McShane stated that would be great if they do that. However, he would like
to know what they do with the water.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated there might be someone who is clearly dumping the waste.
Hoag stated that is already covered in the health regulations. They don't
need additional laws.
Goodwin stated they have a letter from Chris Chesson of the Health
Department that said he didn't like that clause because the phrase about feasibility
is too subjective. That would be difficult to administer. Also, there are no
dumpsites on Point Roberts.
Crawford stated that after listening to a lot of Planning Commission
testimony, Council testimony, and talking to a lot of Point Roberts people, raising
the bar to the level of septic systems is going to make people serious about their
responsibilities as an RV owner. At that point, the economic development issues
have been mitigated, as well as the health and visual issues. Therefore, the septic
issue is critical. There is more to it than whether or not they are infringing on
people's rights to camp on a lot. They are allowing Point Roberts some pretty
special exclusions from the rest of the county, where RV's aren't allowed. The
Council is saying that it will allow the Point Roberts people to use the RV's because
of the historical use, but they have to make a commitment to the environment and
the screening issue. It is very important to him that they see the septic clause in
there. Based on his history of growing up in an RV family and owning an RV, he
knows that when they park in one place, it becomes tempting for the owner to dig a
hole and dump the waste. It is a hassle to dump if the owner doesn't want to move
the RV. He wanted to remove that temptation.
Hoag stated she had a problem with that. They would punish people that
aren't doing anything wrong in trying to prevent someone who might abuse. That
isn't necessary. She wanted to protect the water and people's property values.
Councilmember Crawford's motion is excessive. She proposed a friendly
amendment to specify RV's that have been there for more than 30 days.
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. He wanted it to be black
and white.
Brenner stated that Councilmember Hoag's friendly amendment would be a
nightmare to enforce if the staff had to check Point Roberts every 30 days. Her
biggest concern about Point Roberts is that it is not about excessive regulation or
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
48
49
likes and dislikes. The water table at Point Roberts is right at the surface. Most
lots can do some kind of septic system, even a mound system. She didn't want to
eliminate RV's at the Point, but in this instance, they have to draw the line because
of the high water table. It is very fragile.
Hoag stated the high water table is exactly the reason why septics don't work
there. The staff report mentioned the option of having a pumping station on Point
Roberts. She questioned where the closest dump station is.
Bob Haas, Point Roberts, stated it is about 20 minutes away in Canada.
Brenner stated people are going to avoid going through the border if they are
staying there for a long time. Her concern is the temptation to do illegal dumping.
Haas stated that the RV Owners' Association said that a proper sewer system
is mandatory. A septic tank system won't work in some places. He suggested the
term "approved onsite sewer handling system" as defined by the Health
Department.
Crawford stated that intent is encompassed in his motion. He restated his
motion, "All recreational vehicles shall be connected to a
permitted on -site sewage system ; or a public sewer , neluding gr-ay wateF, at a r-eer-eatienal vehieles dump site, er have sueh sewage and
John Gallenger, Point Roberts, stated the septic isn't a problem. People don't
put in a septic system because they can't put in a standard type of system. The
mound type is costly and an eyesore. There is a landscaping issue behind the
mound system.
McShane suggested a friendly amendment to specify that the RV is there
more than 20 days. Is a burden for someone who uses a site for one week per
yea r.
Crawford amended his motion to 14 days, "All recreational vehicles that
remain onsite for more than 14 consecutive days shall be connected to a held+eg
tank era permitted on -site sewage system ; or a public sewer
sewage, ineluding gr-ay water-, at a r-eeFeatienal vehieles Elun9p site, er have sueh
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to amend subsection (3) at the top of packet page 143, "All
recreational vehicles shall be screened from neighboring properties not using RV's
and public roads. Such screening may consist of landscaped buffer areas, suitable
native vegetation, or a fence. Existing trees and natural vegetation that provide
visual screening shall be maintained in all sides and rear setback areas that are
adjacent to the recreational vehicle."
