HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 13, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Member Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford None
Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
20.80, STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICTS, REVISING PORTIONS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 99 -086 (AB2000 -229)
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated staff was asked to look
at the ordinance that was passed regarding the overlay protection zone, examine
the regulations, and come up with some compromises. They have some ideas. The
way the ordinance is written now, any impervious surface over 120 square feet in
the watershed, which is also the level that triggers a building permit, would require
that the person has to treat and detain the flows off of his or her property. In
addition, the person would be required to retrofit the entire existing property. In
trying to look at what might be more cost beneficial, the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAQ has done much work on this ordinance. They've come up with
some cookie - cutter designs for underground detention pipe, but there are still
requirements to have five or six feet of fall from where the water goes into an
outlet. They feel that fall should be higher.
They are looking at accumulated square footage. For a lot that is
undeveloped and will be developed up to 500 square feet, the owner wouldn't have
to treat or detain. On a 10,000 square foot lot, 500 square feet is about five
percent of the lot that is impervious. From 500 to 2,500 square feet, the owner
would have to treat the polluting impervious surface, such as driveways, parking
areas, and some types of roofing that leaches. Other things that are clean
impervious surfaces, such as patios and sidewalks, wouldn't have to be treated
because they don't cause pollution.
Above 2,500 square feet, which is 25 percent of a 10,000 square foot lot,
one has to both treat and detain. Those are larger lots with more square footage
where it is more practical to do some detention. If one is above 5,000 square feet
of impervious surface, it is a more difficult situation. At that point, one would need
to have it engineered.
McShane stated there are footnotes about what would be required for
detention and infiltration.
(Clerk's Note: Hoag arrived at 3:10 p.m.)
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
Mills stated this is fairly complicated. He is not asking for a decision today.
It will take more thought and work sessions. They need to get input from the TAC.
In the short period of time they had to throw something together, this is a starting
point.
McShane questioned whether the table was incorporated in what they have
now. Mills stated it is. On page 14 of that ordinance, under the "stormwater
special districts" section, they would revise that paragraph and incorporate the
table or have something with similar values.
Crawford questioned whether this went through the Planning Commission.
Mills questioned whether it has to back to the Planning Commission.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she believed it has to go
back to Planning Commission because it is a change to an official control. Unless
the Council wants to do it as an emergency, it has to go back to the Planning
Commission. They were hoping to get direction on whether they should docket the
item for the Planning Commission as a zoning text change. Staff needs that
decision by June 30.
Mills questioned whether the document has to be final at that point.
Goodwin stated it doesn't have to be complete. They've tried to get text that
is fairly complete so they know what they are having a hearing on. If the Planning
Commission has a general concept, the staff can always recommend alternate
wording at the Planning Commission hearing level or before it goes to hearing.
Hoag stated she wanted to discuss the Point Roberts item first. They don't
need a decision on this until June 30. The Planning Committee is being cut short;
they have to be done by 4:00 p.m. to go to Point Roberts. They will be dealing
with the recreational vehicle (RV) issue in Point Roberts, and they need to make
sure that item is completed in committee so they are prepared for the public
hearing in Point Roberts.
Brenner stated Mr. Mills only needs direction on whether to send it to the
Planning Commission.
Mills stated others want to speak on it. They have an opportunity to speak
on June 27.
McShane stated they need to provide direction to the Planning Department
on June 27.
Hoag stated they can hopefully get to it after discussing Point Roberts.
Pat Jones, Building Industry Association (BIA), distributed a letter the BIA
sent to the Council on July 2, 1998 regarding this matter. The item was sent to the
Planning Commission and discussed for months. The Council behaved in a
responsible, thoughtful, and courageous way. It is painful for some people, but no
more so than for their neighbors.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
Hoag stated the issue is not settled. There should be discussion at the
Council level before a decision is made on whether or not to send it back to the
Planning Commission, with all sides of the argument presented. This item will be
rescheduled for June 27, at the beginning of the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 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) (ITEM SCHEDULED
FOR PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING AT THE PT. ROBERTS SENIOR
CENTER, 1487 GULF ROAD, PT. ROBERTS)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manger, stated this issue was much
discussed at the Planning Commission. It is not just a Point Roberts issue. They
need to hear the testimony provided at the hearing. Current regulations allow one
recreational vehicle (RV) on one lot for 120 days per year in the Rural, Rural
Forestry, and Resort Commercial zones countywide. It also allows one RV per lot in
the Urban Residential and Rural Residential zones only in the recreational
subdivisions in the Foothills area. RV's are not allowed in Rural Residential or
Urban Residential areas elsewhere in the county. There are limited standards on
RV's in the Rural, Rural Forestry, and Resort Commercial areas, which say they are
allowed for 120 days, must meet Health Department regulations, and are not
permanently installed. There is not much regulatory authority over those. They
are permitted uses.
