HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 27 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 27, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:06 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. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
20.80, STORMWATER SPECIAL DISTRICTS, REVISING PORTIONS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 99 -086 (AB2000 -229)
Pat Jones, Technical Advisory Committee, stated he endorsed the proposal
from Assistant Director of Engineering Bruce Mills regarding the Water Resource
Protection Overlay Zone. It would go back to the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), which would look at the storm events that have no value from a water
quality point of view. The large 100 -year storm events have no impact on water
quality. It is the small events that cause a concern. They would like to see that
reviewed. He supported Mills' memo dated June 23, 2000 (on file). He would leave
the ordinance in place and send it to the TAC. The TAC could do the review in one
meeting to determine whether it needs to be modified. There is a set of
development standards consistent with the current ordinance. Let the staff proceed
with that. However, it would be appropriate to review the effects of the storm
events, with an emphasis on water quality.
Also in the Subdivision Regulations, Title 21 (AB2000 -160), there is an
issue of burdening. Burdening should be a requirement. In the language of the
ordinance, there is great specificity of what the burdening consists of. Burdening
could be described in the most general of terms that are comprehendible to an
ordinary person. It is not necessary to define the burdening on highly technical
terms, as long as one has said what the burdening is.
Hoag stated she listened to that discussion. One of the things they want to
avoid is a lack of clarity. That is why they keep ending up in court. Her personal
belief is that she agreed with Mr. Jones that the person granting the easement
should be told what the use would be, whatever it is, if he or she will be impacted.
It should be clear. Whoever is asking for that easement should not imply one thing
if he or she is planning to do something differently. She questioned whether Mr.
Jones could offer language that would be specific enough to be clear. Jones stated
it would depend on the nature of the burdening. As long as the burdening is clearly
stated, that is all one should ask. The TAC was given some examples of burdening
descriptions. His point was that they only need to clearly set forth the magnitude
and character of the burdening.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Hoag questioned whether there is a deadline if the committee asks the TAC
to review this.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that if the Council plans to
make any changes to the zoning text this year, it needs to be done by June 30.
There is no specific wording on this item, and it would be vague to docket
something if they don't know what it is and send it to the Planning Commission with
no direction. If they send it to the TAC, then it is too late to do a zoning
amendment this year. Mr. Jones is saying they should leave the ordinance alone
and do it later, but that means a full year would go by before they can change it
again.
Hoag questioned the types of rules this change would fall under. It has to be
in by June 30. She questioned what happened after that because the rules have
recently changed. Some of this stuff could be processed right away, and some has
to be batched. Goodwin stated they were going to try to get specific wording by
this day, so it could be docketed. The Planning Commission could have a public
hearing in the next several months and have it back to the Council before the
summer break.
Hoag questioned whether this is one that could be brought to the Council as
it is completed. Goodwin stated that is correct. It can go to the Council as soon as
there is wording and as soon as it comes back. In the past, they've docketed items
that are vague, but it usually causes problems because they can't have a public
hearing on something that has no wording.
Hoag questioned whether they are able to docket it, put it on the docket to
be reviewed, ask that it go to the TAC first before the Planning Commission, and
then have a public hearing after it goes to the TAC. Goodwin stated they could do
that. They require that an item have words if it is going to go on the docket. If
they put something vague and with no direction on the docket, and then have a
public hearing, they are opening a can of worms because they don't even know
what they are having a hearing on.
Hoag stated she wasn't asking to have a public hearing until they get
recommendations from TAC. Goodwin stated they could do that, but they should
provide direction to the TAC about what the Council wants them to do. That has
been a problem. The TAC has interpreted this to be the 100 -year storm and about
the quantity and quality, so large vaults have to be installed. The Planning
Commission envisioned a rock sill, similar to Sudden Valley. There needs to be
direction to the Council on its intent. Everyone would be wasting a lot of time
coming up with something without Council direction.
Hoag questioned whether it has to wait a full year if it is not docketed now.
Goodwin stated that is correct. They can docket something vague with some
direction, but she discouraged that.
