HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 10 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 10, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
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)
McShane stated this item was held from their meeting on September 26.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated he had nothing to add from the last
meeting, except that Roger Almskaar proposed a wetland mitigation site
exemption. There is a revision to his memo that would also exempt sites for
environmental conservation or restoration if a non - profit agency owns the site.
McShane invited members of the public to speak to this item.
Roger Almskaar, Roger Almskaar and Associates, stated that he'd talked
about this item with Mr. Aamot, who had done a good job taking a new idea and
fitting it into the system. Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 21.03.020(c)
references the remainder lot. It looks fine. The information referenced in WCC
21.03.020(e) should be eligible for the pre - approval process. It should be possible
for landowner or consultant who is not a licensed surveyor to present a sketch or
proposal, so as not to waste any money.
McShane questioned whether Mr. Almskaar had presented these ideas in
other counties. Almskaar stated he had. He's done lot certifications in Skagit
County, which is virtually the same thing. One crude way to do it would be to copy
a portion of a county assessor's map and mark it up, so it's clear what one is trying
to do, rather than make a brand new drawing on the AutoCAD system. If the
project is pre- approved, the person would take the document to an attorney, a
licensed surveyor, or an engineer to write the legal description. That isn't a task
that needs to be done up front. Keep the earliest stages low in cost. He is asking
for a pre - approval process. The one the County has now works well.
Aamot stated they do have a pre - approval process written into the language
on packet page 59, WCC 21.03.050. In WCC 21.03.020(4)(f), a different type of
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
exemption, it says that a legal description has to be submitted along with the
request for exemption.
Hoag questioned the pre - approval process. Aamot stated this is an
administrative process where a person seeks to find out if he or she qualifies for an
exemption. If pre- approved, then the person would go through the entire process.
Hoag questioned whether there is a legal difference between pre - approval
and preliminary approval. Aamot stated that there is a preliminary approval for
plats, which is a formal process that goes to the Hearing Examiner. That is a more
formal process. This is an administrative process where the County looks at a
project and determines whether a person qualifies for the exemption. A person
then has to get the deed and legal description.
Hoag asked about needing a survey. Aamot stated that a survey is not
needed for any of the exemptions. There is no requirement that a person has to
have a survey done. The surveyor has to write a legal description, but not go out
and physically survey the site.
Brenner asked if Mr. Aamot agreed with Mr. Almskaar about having the legal
description done under pre - approval. Aamot stated he agreed.
Almskaar referenced the pre - approval paragraph of the August 8 version. It
should be available for at least three different exemptions; the five acre, twenty
acre, and conservation exemptions.
Aamot stated the process should be available for all exemptions. The
regulation doesn't limit it.
Almskaar stated the language in the exemptions section, WCC 21.03.020, is
inconsistent with the pre - approval process, WCC 21.03.050.
Aamot suggested changing the location of the pre - approval language of WCC
21.03.050 to the section regarding the certificate of exemption, WCC 21.03.030.
Brenner agreed with that change in location for the language.
Hoag stated pre - approval is appropriate. However, if a person was
approved, she would like a change to WCC 21.03.020(7)(e). If the exemption is
approved, it must be clear that the amount of the land is stated. "A legal
description and a recorded record of
survey of the existing and newly created parcels, prepared by a surveyor, shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department for approval and
recordation." It should be recorded appropriately, and it must be a survey of the
existing and newly created parcels that is recorded, not just a sketch. This was a
recommendation from someone on the Technical Advisory Committee.
Nelson questioned what this really means regarding someone doing platting.
A person may have a piece of land that is proposed for short - platting. It is the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
outside boundaries that are already surveyed. That person would bring forward a
proposal. He questioned why they need a surveyor for a complete dimensional
sketch at that time for the proposed division. A survey is not cheap.
Dawson agreed with Nelson's question. They are asking for a lot of money
from the public.
McShane stated this is something to set aside a wetland for protection in the
future. He would like to see it recorded so the land would always be used for that
intention, and someone doesn't encroach on it. One could get pre - approval by
bringing in a sketch.
Hoag stated that if an area had never been surveyed, the cost can be up to
$600. It would be less if an area had been surveyed before. This is at the end of
the process, after the pre - approval. She proposed deleting the language 'proposed
division." She was not talking about that anymore.