The request to look at this issue came from several different areas. The
Council asked staff to look at the number of RV's allowed on a single lot on the
larger parcels, particularly pieces on the Nooksack River and the Lake Whatcom
watershed. People own large parcels and want to have two or three families
camping together, but are not allowed to do that now. There was also a request
from residents of Columbia Valley regarding problems with people living in RV's
year around and who wanted better standards. The issue also came up during the
Lummi Reservation zoning. RV's were previously an allowable use in the
Seasonable Resort Recreational zone. RV's are no longer allowed in permanent
zoning. The last reason they looked at this was due to the violations in Point
Roberts and Birch Bay. The original staff proposal was to designate additional
areas in Point Roberts and Birch Bay as recreational subdivisions and revise text for
standards of all the recreational subdivisions. No one liked that recommendation.
The citizens of Birch Bay didn't think that RV's were necessary. The Foothills folks
didn't want the proposed changes. They said their RV areas aren't causing a
problem. It didn't solve the Point Roberts area problems either. She did not
recommend going with the staff recommendation. The Planning Commission had
hearings and came up with other recommendations, which she also didn't
recommend. The other part of the staff recommendation was to add additional
standards and increase the allowable number of RVs per lot in the Rural and Rural
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
Forestry areas. She recommended allowing one RV, plus one guest RV, plus an
additional RV for every two acres of land. That suggestion was to deal with an
issue that someone has 17 acres and can only have one RV. This proposed change
would allow that person to have six, but they are recommending a maximum of
five. The Planning Commission revised the maximum to eight RV's for lots over ten
acres.
She wanted to go through the Planning Commission recommendation,
beginning on packet page 207. Most of the recommendations are good. She
suggested taking another look at the RV issue in Point Roberts. The first section
dealt with the Foothills subarea. Those are the Urban Residential and Rural
residential zones. They include Peaceful and Paradise valleys, Mt. Baker Rim, and
other little areas designed as recreational subdivisions.
McShane stated that the Planning Commission recommendation spells out
the Foothills area as listed in Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.97.337.
That section was not included in the packet. He questioned whether there are
other areas that are listed in that section. Goodwin stated that definition is in the
code, but not in the packet. It is in the existing Title 20 under the "Definitions"
section. She would provide copies of that section. They are all specifically listed.
They have to be pre- existing, in the Foothills subarea, and be one of those
subdivisions listed. There are specific areas. They are only in the Foothills subarea
and only those ones designed as RV areas and are pre- existing. The people that
live in those areas were happy with the regulations as they exist. The staff did
minor amendments.
Brenner questioned what is allowed for people in the Rural Residential areas
that are not in the Foothills subarea. Goodwin stated those people can't have an
RV at all.
Brenner questioned whether a person living in that area could have an RV on
his or her own property. Goodwin stated it is allowed only if there is a house. If
there is a house, one can have it as an accessory to the house. One cannot have
an individual RV on a lot if he or she is not within one of these subdivisions.
Brenner questioned whether RV's are allowed for a person living on smaller
acreage whose guests visit with their RV's. Goodwin stated they would be illegal.
The guests can't stay in the RV's. They can park the RV's in the yard if they are
unoccupied. The current County code does not allow occupied RV's on a lot.
Hoag stated that if someone is a guest with an RV, there is a house on the
property.
Brenner stated that guest still can't stay in his or her RV. They have to stay
in the house, not in the RV. Goodwin stated that is correct. Legally, the language
allows one unoccupied RV on the property with a house.
Hoag stated that if they tried to fix it so people could stay in their RV when
visiting, the Council would have to be careful not to make it so lenient that people
could end up living in an RV. Goodwin stated that is part of the concern.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
50
51
Brenner stated it is a problem to do a sledgehammer approach because they
are concerned about that happening. There has to be a middle ground.