Mike Donahue, Development Engineering Manager, questioned whether items
one through three on Bruce Mills' June 23 memo would provide enough specific
language.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Goodwin stated that is direction, but what the TAC thinks is appropriate may
be substantially different than what the Planning Commission thinks and what the
County Council thinks. She didn't have a concern about the TAC. They are doing a
good job, but this is a political decision. The Council should provide direction on
what it thinks is appropriate, or ask the TAC to come back with options.
Hoag stated she understood the comments about not wanting to have tanks
for small things. At the same time, stormwater quantity is an issue. They end up
with erosion from quantity.
Crawford questioned the impact of putting this off for one year. He
questioned whether there are a considerable number of permit applications now on
existing things that would go on one direction or another, depending on this item.
Goodwin stated there have been. Mr. Jones is saying that the standards that the
TAC has finished would cover it. They might in a lot of instances. Not everyone
has a yard big enough for a concrete vault. That is the concern. If a property
owner doesn't, then the County requires that he or she engineer a system, which is
quite expensive for an individual applicant. That is why Bruce Mills originally
proposed to bring this forward. If the TAC was able to do option three from the
memo, and Council agreed, then it would probably solve the problem. To leave it
for a year means that everyone coming in for a building permit has to hire an
engineer.
Jones stated it is painful that people have to pay money to bring themselves
into compliance. His analysis has shown that most of the systems that would be
put into place are comparable in cost on a per lot basis to what a new subdivision of
three lots would cost. There are current standards that would deal with at least 80
percent of the cases that aren't going to require any engineering. Some people
who have a large home or have an unusual situation on their lot are going to have
to do it. Those standards are ready to go. He didn't see a crisis. What Public
Works has put forward are the specifics that the Council ought to give to the TAC.
The TAC should be able to suggest to the Council the appropriate level and
character of treatment from the standpoint of water quality. That isn't a political
decision. It is a technical decision. They can decide not to achieve a certain level
of water quality. That is a political decision. How they do it is not a political
decision. These suggestions are just fine. They would do the job.
Donahue stated that the pain that Mr. Jones is talking about is on an
individual basis. If they look at the last paragraph of the memo, Mr. Mills did a
very fine job of summarizing. County staff has worked with Mr. Jones, as a
member of the TAC, on some cookbook best management practices that include
detention and water quality runoff. He and Mr. Mills have a problem with the
detention because some on the individual lots are four to five feet deep on flat,
tight lots. That would be a problem in the watersheds. They do not disagree that it
is a per lot cost that is the same of a new long plat coming it. It is a reality that
that people would have to face that they don't face now.
McShane stated that people do face this now. They are requiring an
individual lot owner to have an engineered vault in some scenarios. Donahue
stated the cookbook best management practices also include vaults.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Crawford stated they are not required to do anything if they are not asking
for a permit to do anything. The County is not requiring people to go do this. The
County is only requiring people to do this if they want to build an addition or do a
remodel.
Hoag stated they have to add impervious surface. Dohanue stated it is 120
square feet.
Crawford suggested that they let it sit so they have the adequate time to do
a TAC review and have more appropriate information so they can make a good
decision.
Hoag questioned the difference between Mr. Mills' memo and paper on
stormwater special districts treatment and detention requirements. The paper was
quite specific. She read the four points in the paper (on file).
McShane stated that paper came from Bruce Mills, who began some
preliminary work on this.
Goodwin stated she understood that he began to write text that would
amend the code. This isn't text to amend the code. It is just direction to the TAC.
That is why it is written differently.
Donahue stated the information on the paper was an attempt by him and Mr.
Mills to come up with certain thresholds. There are different scenarios for different
thresholds. This information was to change the text of the code.
Hoag questioned whether they decided not to go that route or whether they
want to send it to the TAC. Donahue stated they would send the information in the
paper as a boilerplate to the TAC to work through.
Hoag questioned what they are asking the Council to send to the TAC.
Donahue stated the intent was to also include the quality treatment.