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated there is a Point Roberts Character Plan that deals with removal
of trees. Goodwin stated it only applies to commercial structures and multi - family
housing. It wouldn't apply to RV's.
Hoag stated this is only the setback areas.
Crawford stated he wanted to clarify the language so it can't be
misinterpreted to mean that no trees could be cut on the lot.
Hoag stated that the language only says they can't be cut in the side and
rear setback areas.
Crawford stated an owner should be allowed to cut around the perimeter of
his or her lot if he or she wants to.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend subsection (6) on packet page 143, "The location
of parked RV's on vacant lots shall observe normal building setback standards for a
single family residence. RV's parked adjacent to single family residences shall not
be parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated the section in the Rural zone talks about RV days, which are
defined in a separate section, 20.97.339, on packet page 146. The concept of RV
days would be a nightmare to administer and to comply to. They should stay with
using calendar days. She moved to amend page 143, section 20.36.056(1)
regarding RV days, "...total of 120 fRV days per calendar year, as defined R
2-0.9 .
Crawford stated he liked the concept of RV days because he was involved in
the initial discussion of regulating multiple RV's. The RV day idea went hand -in-
hand with a maximum number of RV's one could have at any one time. The idea is
appealing because it also addresses impact. Multiple RV's could have a similar
impact to one RV that spends a long time on a lot.
Hoag agreed with the idea, however recommendation on packet page 164
was more clear cut and easier to administer. They limited guest RV's to seven
consecutive days or 30 days per year for guests. The idea of being able to have
eight RV's sitting on a lot for 120 days is a major impact to the neighbors. This
would be easier for the County, easier for the public, and better helps to protect the
neighbors.
Bob Carmichael, attorney, asked for flexibility for the Rural property owners'
RV use. Most of the RV use is summertime use. He suggested that there be an
addition in section 20.36.056(3)(x) to allow more RV's during the summer months,
with administrative approval.
Hoag questioned whether a person can come to the Planning and
Development Department to obtain a special event permit if he or she wanted to
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
plan something that exceeds the total number of RV's allowed. Goodwin stated
that is correct.
Hoag stated that when they talk about RV's, most people picture a nice
motor home or trailer. There could be a camper with duct tape. It's nice to take
people's wants and considerations into account, but they are already allowing an RV
use, a guest, and a party with a special event permit.
Carmichael agreed. The idea is to protect the public's health and safety,
while maintaining as much flexibility as possible. Three special events per year
may be fine for some. If there are some people who use the property more
frequently, they might want to have three RV's there. If they meet the criteria for
screening and all the other criteria, the public safety can be assured through a
simple administrative approval. The Rural zone deserves some consideration
because there is more open area out there. It probably wouldn't be a huge burden
on staff to allow that on occasion.
Hoag stated it does provide flexibility, but it doesn't protect neighboring
property owners. That use is a large impact. If they want to do that more than
three times per year, they ought to do something else.
Brenner questioned from what they are trying to protect the neighboring
property owners. If they have to do setbacks, and the area is rural, she didn't
understand if it isn't a health issue. She questioned the impacts.
Hoag stated that people who stay in RV's are generally keeping late hours,
and are louder. Rural areas are quiet and sound travels great distances. If there
are many in one spot, it is likely to create a headache.
Brenner stated that if that is the concern, the people could be in tents and
make just as much noise. It isn't fair to discriminate against RV's.
Carmichael stated that Councilmember Hoag's concerns are legitimate.
However, they can be addressed if there was a simple administrative approval
process. If there was a problem, the approval could be pulled.
Hoag stated there are costs and time involved in pulling approval.
Carmichael stated it is not the same as a conditional use permit. It could be
structured to say that any violation could result in the removal of the approval.
They are not talking about structures that would have to be removed or business
that would have to close. Those situations are difficult to remove.