Goodwin stated they could add it as an accessory use in all zones so a guest
can stay in an RV.
McShane questioned the density on the Rural Residential and Urban
Residential zones. Goodwin stated the density is three or four per acre.
Hoag questioned whether the items listed in the Foothills subarea section
also apply to all the Urban Residential and Rural Residential areas, such as section
20.20.056(8). Goodwin stated this only applies within the Foothills subarea.
Within the rest of the code, it is silent. It doesn't even talk about RV's in the rest of
the code. They assume that if the language allowing an occupied RV is specifically
spelled out in one section of the code, then it isn't allowed in the other sections
where it isn't mentioned.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated currently one reason why the
Point Roberts issue came up is because they have over 100 complaint cases that
are pending changes to the code. Many of the issues are about people who have a
house with people staying in an RV by the house. The County will issue a ticket if
there are utility hookups to the RV, and someone answers the door. This will not
be allowed in a lot in the Urban Residential (UR) zone, which a lot of Point Roberts
is.
Brenner stated Point Roberts is also a recreational resort subdivision.
Goodwin stated it is not, according to this code.
Hoag stated they need to make it clear they are allowing visitors with a
limited length of stay. She questioned how to enforce that.
Goodwin stated that is the issue in UR and Rural Residential (RR) zones. The
staff did minor code changes, but pretty much left it as it is. They dealt with the
issue of sewage and waste disposal with input from the Health Department. They
clarified provisions on screening and added that all RV's should have a current
license and registration.
Brenner questioned why a neighbor would care if someone is screened,
hooked up to an approved septic system, and it is not a health or safety hazard.
Hoag stated it doubles the density.
Brenner questioned how they are doubling the density if someone comes to
visit.
Hoag stated she is talking about someone who is living in the RV. No one
will care if someone comes to visit. A visitor is different than someone setting up
camp and creating two residences on a property.
Brenner stated accessory dwellings are already allowed. People aren't
worried about doubling density. They are concerned with the RV.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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 accessory housing is structured and different.
Goodwin stated the staff recommendation on Point Roberts is to designate
two areas as recreational subdivisions under the same definition that they had for
the Foothills area. That recommendation didn't turn out to be appropriate because
RVs aren't in those areas, and one of those areas has a covenant that doesn't allow
RV's. It is possible to draw a line around areas that have RV's, but that is difficult.
RV's tend to be in areas with smaller lots with land that doesn't perk well. Not a lot
of other uses are there. The Planning Commission recommendation was to allow
RV's everywhere in Point Roberts as a permitted use. It could be occupied for 120
days and could remain on the lot year around. They wouldn't have to have septic
tanks, but could have a holding tank. Screening and a current license would be
required.
The history of this area is that it is traditionally used for camping and RV's
since the turn of the century. There are 81 to 99 RV's on individual lots. The
economy changed so there are fewer Canadian visitors and more permanent
homes. Canadians own 46 percent of the lots. Half of the land is vacant. Lots
were platted before there were good subdivision regulations. The lots are too small
to perk, the soils are bad, and the water table is high. Many lots are vacant
because they can't get a septic tank or a building permit for a house. There is a
Point Roberts marketing committee that is making a lot of good progress in
promoting economic development. They are trying to get sewer and create more
year around jobs. They recently appointed a subarea plan committee to update the
subarea plan. A lot of those efforts could address the sewer and zoning issues, but
it would be nice to have the RV issue resolved before they get into the subarea, or
that will be the main issue of the subarea plan update. They received a lot of
comments from citizens at the Planning Commission hearing who don't want RV's
because RV's make lots unattractive for permanent residents. They heard a lot of
testimony that the area will never be developed as long as there are RV's. A staff
concern about the Planning Commission recommendation is that it is a permitted
use instead of an administrative use. Staff won't know if it has a septic tank,
screening, and won't have any way to keep track of them all. She is concerned
with having permanent RV's installed on a property without a septic tank. If there
is no septic tank and they are not removing the RV every week, the question is
what they are doing with the wastewater. It can be expensive to have a
professional empty it. There are reports that there are a lot of shallow drain fields.
Hoag stated they often have portables that are dumped at a site. Goodwin
stated there is nowhere on the Point that accepts sewage dumpsites.