Hoag stated she is uncomfortable about the first item in the Mills' memo
regarding emphasis on quality rather than quantity. She asked that they reword
that. She didn't want to sacrifice one for the other, yet she understood that one is
more important than the other in some circumstances. Donahue stated that is
true. They could be used in conjunction.
Goodwin stated that was the entire issue. That is what the code says now.
It says stormwater quality and quantity. Engineers are asking to what standards
they need to engineer. The code only says that they have to address quality and
quantity. There are no standards.
Hoag questioned the standards that the Council adopted last year. Mr. Jones
spoke on those also. Goodwin stated those standards are what was intended when
designing a new subdivision. Mr. Jones thinks that every single - family home should
be designed to the 100 -year storm event.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Hoag questioned the language for the single - family homes. Goodwin stated
that all it says is that any stormwater leaving a site must be treated for quality and
quantity. It doesn't say specifically that the large project controls are intended to
apply to single - family homes. That is how it has been interpreted and that is what
has caused the confusion.
McShane stated the determination of the size is based on the quantity of
water generated by a given storm. That has to be done by an engineer. Staff is
going to have to refer anyone who comes forward to have their stormwater runoff
calculations in and reviewed by staff.
Hoag questioned whether the paper gave thresholds for impervious surface.
McShane stated that Mr. Mills brought this up during a Water Resources work
session. They discussed that. They gave some direction to him to set up criteria of
size and impervious surface that one would create in an addition. Once they get
over a certain size, there should be engineering. Something small could probably
not have engineering and it would still work just fine. That was his impression.
Goodwin stated that if she had something that specific to refer to the
Planning Commission, they could have a public hearing. They could docket
something specific like the threshold paper.
Hoag questioned whether it would work to send the memo and the threshold
paper to the TAC and docket it on the Planning Commission agenda. It would
provide some wording and direction. Donahue stated that if they send the June 23
memo to TAC, the Engineering Department would work closely with TAC.
Hoag stated she would like to see the threshold paper go to TAC because it
reflects what she would like to see on the issue. The memo is too vague. It does
not provide an adequate direction. Donahue stated the TAC and Mr. Jones' firm has
done quite a bit of work already. They've come up with thresholds that are a bit
higher than these. They incorporated into the guidelines referred to in Mr. Mills'
June 23 memo.
Hoag stated that if the Council sends these thresholds to the TAC for review,
then Mr. Jones would say if they should be higher. That would be part of the
review. The Council is not asking the TAC to rubber -stamp these thresholds. It is
just providing direction. Donahue stated there are other members on the TAC, who
would discuss this with Mr. Jones to get some idea of the thresholds.
McShane stated that he is comfortable with the thresholds. The practices
that might be used are cookie - cutter approaches. It would be nice to include those
in the direction. He had a preference for onsite infiltration into the ground. That
gets into issues of soils at a given location and whether that should be considered.
There was another issue he was concerned about, which was cutting into the
hillsides. His concern is whether they are creating a mess if they docket and
forward this item. He questioned whether they should wait a year.
Hoag asked the difference a year would make. The question is whether the
ordinance, as it is, is adequate, or if the issues should be addressed. If it needs to
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
be addressed, they can do it in whatever time it takes to do the review. It doesn't
rush it, to get it started now.
McShane stated they would be erring on the side of caution with the current
overlay the way that it is.
Hoag asked if McShane thought they were undermining what they were
trying to accomplish by sending it to the TAC. Goodwin stated the TAC would be
more stringent than what the Council intended, not less stringent. They are not
going to compromise water quality by sending it to the TAC.
McShane stated he was not concerned about the water quality, given the
current makeup of TAC. His concern was that it is too vague for the public process.
Goodwin stated Mr. Jones argument makes sense, which is to leave the ordinance
as it is and deal with this as a development regulation. TAC has the authority to
create and send development regulations to the Executive whenever they want.
McShane questioned whether they can apply to overlay areas. Goodwin
stated yes. It doesn't give an interpretation of the Code. Right now, the TAC is
interpreting the code to mean that every system has to be designed to the 100 -
year storm because that is how Mr. Jones interprets the code. They still would only
recommend design standards that deal with that 100 -year retention issue.