Brenner stated it should not be administrative approval. It's too much extra.
There are noise codes. If people violate the noise codes, she would complain. The
Sheriff's Office responds to noise complaints all the time. If the RV people are
within the normal range of sound, it's too bad. In rural areas, especially with
screening and setbacks, people ought to be given more flexibility. They are not
being gracious by doing this. Until this came up, she assumed that RV's were
allowed as long as they are not a health hazard.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Hoag stated that they are supposed to consider the Growth Management Act
when they consider these changes, which includes the impacts on services. If they
are going to allow a use that would require law enforcement, then they are
impacting the services.
Brenner stated she might have to call a sheriff for four tents.
Hoag restated her motion to amend page 143, section 20.36.056(1)
regarding RV days, "...total of 120 RV days per calendar year, as defined fift
29.97.336."
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag moved to delete section 20.36.056(2)(b) on packet page 143 and
replace it with the staff recommendation on packet pages 164 -165, section
20.36.056(2)(b).
Crawford questioned section 20.36.056(2)(x) on packet page 143. The
entire concept of administrative approval is only for the basics of this regulation.
He questioned whether staff would look at whether or not the neighbor across the
street would complain if the RV people were too noisy. Goodwin stated they would
not. In this case, this is recommended to be a permitted use. The issue at hand is
how many RV's will be allowed.
Crawford stated he wanted to make sure someone could have an
administrative approval use, not based on the hearsay of some neighbor trying to
prevent the use. Goodwin stated a special event is not an administrative approval
use. The people only notify the department so the staff would know what is going
on and could respond to neighbors.
Crawford questioned what happens if the RV people do not notify the
Planning Department of a special event. Goodwin stated the staff would issue a
correction notice if the event was still going on.
Crawford stated he was satisfied with the procedure as it was set up. It is
well- thought out.
Hoag stated the language on packet page 143, in section 20.36.056(2)(b),
allows up to eight RV's on a lot at one time. That is too many. They are trying to
accommodate people with RV's. They need to have a balance and protect
neighbors. That many will have impacts on the Fire Department and the Sheriff. It
isn't wise planning. The staff's suggestion is a good one. If someone is having a
special event, he or she could get a special event permit. For general use, the
maximum should be five.
Crawford stated the staff's recommendation did not include the special event
permit. He questioned whether Hoag's intent is to allow that permit.
Hoag stated that was her intent.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
Brenner stated that ten acres is a large amount of property. If someone has
ten acres that are screened and meet all the health and safety requirements, it isn't
likely that they will be a big impact to the neighbors. They could create restrictions
saying how far the RV people have to be from the neighboring property. It isn't
about how many, up to a point. She would rather see staff come up with setbacks
for eight.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner proposed a motion to amend section 20.36.056(2)(a) on packet
page 143 that more than one accessory guest RV be allowed. She would like to
allow up to three guest RV's.
Hoag stated that Councilmember Brenner could bring that motion to the full
Council because no committee member was interested in bringing it forward.
Hoag moved to delete section 20.36.056(10) at the middle of packet page
144 regarding licensing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.36.056(5) on packet page 144,
"...Existing trees and natural vegetation that provide visual screening shall be
maintained in all side and rear setback areas that are adjacent to the recreational
vehicle."
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford moved to amend packet page 144, section 20.36.056(7), "The
locations of parked RV's on vacant lots shall... residence. RV's adjacent to single
family residences shall not be parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend language on packet page 144, section
20.36.056(4), "All recreational vehicles shall be connected to a
permitted on -site sewage system ; or a public sewer , nelUEliRg gFay wateF, at a FeeFeatienal vehieles dump site, eF have sueh sewage and
" Someone can visit
waste water rengeved by a licensed sanitary disposal for 14 days. If he or she is going to be there longer, there should be a system.
Hoag disagreed. They can haul it out.
Crawford agreed with Councilmember Hoag. His main concern was Point
Roberts.