Goodwin stated another concern is that the Planning Commission rules would
allow new RV's to come in. The rules would make them a permitted use. There are
no easy answers on this. If they allow RV's at all to continue on the Point, then her
recommendation is that they be allowed by administrative approval as opposed to
permitted outright, that there be evidence of a waste disposal system with a
regular pump out, or not to allow the RV to stay on the lot. She also recommended
that RV's be screened from adjacent properties that don't have RV's and that they
look at limiting the areas. Some of the nicer, new subdivisions with large lots
aren't appropriate for RV's. If they wish to prohibit RV's from Point Roberts, then
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
allow existing RV's to remain for a certain period of time if they have septic tank
and screening, to allow people to find an alternate site for their RV, sell the land,
build a cabin, or allow sewers to come in and the economy to improve. If people
have to remove their RV's immediately, many lots aren't useable and the owners
can't sell their lots.
Hoag stated this ordinance talks about RV's and specifies those without
foundations. They got rid of the language regarding the mobile homes. She
questioned the mobile home issue.
Goodwin stated mobile homes are allowed in Point Roberts, and they have to
be the doublewide homes. Any existing mobile home is nonconforming and will
remain. The Point Roberts special district overlay says that all mobiles have to be
doublewide. A lot of the singlewide mobile homes are old and nonconforming. The
County cannot take them off their property.
Hoag asked if they could be dealt with in the nuisance laws. Goodwin stated
the County doesn't have a lot of authority to regulate mobiles because the state
and federal governments regulate them.
Hoag asked if they can deal with things people are complaining about, such
as junk being piled around the mobile homes. Goodwin stated the Council could
probably deal with that through a nuisance ordinance.
Hoag stated many people in Point Roberts say they don't want the laws
changed, but enforced.
Brenner stated the RV rule is that they can't be there. Goodwin stated that
about half the land in Point Roberts is Urban Residential and cannot have an RV at
all. They can on the Rural Residential areas. One private, non - commercial RV per
lot is allowed within pre- existing recreational subdivisions in the Foothills subarea.
McShane stated those are permitted outright. There is not an administrative
permit needed for that. Goodwin stated that is okay because the subdivision was
designed for RV's. They have sewage systems and adequate waste disposal
systems, and they are all RV's. The neighbors won't be bothered because they
have RV's also. They are not concerned about the preexisting recreational
subdivisions. In Point Roberts, RV's are allowed in the rural zoned area, which is
half to 1/3 of Point Roberts. The 100 or so RV's in the Urban Residential areas are
mostly illegal. Sometime in the early 1970's the zoning used to allow recreational
uses and no one had RV's. A lot of those uses continued in Point Roberts and they
have never had code enforcement staff that have gone up there to make them
leave. A lot of the uses have been there since the 1970's or earlier, but not many
can prove it.
Brenner stated they enacted that prohibition in the 1970's to get rid of the
hippies who were up there in their buses, according to her husband. It didn't get
rid of the hippies, but it punished everyone else.
Hoag stated the section regarding permitted uses in the Point Roberts Special
District says that all permitted uses are permitted, except as prohibited by the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
chapter. She questioned whether RV's were expressly permitted. Goodwin stated
they are only allowed in Urban Residential zoning in the Foothills, so they are
prohibited everywhere else in the County.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin stated that is all she has to recommend. The choices are to let
them stay or make them go. If the RV's can stay, the Council has to decide the
standards and the approval process. If the RV's have to go, the Council has to
decide how long to give the RV's to clear out.
Hoag questioned the basis for the action the Planning Department took in
Point Roberts earlier in the year and what they did. Goodwin stated the action was
based on a number of complaints from the Registered Voters, an organized group,
who asked the County to enforce the existing law. The Planning Department sent
out notices to over 90 RV owners.
Middleton stated 93 notice went out. They have done limited enforcement
that is complaint driven. One of the associations in that area asked the County to
step up the enforcement. He told the association to issue a complaint. A month
later, the association showed up with 93 complaints. The staff prioritized the
complaints and issued correction notices. That is when this issue came up
regarding doing the other amendments to the Rural Forestry. It was all thrown
together at one time.
Hoag stated that when the association asks the County to get the RV's out,
they want the existing ordinance enforced. Middleton stated that is correct.
Hoag asked what the people were concerned about. Middleton stated some
trailers are nice, but some are junked.