Donahue stated that is true. There are some points that they need to clean
up. He recommended that it be referred back to the TAC.
Crawford stated he wanted to send it back to TAC. He questioned whether
they would be stuck for one year. Goodwin stated development regulation could be
done anytime. If they want to do an amendment to Title 20, it has to be done by
Friday.
Crawford stated he would be in favor of stalling an amendment to Title 20 for
a year.
Hoag stated they have to docket it to the Planning Commission by Friday, not
adopt it by Friday. The Planning Commission would send it to TAC. TAC would
make recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
would have a public hearing and make recommendations to the County Council.
There is no reason that process has to be rushed.
Crawfod stated there is a problem in not knowing what TAC is going to say
first. Goodwin stated it doesn't go on the docket until there are words that says
what the Planning Commission is going to consider.
Hoag stated this paper is not vague. Goodwin stated that paper is good, but
it is not what was proposed.
Donahue stated the paper is a specific issue. They could insert it into the
code on page 14, paragraph (6). They are only talking about one paragraph in the
code. Engineering is recommending that they look at the entire ordinance.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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 the County has qualified people with the TAC, the Engineering
Division, and the Planning Commission.
McShane moved to recommend that the Council send the size thresholds to
the Technical Advisory Committee as an amendment to Title 20 and also to docket
the item with the Mills memo.
Crawford stated it gets docketed first, then goes to TAC. Goodwin stated
that was correct.
Crawford questioned what would be presented to the Planning Commission.
They can assume that the TAC would change some of that. Goodwin stated that is
why they take the proposal and the amendments to the Planning Commission.
Hoag stated it should be clear the Council is not saying that information is
what the Council wants. Make the information a starting point and ask for review
on these issues. Goodwin stated the Planning Commission has a mind of its own
anyway.
Motion carried unanimously.
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)
Mike Donahue, Development Engineer Manager, stated the item begins on
packet page 312, section 21.04.080(3). The concern in the Engineering Division is
that by making people specify the burdening, they do not have to do what is
specifically in this paragraph. Technical Advisory Committee member Pat Jones
suggested amending language, "The owner shall specify the burdening of the
easement such as the average daily trips ... fer drainage easeme ." There is a
wide range of ways to specify what is burdened on a particular easement. They are
concerned that if they include that language, the County is requiring people to do
traffic or drainage studies.
McShane stated that language isn't for easements. He moved to strike
language on packet page 312, section 21.04.080(3). , "The owner shall specify the
burdening of the easement such as the aveFage daily tFips ... for dFainage
., t-s
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated it is a good thing to give people an
example as guidance of what an easement means.
Hoag suggested, "The owner shall specify the burdening of the easement.
Examples may include the average daily trips ... for drainage easements." She
questioned whether the assumption that people would be required to do those
studies is correct.
Aamot stated that "shall" is mandatory and "may is permissive. If they
amended the language to give an example that may be included, it is permissive.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, agreed on that language.
McShane amended his motion, "The owner shall specify the burdening of the
easement. Sueh as Examples of burdening may include the average daily trips ... for
drainage easements."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag questioned who is the owner of the easement.
Grant stated the owner is the owner of the land, the one who is giving the
easement.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Grant stated it makes a difference on what the owner of the property is
willing to give. It makes sense to put the burden on the property owner to clarify
what it is that he or she is willing to give.
Hoag questioned whether this language is clear in that way. She also
questioned whether one could own an easement. Grant stated people will use that
description, but the correct term is the holder of the easement. The language is
okay as it is.
McShane stated that at the previous committee meeting, the committee went
through Pat Jones' comments as he spoke for himself and also for the Technical
Advisory Committee JAC). The committee also went through all the TAC
suggestions. The committee made all the changes they are going to make for that.