Brenner stated she wanted the language to say "before final approval."
McShane moved approval of the staff language, as amended by
Councilmember Hoag.
Almskaar stated they should not require a survey of the entire parcel.
Require a survey for the exempt tract alone.
Hoag stated she would take Mr. Almskaar's suggestion as a friendly
amendment. She amended and restated her motion to amend WCC
21.03.020(7)(e). If approved, it should be clear that the amount of the land is
stated. "A legal description and a
record of survey of the parcels created for environmental mitigation, conservation,
or restoration, prepared by a surveyor, shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Services department for approval and recordation." She did not
accept Brenner's suggested change.
Brenner stated she wanted to make sure the language is clear that this is for
final approval. Aamot suggested "...department for final approval and recordation."
Hoag accepted that language as a friendly amendment to her motion.
McShane restated the motion to amend WCC 21.03.020(7)(e), "A legal
description and a record of survey of
the parcels created for environmental mitigation, conservation, or restoration,
prepared by a surveyor, shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Services department for final approval and recordation."
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Aamot stated Dave Grant recommended language in WCC
21.03.020(7)(d)(iv), "After recording, the covenant may only be revised by with the
consent of the County Council...."
Hoag questioned why the County Council would later decide to let a person
develop a parcel that had been exempted. Aamot stated he didn't know, unless
someone wanted to short -plat the overall area.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is a realization that they
don't live in a static world. Eventually, zoning or land use requirements might
change that would allow for a different use. This would allow people to seek
permission. His particular concern was that the slight change in language parallels
what Mr. Almskaar suggested. It recognizes that they are not going to be able to
change covenants without the consent of the parties to the covenant. The change
also lets the County Council decide whether the change is going to occur.
Hoag stated she didn't have a problem with that suggested change in
language. She was concerned about Mr. Grant's statement. Unless the County has
criteria for the basis of doing that, they would not have any basis for changing a
decision. Grant stated that this was initially proposed to be tied only to off -site
wetland mitigation required by law. An earlier version of this would have required a
change in law to allow property to be used in another fashion. The latest
permutation is the Land Trust type of concept. Councilmember Hoag's concern is
more valid now than with the earlier permutation. He didn't know how easy it is to
pull land in and out of conservancy trust. It would be dependent upon those
parameters. Those land uses are described with some degree of permanency. The
lands are not going to be pulled out of the conservancy use without the consent of
a governing political body, be it the County Council or state legislature. In these
circumstances, they would also be looking at outside conditions established by the
terms of the conservancy. The Council could look down the road at either those
terms or a change in law that would allow for a different land use as the criteria as
to whether they should consent.
Hoag stated the language specifies a nonprofit conservancy corporation or
association. Anyone could end up creating something like that. She asked if it
would be prudent to add criteria. When the County Council gets requests, it is
limited in its discretionary power because of the lack of criteria. Grant stated that
was not a bad suggestion.
Hoag moved to direct Dave Grant to come up with language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked about WCC21.03.020(7)(f). A question raised about the need to
create ingress and egress for a lot used for environmental mitigation. They need to
build discretion in that. Aamot stated he hated to create any landlocked parcel. It
only requires an easement, not a road.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, provided a handout
(on file). This represents specific changes that should be looked at before the
ordinance is forwarded to the County Council. She works with the Planning and
Development Services staff on exempt divisions and other types of Title 21 issues
on the average of once per week, at least. There is a system now where a person
signs up when visiting the staff. The first person in line gets to go first. Most of the
people are not surveyors or attorneys. They are the average citizens trying to get
some answers about their property. Often times, the average citizens will see
themselves the entire way through the process. The regulations need to be
understandable to the average landowner. They need to have something that
assists people with what they are doing, rather than making it more difficult. She
suggested specific changes. In WCC 21.01.040(1), remove the underlined
language, "that was filed with the County Auditor at least five years prior to the
new land division." For example, she could do a short plat division of 20 acres into
four 5 -acre lots. Next year, she could buy the 20 acres next door. She questioned
why she has to show the first 20 -acres that is in her name and was legally short -
platted and a legal separate lot as being contiguous and part of the same parcel.