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
Hoag moved to amend language on packet page 144, section 20.42.056(1)
regarding the RV days and the guests, "Maximum length of stay of any recreational
vehicle on a lot shall not exceed a total of 120 fRV days per calendar year, a-s
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
m-m;ed o„- 20.97.3-39-. provided that no accessory guest RV shall remain on the
subject lot for more than seven consecutive days at one time, for a total of 30 days
per calendar year."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Crawford questioned whether Councilmember McShane voted differently on
this during a previous item.
McShane stated he did. Rural Forestry is a different animal. They need to be
very restrictive on the uses in Rural Forestry because people are very sensitive in
that zone.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Hoag moved to amend language on page 144, section 20.42.056(2), '...shall
not exceed five Of the lot is less than ten affes. if the lot is 10 acres eF greater,
tetal nurnbeF ef Feffeatiena' vehicles en a single let at ene time shall net exceed
e+g-krt." Eight RV's on a lot is too many. It negatively impacts the neighbors and
County services, such as fire and sheriff services, contrary to the Growth
Management Act, which requires that they consider the anticipated effect upon the
ability of the County and /or other service providers as applicable to provide
adequate public facilities, including transportation facilities.
Brenner stated there could be a lot of 20 -acre Rural Forestry (RF) zoning, but
there could also be 150 acres in RF. They are not necessarily going to lessen the
impacts by the lot. They lessen impacts by adjusting the parcel size, not one -size-
fits -all.
Crawford questioned the chances that someone who owns 300 acres of Rural
Forestry would want to have a big RV -fest more than three times per year.
Brenner stated she didn't know, but that shouldn't matter, even if he or she
did want to.
Nelson stated Cedar Gulch on the Mount Baker Highway is such a location.
They have a family reunion there that has more than eight RV's.
Crawford stated that they could have 100 RV's as long as they file with the
Planning Department.
Brenner stated that the Cedar Gulch people have other groups many other
times during the year.
Hoag stated that they should be a commercial establishment that does that.
That shouldn't be private.
Nelson questioned whether the log show grounds is an RV park. They would
have to have a special event permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag moved to delete section 20.42.056(10) on packet page 145 regarding
the licensing requirements.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford moved to add language to section 20.42.056(5) at the top of the
page, "...Existing trees and natural vegetation that provide visual screening shall be
maintained in all side and rear setback areas that are adjacent to the recreational
vehicle."
McShane stated they don't need screening in Rural Forestry. It is forestry
land and the trees should be cut down.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
McShane moved to strike 20.42.056(5) on packet page 145 in the Rural
Forestry area.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.42.056(7) on packet page 145 as it
was adopted previously, The locations of parked RV's on vacant lots shall observe
normal building setback standards for a single family residence. RV's adjacent to
single family residences shall not be parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Hoag moved to remove the licensing requirement in section 20.64.065(8).
Crawford questioned where the Resort Commercial areas are in the county.
Goodwin stated they are in Birch Bay and Point Roberts.
Mary Jane Anderson, Point Roberts, questioned whether the committee was
done with the Point Roberts section. She questioned whether regulations for the
Point Roberts area allow a guest RV. Goodwin stated that no guests were added in
the proposal, and she hadn't heard a change. She has a lot that has been in her
family for generations. She co -owns the lot with her sister and brother. They have
a septic system for a two - bedroom home. She would like to allow guest RV's.
Brenner suggested that they add an additional guest RV if the approved
sewage system allows or is adequate.
Hoag stated she would rather adopt the language they just adopted about
the guests in the other zones. Anderson stated there might be two RV's on the lot
for up to a month or two. They are not always used. It is a hassle going in and out
of two borders all the time, so they leave the RV's there. Their septic system
handles the waste.
She is not the only family in this situation.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated the Planning Commission didn't include guests because of the
concern about the small lots. Anderson stated they have a larger lot with adequate
room and adequate septic.