There were comments from another citizen, Sherilyn Wells. The staff, in the
meantime, responded to her comments. Staff's response to Wells' comments is
what the committee could go into now. There should be amendments associated
with those. He questioned whether any changes have been suggested to the text
of the code. Aamot stated there haven't been.
McShane stated that the next step would be for the committee to determine
if it concurs with the staff's suggestions. He moved to make all the changes that
staff recommended in their response to Wells' comments.
Connie said she wanted to review them first. She questioned the action the
committee took at the previous meeting regarding contour lines, on packet page
324, section 21.05.120(2).
McShane stated the committee agreed to move that language to packet page
325, section 21.05.130. That was a suggestion that Land Use Manager Roland
Middleton made.
Hoag stated that language is not on page 325
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated that it would be nice to add the
contour map. It is additional information that is needed in some areas, but not all
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
places. It is not needed on every map. That is why he suggested putting it under
additional reports.
McShane stated that language should be at the bottom of that list. Aamot
stated he would add that item. It was an oversight.
Middleton stated that the correct term is "contour map."
Hoag stated that they need to make sure the drafts reflect changes that have
been made.
McShane restated the motion to adopt staff's recommendations in their
response to Sherilyn Wells' memo. He went through the recommendations and
believed they were appropriate responses. They didn't make changes in response
to everything that Ms. Wells' commented on. Staff provided explanations on why
some of the changes were not appropriate for this code.
this.
Crawford questioned whether the Council would have a public hearing on
McShane stated that it would have a public hearing.
Crawford agreed with McShane. The changes seemed fine.
Aamot stated the main issue was public water versus private water. They
are not making a change on those.
vague.
Hoag stated she wanted to discuss each item. Some of the items are a bit
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
McShane referred to packet page 297, the second paragraph in section
21.01.040. Staff recommended a change in language, "...of these regulations to
land divisions ."
Aamot stated that recommendation was from an excerpt of a staff report
dated May 20, 2000. Staff suggested six minor changes. There is rationale for the
recommendations in the staff report.
McShane moved approval of the staff recommendations for text changes in
the excerpt from the staff report dated May 20, 2000 (on file).
Aamot reviewed the six suggestions. The first item was to delete
"subdivision" and insert "land division" to clarify that the rules don't apply only to
lots when five or more lots are being created. The second item was to include gift
exemptions in the new language. The third item was to correct a Whatcom County
Code citation. The fourth item was to replace the term "subdivision" with "binding
site plan" in the binding site plan section. The fifth item was to delete the term
"submittal requirements" from the definition. The term had been changed to the
term used by state law. The sixth change was to correct a typographical error.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to add language to packet page 310, section 21.04.030(2)
regarding final approval, "... upon the request of the applicant, if the applicant
complies with current development standards. If the applicant fails...."
Aamot stated that addition was suggested in his June 6 memo. They
addressed it previously for long plats. This is for short plats.
Hoag agreed. The committee already adopted that language in its previous
motion.
Hoag referenced page 281, issue three. It is important that submitted
information be accurate. She suggested that the term be "reasonably" accurate.
That would leave the discretion with the Hearing Examiner to determine the
accuracy.
Grant stated the idea was that the term puts the Planning staff in a short
time constraint to perform the job. The Council is tasking the Planning staff to
looking at the application, then do the research to determine if the information is
accurate. It puts the burden on the staff to make sure the application is accurate
and complete. If the staff ended up with a backlog of cases and not in a position to
process applications timely, the application is deemed complete after a certain
amount of time. They could have an empty application that could be deemed
complete. He suggested caution. As the code exists, the Hearing Examiner would
have the authority to rule on accuracy.
Middleton stated the Hearing Examiner kicked applications back. Staff has
recommended denial on some applications. Regarding the application, they are
dealing with the Regulatory Reform Act. If the staff misses the deadline, the
application is complete anyway. Determining reasonable accuracy is part of their
job and they are trying to get that done. The real test is at the public hearing or at
the time it goes to the decision - maker. There is always information that comes up
that wasn't previously disclosed. That is why they have a public hearing.