Hoag asked how to address those kinds of problems. She questioned the
recommendation. Goodwin stated she wasn't recommending the Planning
Commission recommendation to allow RV's on every lot with no conditions as an
outright permitted use. That isn't a good idea. She recommended making them an
administrative use with requirements on septic tanks and screening, or giving them
time to phase out the RV's over three to five years. She didn't recommend
enforcing regulations now.
Brenner stated they should deal with Point Roberts separate from the
Foothills area, even though there is similar zoning. For tonight, they should listen
to the testimony. When they work on it, they should work on it area by area.
Dawson stated there is the same situation in Sandy Point. Those people who
bought property before the zoning was established are grandfathered. Those
people who purchased the property after the zoning was established want the
regulation enforced like everyone else. She didn't support giving them five years to
clear out. She supported providing six months or a year at the most to get them
out. People who bought lots for residential use are having their investment
expectation affected.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
50
51
Hoag stated many of the lots are small and don't perk, and this is one of the
few uses that will work there. She questioned whether it defeats the purpose if
they require a septic hookup to leave the RV there. Goodwin stated one could get a
very small septic tank for an RV. If the land doesn't perk, one can't get a septic
tank, and one drains gray water on the ground, it is not a safe condition. They
should take the RV home on the weekends to dump it.
Hoag questioned whether that could be covered in the language that says
they either be connected to a holding tank, a permitted onsite sewage system, a
public sewer, have such sewage and waste removed by a licensed sanitary disposal
service, or dispose of the sewage at a recreational dumpsite. Goodwin stated it
would, but originally staff recommended that they need a septic tank if they are
kept on site permanently. If they are going to dispose of the waste at a dumping
site, then they have to be mobile and leave the property.
Hoag stated many people don't take the whole RV just to dump the black
water or gray water.
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission decided that it is okay if someone
is going to be responsible and take their sewage away. The question is how staff
would know whether they are or aren't. If there is no administrative approval
process, the staff wouldn't even know that the RV is there and that the RV isn't
running a hose into the neighbor's bushes.
Brenner stated she is looking for a middle ground, so she disagreed with
Councilmember Dawson. Most people used their RV's before many residences were
built. It has always been a recreational resort subarea in the Comprehensive Plan.
Recreational means the people can have RV's there. They need to find something
that works for the people who have good neighbors. On the existing RV's, they
have to mandate and enforce three things: the RV is hooked up to an approved
County septic system; there is absolute screening from neighbor; the RV does not
present any health or safety hazard as determined by the fire marshal and the
County environmental health specialist. If the RV's meet those conditions, she
didn't understand why anyone would care if they can't see it and there are no
health hazards.
Crawford asked about administrative approval process.
Brenner stated it should be administrative approval, not permitted outright.
Goodwin stated people were present to talk about the Rural and Rural
Forestry areas. She has gotten phone calls about those areas. The County now
allows one RV, plus one guest RV, plus an additional RV for every two acres.
People who have smaller lots than that want more than two RV's to be allowed.
She asked if the public hearing would be held open so those people can speak on
the rural issues.
Hoag stated she would support that.
Crawford stated the Planning Commission recommendation was to allow the
RV's to stay there all year long and also to require that they be licensed. He
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, 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
questioned why that is. They would not need license and registration if they were
not moved.
Hoag stated that if an RV is currently licensed and registered, the owner can
be identified. Goodwin stated the staff recommended the licensing requirement
originally because they originally recommended that the RV be driven away every
other weekend, that it can't be propped up on foundation, and has to have
permanent wheels. She encouraged the councilmembers to drive down Maple
Beach. Some of the RV's are up on hillsides on jacks and couldn't come down. It
would not be feasible to drive them out every weekend.
Bob Carmichael, attorney, introduced Jim Mallahan, one of four families who
jointly own property at south end of Lake Whatcom. Everyone in the families has
RV's, and they would like to use the lot at the same time. He urged the Council to
allow flexibility for people to do that. It is a weekend summer use only. They have
been good neighbors. He suggested that they propose some language to address
that issue.
Hoag stated she would make the recommendation to the full Council to hold
the decision so they can look at the other areas.
1. 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)
This item was held in committee for two weeks.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Planning and Development Committee on
September 12, 2000.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 10
Planning and Development Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 11