This forces people to register land in different names. It doesn't accomplish any
real purpose. The only way to do a short plat was if the County determined the
owner had a legal lot that could be divided.
In WCC 21.03.020(3), delete the second sentence. This is the exemptions
section. Currently, in the subdivision regulations, a person is allowed to divide his
or her property into 20 -acre blocks. If that owner was to sell a 20 -acre lot to
someone, the purchaser could then determine what he or she wants to do with it.
Under the proposed language, the property owner cannot divide either of the 20-
acre blocks, except for cemetery and burial plot purposes. They are forcing
everything to go through a long -plat, short -plat, or binding site plan. She didn't
understand from what abuse the County was seeking to protect people. They end
up with a situation that requires people to have enough forethought to immediately
go to subsection (4) instead of subsection (3). The removal of the second sentence
is appropriate.
She referenced WCC 21.03.020(6)(4).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Starkenburg - Kroontje continued to state that the only way a person could
divide a gift lot would be through a long -plat. There would be some situations in
which a person must go through a long -plat process without any different result to
the County in the protection of public health, safety, welfare, then if the person
went through a short -plat process. The language in WCC 21.03.020(6)(d) should
be replaced, "...further exempt divisions may be created ... the
appropriate long subdivision, short subdivision, or binding site plan..."
Crawford asked if the August 8 version of the ordinance reflected the
changes made by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. Aamot
stated it did. Staff recommended some of the changes in response to citizen
comment, but the committee did vote on them.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Starkenburg - Kroontje commented on WCC 21.03.060(3)(d) and
21.03.060(3)(e). In the event that someone wants to have a boundary line
adjustment that is not sought because of a boundary dispute, section (d) requires a
determination by the County engineer that the new access won't be detrimental to
the existing roadway system because of site distance, grade or other safety
concerns. Section (e) indicates that no onsite sewage disposal system, waterline,
or water supply is negatively impacted. At this time, the County does not require
those types of questions to be asked during a boundary line adjustment. Her
concern was not so much that the County is going to ask that question. Her
concern was about the process that the County would have in place to figure out
that information. Now, this language would require something to be reviewed by
someone in the Engineer's office. In the event the County believes these things are
important, she recommended having an effective date on this entire ordinance.
That would set the time for the Engineering Division to get to together with the
Planning and Development Services Department and create a process. It needs to
be clear on what forms are required, who an applicant needs to talk to, and what
process the applicant must go through. Adding in these requirements means that
the boundary line adjustment forms need to be revisited, updated, and will now
involve the Engineering Division and septic review.
Aamot stated the effective date of the ordinance is ten days after the County
Executive signs the ordinance.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Department is prepared to deal
with this ten days after it is signed, or whether the staff needs time to prepare.
Aamot stated they've been circulating this ordinance to the departments for several
years. They may need to change the forms.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that the Engineer's Division is not at all involved
with boundary line adjustments right now. This regulation would require that the
Engineer's Division get involved. Applicants must submit something that shows
where the onsite septic, water line, or water supply are located. Right now, an
applicant only shows where the building and property lines are located. She has
concerns that the public would know what is expected of them.
Hoag stated that if they can't do this in ten days, just the subsections (d)
and (e) could have an effective date. Also, if a new access is not created, the
applicants wouldn't fall into these sections. If a new access is created, then the
applicants have to address those concerns anyway. It is the same with the water
line and water supply issue. It doesn't have to be addressed if the boundary line is
being moved further away. Don't hold up the entire ordinance.
Starkenburg - Kroontje referenced WCC 21.03.060(4). A mylar is required to
be filed for the purposes of a boundary line adjustment. Right now, the cities of
Bellingham and Lynden require mylars for lot line adjustment. The County has not
required them. She questioned whether there is a need for a mylar. Perhaps the
outcome of providing a mylar is not worth the cost. In order to do a boundary line
adjustment now, a person can do a sketch map and a quitclaim deed, then attach
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
the sketch map to the deed, which then gets filed. It is picked up as a record with
the Auditor's Office and the title companies. A mylar is also filed as a record, but
the cost of a mylar is significantly more than the ability to just do the sketch map
and the legal description. She questioned whether a mylar is appropriate in all
boundary line adjustments. A record of survey, which is the mylar, is more than
the sketch map.