Hoag stated that is why she suggested the term "reasonably." One of the
things that she recently dealt with was someone who said they wanted to do a
wildlife enhancement project on a lake in Canada. The proponent contacted many
agencies and received many letters of approval based on wildlife enhancement.
The plan was for the applicant to take the muck out of the lake. As it turned out,
the "muck" they planned to take out was 60 feet deep. It was a gravel mine. In
the process of that, they could declare themselves vested because the information
was reasonably accurate.
Middleton stated the County would argue that they do not have to rely on an
application that was filed on something different than what the applicant actually
planned.
Grant stated they are looking at two concerns. One is if the application
provides enough information to allow the staff to be reasonably apprised of the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
51
intent of the applicant. It makes sense that it might be appropriate to require the
applicant enough information so the staff members handling the application can
reasonably ascertain the nature and the extent of the project. Ms. Wells wants it
drafted strictly enough that the Hearing Examiner can throw out applications on
procedural bases, not substantive, bases. He suggested allowing staff enough
information to make a determination.
Hoag stated she wanted the burden to be on the applicant to provide an
accurate description of what it is he or she plans to do. That is why she wanted the
term to be "reasonably accurate." It leaves the accuracy at the discretion of the
Hearing Examiner. Grant stated that term opens up hearings to those sort of
issues. By the time it gets to the Hearing Examiner, they should be flushing out the
merits. The Hearing Examiner and Council ought to be able to focus on the true
substance of the application and not be hung up on the smaller, peripheral issues.
Hoag stated the issue at stake here is vesting. Grant stated they are vesting
to the law that would be applied to the project. If the application is complete, it
doesn't mean that the applicant gets to do what he or she asked to do. All it does
is vest the applicant in the law that governs the application. If the law that governs
the application wouldn't allow gravel mining, then the law would not allow the
activity.
Hoag questioned whether Grant believed that the accuracy of the application
is an issue because it would kick it back to whatever laws were in place at the time.
Grant stated it is only an issue insofar as it is important for the County staff to be
apprised of the nature of the project so they can determine where to send it.
Hoag questioned whether applications would be vested on time extensions
and other similar items, or whether it only pertains to the law. Grant stated it only
pertains to the law, unless the law grants certain extensions for certain types of
projects.
Middleton stated that it isn't a problem the way it is written now. It doesn't
need to be modified.
Grant stated it also goes well with the state Regulatory Reform Act. The key
is to focus on who has to make the decision at this juncture. That would be the
staff.
McShane suggested one substantive change to section 21.05.080(2)(a),
packet page 322. If they cluster houses, they should limit the number of homes
that can use a private water supply. Should they have a public water supply they
would share.
Hoag stated public water supply means serving two families. If cluster, does
it always mean two or more families.
Aamot stated original Health Department wanted public water supply for
everything. The TAC put in the five acre provision. A private well on each lot of
five acres or more. Gentleman testified that would discourage clustering. That is
the reason for the clustering language.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
51
McShane suggested one substantive change to section 21.05.080(2)(a) on
packet page 322, "...one dwelling per five acres, and the number of lots created
shall not exceed four lots; and...." If someone is going to cluster houses, they
should limit the number of homes that could use a private water supply.
Hoag stated a public water supply means that it serves more than two
families. She questioned whether there would always be more than two homes if
they were clustering homes. Aamot stated that originally, the Health Department
only wanted public water supplies for all long plats. That is how it is now. The
TAC put in the five -acre provision. A gentleman testified at the Planning
Commission that the provision would discourage clustering, which the County is
trying to promote.
Hoag questioned whether it is automatic because five or more is a
subdivision. Aamot stated that is typically true, although there are three -lot long
plats. If one does an exemption, and divides it within five years, it is a long -plat.
Most long -plats are more than five lots. Technically, there are occasions when a
long -plat is less than five lots.
Hoag questioned whether or not the language is necessary. Aamot stated
that if they include that language in, then most long plats could not have a cluster
development with a private water supply.