McShane suggested setting a lot size limit.
Brenner stated the sewage thing is the most important.
Anderson stated that they've never had a problem with the neighbors.
Middleton stated the only way they would handle it is if there was a
complaint. They would ask for the septic approval from the Health Department. If
the owner would not have that, he would issue a correction notice to either install
the septic, remove the RV, or receive a ticket. There is no permit or pre- review. It
would be for enforcement only.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.72.051 on packet page 142, "...park
model trailer and one accessory guest recreational vehicle per lot;..." and to amend
section 20.72.051(2) on packet page 143, "...per calendar year. Maximum length of
stay of the guest recreational vehicle would be 30 days." The language already
says that all recreational vehicles shall be connected to a permitted onsite sewage
system.
Brenner stated an approved sewage system might not be adequate.
Anderson suggested they make the requirement be 30 consecutive days.
Crawford questioned whether guest RV's have to be screened.
Brenner stated they have to be screened.
McShane proposed a friendly amendment that they are allowed for 60
calendar days.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
Citizen stated that she has five acres in a Rural Forestry zone. She
questioned why the Point Roberts people, who have small lots, are being allowed 60
days and she is only allowed 30 days for the guest RV.
Hoag stated that the Point Roberts people have to have a septic system. The
Rural Forestry owners don't have to have septic systems. Citizen stated they
couldn't put in septic systems because their lots are on the river.
Hoag stated they have the same problem in Point Roberts. The Point Roberts
people have to put in mound septic systems if they want to take advantage of this.
Goodwin stated that most of the recreational subdivisions in the Foothills
already have septic systems or sewers, but not in Rural zones.
Brenner stated that the citizen could still get a special event permit.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, 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
Hoag restated the motion to amend section 20.72.051 on packet page 142,
"...park model trailer and one accessory guest recreational vehicle per lot;..." and to
amend section 20.72.051(2) on packet page 143, "...per calendar year. Maximum
length of stay of the guest recreational vehicle would be 30 days."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to delete section 20.64.065(8) regarding the licensing
requirement.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Crawford moved to amend language in section 20.64.065(3), "...Existing
trees and natural vegetation that provide visual screening shall be maintained in all
side and rear setback areas that are adjacent to the recreational vehicle."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to amend language in section 20.64.065(5), "The locations
of parked RV's on vacant lots shall observe normal building setback standards for a
single family residence. RV's adjacent to single family residences shall not be
parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag suggested adding the language from packet page 167 that defines the
recreational subdivisions and establishes the recreational subdivisions in Point
Roberts and in the Foothills subarea. They are dropping the suggestion to define
areas in Birch Bay on the advice of planning staff and the Planning Commission.
That reflects the change made earlier in the Point Roberts Special District. This was
the staff's recommendation. She moved to add language on packet page 167, the
new section 20.97.337.
Citizen questioned whether one area in Point Roberts could be extended to
include other areas that already have RV's.
Brenner questioned whether it is pertinent because the regulations are for all
of Point Roberts. Goodwin stated Councilmember Hoag's proposed motion is to
have the recreational subdivisions only in those areas defined.
Hoag stated they are talking about the part allowing RV's all year long.
Citizen stated that Victoria Way is the area of concern to him.
Hoag stated this was discussed before the meeting. Sylvia Goodwin told her
that there may be some areas that were not included, but could be included.
Goodwin stated that this is a very specific definition that they are adding to the
ordinance. The Council would need to provide specific direction.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 17
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
Hoag questioned whether the area the citizen referred to was only Victoria
Way. The citizen explained the area on a map.
Middleton stated that if they don't adopt a specific map at the night meeting,
and they have a definition, he would interpret it differently.
Hoag stated the language in the staff report is a legal description. Middleton
stated the Council could make it parcel- specific, whether by legal definition or by
map.
Hoag stated that she would add all lots north of Province Road in Area 1.