Hoag stated she was concerned about the six -pack issue. The County has
not been doing six -packs that she knows of. The state Department of Ecology
(DOE) is frowning upon that. It is inappropriate to use exempt wells to supply
water for subdivisions. She wanted to make sure the language changes are not
moving the County in that direction. Aamot stated a six -pack well is a public water
supply. This language does not prohibit or discourage that situation. The
Prosecutor stated his opinion is that it is okay. He believed the County is still
allowing multiple six -pack wells in a subdivision.
Hoag stated she asked this question two years ago and was told that the
County does not allow six -pack wells under its subdivision rules. Middleton stated
that is true for the most part. There are exceptions to that. There are
circumstances that would allow for it. The Health Department recently approved a
couple of them.
Hoag questioned whether there is anything to prevent them from being
approved. Middleton stated there isn't anything in the current subdivision
regulations or in what is being proposed. It is a Health Department issue on what
they are going to call an approved public water supply. By requiring a public water
supply, it won't change whether or not one can use six - packs.
McShane stated he is not addressing the six -pack issue. From a water
quality perspective, it is a risky path to exempt many individual wells from testing
on a routine basis. Middleton stated he agreed. He was concerned about
discouraging clustering. Clustering is the best development that exists. As the
administrator of Title 21, he doesn't look at approval of private or public water. If it
is required to be public, they don't move until the Health Department says it is
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
approved. He didn't know the County regulations that guide the Health Department
on what it can and cannot approve. The Board of Health may need to change those
regulations.
McShane stated that a cluster of four houses on twenty acres is okay. He
becomes concerned when there are ten houses, each with an individual well, in a
cluster. He is not comfortable with that many wells crammed together with septic
and sewer lines nearby. He wanted to limit the number of houses with individual
wells. He wanted a compromise. Middleton stated that the only thing he asks is to
make the regulation very clear.
McShane questioned whether the typical clusters in rural areas are large
areas of land or smaller areas of land. Middleton stated they are both. If there is
a 20 -acre parcel of land in an R5A zone, there would be three clustered lots and a
reserve lot.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Middleton stated that when they talk about clustered lots, they look at the
small lots on the property. The big lot is not considered a cluster lot. Lot sizes
range from ten acres up to 75 acres.
Hoag moved to change language in section 21.05.080(2)(a), packet page
322, "...one dwelling per five acres, and the number of lots created shall not exceed
four lots; and...." Not only are they worrying about all the wells in a small area next
to septic fields, but every time they puncture the aquifer, there is another possible
source of contamination. This is not an unreasonable thing. It is adequate
protection of groundwater.
Crawford questioned whether four was an arbitrary number.
McShane stated he envisioned four lots, which could reasonably avoid having
wells between houses.
Middleton questioned whether the motion is four cluster lots or four lots
within the subdivision.
McShane stated four lots within the clustered portion.
Hoag amended her motion to change language in section 21.05.080(2)(x),
packet page 322, "...one dwelling per five acres, and the number of clustered lots
created shall not exceed four lots; and"
Middleton asked if the intent is that there be four homes in the cluster, and
the fifth house off from the cluster would not be included.
Paul Isaacson, citizen, stated he submitted two water rights applications in
the State of Washington. They were both submitted both seven years ago, with no
response. The legislature does not want to address the six - packs. One would have
to understand that the DOE is their own worst enemy. If the DOE would process
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
the water rights permits, they wouldn't have all these holes punched in the ground.
They need to address this through the DOE.
Hoag agreed, however, farmers have been waiting for ten years for a water
right. For someone to put in a subdivision and service it with more water than the
farmer would use, and not have to get a water right by using six - packs, it is
bypassing the point of the process. If the process needs to be fixed, that is fine,
but to allow that type of thing to occur because there is a delay, it bypasses all
those people legitimately waiting for water.
Isaacson stated the farmer could do the same. The playing field is level for
all. The farmer can put in three or four wells, although it is inappropriate. In
effect, the DOE is the one who is advocating this by making people circumvent that
process.
McShane stated that this language is not aimed at six - packs.
Crawford stated he was concerned about the reasoning for picking the
number four.
McShane stated he visualized four lots put up against each other. Everyone
could have a well away from his or her neighbors. He looked at wells on a map
about clustering on a wall in the Council's meeting room. He decided he wouldn't
want to drink that water because the clusters were very tight in.
Crawford questioned whether there is a limit on the number of lots that can
be clustered. Aamot stated that there is a maximum of ten in the Agricultural
Protection Overlay (APO). The intent of that is to preserve the rural character.
That may be the only cluster limitation.
Hoag stated the limitation of four is because five or more lots should
rightfully be a subdivision.
Crawford stated that he was concerned about putting an effective limit on
clustering if they allow for larger amounts of clustering. If there are plenty of
opportunities to cluster in larger numbers, and they can get another water source,
then the County does not effectively limit the clustering. However, if most of the
clusters are utilizing wells, then they are effectively eliminating clusters.
McShane stated they could still cluster.
Hoag stated it would be a public water system and still be a well. They are
saying they don't want more than four wells in a cluster.
McShane stated it would be more cost - effective to share wells that are deep.
McShane suggested that this be held until the next meeting so they can
review the changes to the ordinance. He suggested that they consider the six -pack
issue. His major concern with six -packs is when it gets out into agricultural land.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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 stated that if the law is there, and one is finding a way to get around it,
it isn't right.
Isaacson stated the legislators have argued over this during the last three
sessions. No one has changed it. As they think about six - packs, they should
address water rights themselves so they can get past this issue. Not a lot of people
want to put in multiple wells. It would be easier to put in one and develop it
appropriately. People are not trying to violate the law. The DOE is causing people
to break the law because the legislature has not changed the law. It has been put
to the people, and the representatives have chosen not to change it.
Hoag stated that the bills that went through the legislature regarding exempt
wells were not just aimed at six - packs. They were aimed at restricting all exempt
wells. That is another major concern she has with six - packs. Once DOE begins
moving in on those, they begin moving forward on all exempt wells. Exempt wells
are appropriate for single -use locations. They are not appropriate for public water
supplies for a subdivision. That is not what an exempt well is supposed to be. She
asked the committee to review this one final time, with the changes. She wanted
to get this out of committee at the next meeting.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
McShane referenced packet page 323, section 21.05.120(1) regarding
written and other data and fees. He would like to see a check item, "A soil analysis
showing no residual contamination from pesticides for divisions on land formally
used for row crops." This is to make sure people are not building houses in areas
with contaminated soil from past agricultural practices. They might have to
mitigate for any contamination found.
Aamot questioned whether that needs to be a submittal requirement for
everyone or for the Health Department. He didn't know if there is a map.
McShane stated there is no map. It would be great if the Health Department
created a map from old aerial photos. The issue is that the DOE has a non - uniform
approach to soil contamination. Industry and agricultural lands are treated
differently. Agricultural practices have contaminated vast areas of land. He
questioned whether they want to allow people to live on soil that would require a
clean up in any other location.
Hoag suggested language, "require a soil analysis showing whether residual
pesticide is present from previous agricultural uses."
McShane stated the language should be more specific. He would work on the
language. They should reference the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-
340.
Crawford questioned whether they are only talking about areas that have a
history of previous agricultural use.
McShane stated he was specifically talking about row crops.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/27/2000, 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
Crawford stated the applicant wouldn't be in a position to prove that there
was not previous agricultural use.
Hoag stated they could add a phrase like, "where there has been a history of
agricultural use." Middleton stated it might belong in section 21.05.130. That
information may take a while. There aren't many qualified soil scientists. That
information may not be readily available. He questioned when the staff should
require that information.
McShane stated it is almost a Health Department requirement and should be
under its purview. Ideally, they are going to have a map.
Hoag stated she would rather have clearer language than only asking the
Health Department for approval. Middleton stated staff at the counter would have
to determine whether or not there is a historical use. It needs to be defined. It is a
legitimate concern. He wanted to be sure he could administer it the way the Council
intends.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:53 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, 6/27/2000, Page 16