Goodwin stated she would add the area to the legal description later.
Hoag stated that the added area includes everything north of Province Road
to the border to the Delta View portion of the definition. Goodwin stated she would
bring forward a map for the night's meeting.
Hoag restated her motion to include the defined recreational subdivisions, as
amended to include the lots north of Province Road, in the ordinance that they
adopt.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner suggested a motion to amend sections 20.20.056 and 20.32.056 to
include language, "In all other RR zoning in which a house exists, one private, non-
commercial recreational vehicle shall be allowed, provided that subsections one
through four, six, and seven are required." She left out subsections five and eight
because they do not apply to RR zoning on which a house exists.
Hoag asked Brenner to bring the motion forward at the night's meeting.
Brenner stated she wanted the Planning Committee to vote on it so it could
be included in the substitute ordinance that would be presented. She asked that a
committee member make that motion. She questioned whether any committee
member was willing to make that motion. It is the RR zoning and only allows the
same thing on acreage lots in the county that are allowed on small lots.
Hoag told Councilmember Brenner to bring it forward at the night's meeting.
She questioned whether a mobile home would qualify under the definition of a park
model trailer in section 20.97.292. Goodwin stated it would not. Mobile homes are
larger than 400 square feet.
Hoag questioned the reason for deleting the language in section 20.97.340,
the definition for a recreational vehicle park.
Amy Peterson, Planning Division, stated that is an erroneous reference. It
doesn't exist. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) also does not define
camping clubs.
Hoag questioned why they are striking the language about travel trailers, and
whether RV's include travel trailers. Peterson stated that is correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 18
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
Brenner stated that other motions were brought up during the meeting that
wasn't written out. Those motions were voted on.
Hoag stated she doesn't have time to look at what they are including and
what they are leaving out.
Brenner stated it is very simple. It is the same stuff that already exists. It
just includes other Rural Residential (RR) zones in the county.
Hoag questioned whether the committee was willing to look at it.
Brenner stated that all she was saying was that subsections five and eight
don't apply because they are already allowed in the other RR areas.
McShane stated he understood what Councilmember Brenner was saying. He
would make the motion to look at it, but would probably not support it. He moved
to amend sections 20.20.056 and 20.32.056 to include language, "In all other RR
zoning in which a house exists, one private, non - commercial recreational vehicle
shall be allowed, provided that subsections one through four, six, and seven are
required." All this says is that a person with a house on a lot could also have an
RV, just like the lots that don't have houses."
Hoag stated the houses are already allowed to store an RV.
Brenner stated that if a friend comes to visit, the friend is illegal if the owner
is in a Rural Residential zone.
Hoag stated the section that is being used as the criteria were designed for
the Foothills subarea, where people stay all year long.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Brenner stated that the language would be added under sections 20.32
because it deals with Rural Residential zones.
Hoag stated that the requirements were tailored to an area where people
stay all year long.
Brenner stated they are very strict requirements.
Goodwin suggested that they say, "one fully- contained recreational vehicle."
Brenner stated that people don't know that it is illegal to have a friend visit in
his or her RV.
Hoag stated she would not support it with these criteria because they were
aimed at yearlong use.
Brenner stated she didn't care how it was worded as long as they allow
people in RR zoning to have a visitor stay in an RV.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 19
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
Crawford suggested adding a sentence to section 20.32.056(8).
Brenner stated that section only applies to the Foothills subarea. She was
talking about other RR areas.
Motion failed unanimously.
Crawford stated he would work with Brenner on the language.
Hoag stated she supported the idea, but not in the way it was proposed.
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW WHATCOM COUNTY LAND DIVISION
REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), REPEALING THE EXISTING WHATCOM
COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 21), AND MAKING
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 2 AND TITLE 20 (AB2000 -160)
Hoag stated this item would have a public hearing at the July 25 Council
meeting. It would be held and the committee would work on it during its July 25
committee meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/11/2000, Page 20