Starkenburg - Kroontje referenced WCC 21.04.100 regarding the water supply
for short plats. She sent the Council a letter on August 8, 2000. The concern is
about the water supply requirements and how they apply to lots smaller than five
acres. Right now, if lots are smaller than five acres and are not due to clustering,
then they need a public water supply. There is property in the county that is zoned
for lots smaller than five acres that would not be due to clustering. A water
association for an area is not allowed because of water quality concerns to provide
water for additional hookups. She questioned whether or not the Council wants to
apply the five -acre requirement to lots zoned in areas that are smaller than five -
acre minimums. That requirement down -zones people unless they can do a public
water supply.
Hoag stated if the well serves more than two families, it becomes a group B
water system, which is considered a public water system. She questioned why the
landowner would not be able to do that. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that if a
person was to create and sell only one lot that is smaller than five acres, he or she
could not do that. She questioned why the water would be different when pumping
up from two services, rather than one.
McShane stated the concern comes from having a lot of wells installed in a
tight, confined space between houses and septic fields.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they should deal with that concern through
setbacks.
Starkenburg - Kroontje referenced WCC 21.05.080 regarding a water supply
for a long -plat. She had the same concerns as she did with the water supply for
short - plats.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning and Development Committee
added that language. Aamot stated it did.
Hoag stated she'd gotten a number of calls from people regarding boundary
line adjustments. The calls have been very vague, but the concerns have been
about an adjustment between two cooperating parties. They felt that the new
regulations put too many requirements into that, but they didn't specify what was
so burdensome. Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that falls under subsection (3).
People may agree that the boundaries they possess are what they have. That
situation would fall under section 21.03.060(3). Now, if she were one of those
people, she would be required to fill out an application for a lot line adjustment,
provide a deed history, and a sketch of what she wanted to do. Typically, the
County gives a person an immediate response. If it is something more
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
complicated, they will take more time to look at it. If the County approves a lot line
adjustment through pre - approval, then the person is required to come in with a
deed and a sketch map or some other form of boundary agreement that has
conveyance language. Under the new regulation, subsections (d) and (e) are new.
Right now, a legal description is not required to be prepared by a land surveyor,
which isn't always necessary. Also, a record of survey is not required right now.
That is where the additional cost comes in for people who are merely trying to
create a record of what the occupational use has been for years. Now, only the
sketch map is required.
Hoag questioned whether the sketch map is recorded the same at the
Auditor's Office, so it's clear that the adjustment was done. Starkenburg - Kroontje
stated it is recorded as an exhibit to the agreement or deed. The County requires
that it be recorded.
Hoag agreed with Starkenburg - Kroontje's suggestion with subsections (d)
and (e). She questioned the kind of problem the committee was trying to solve
when it made the surveyor and mylar requirement. Aamot stated it came out of
the Technical Advisory Committee. When altering a lot line, it is difficult to know
where the lot line is without the survey. They felt that, if a person is doing that,
then he or she should know where the line is being moved.
Hoag stated that even if the neighboring applicants are agreeable to it, it
may cause confusion to future owners. Aamot stated the applicant may encroach
on a drain field, for example, and not even know it.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated the regulation is a disincentive for folks who
were otherwise planning to make a friendly agreement because there is a cost
attached to it.
Nelson agreed that the regulation does not encourage friendly lot line
adjustments because of the added costs and trouble.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated there is always room for disagreement between
neighbors. The County doesn't always require surveys before requiring the
neighbors to do other things they agree upon, such as building a fence. The County
leaves latitude for the property owners to decide for themselves what works for
them. If a future property owner takes issue with what was done previously, then
a survey is done at that point.
McShane stated that, due to time constraints, he wanted to take public
comment on all the scheduled agenda items, and refrain from working on and
discussing the items until after testimony is done. They won't have the time to
have discussion on the Title 21 issue today.
Hoag stated that when people are present and talking about their concerns,
that is the easiest time to get feedback from staff and the people who testify.
Hoag questioned the cost of a mylar.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Pat Jones, 153 Soundview Road, stated the cost of a mylar varies, depending
on the complexity of the boundary involved. It might take two to four hours and
$200 to $400 dollars, or it could cost thousands of dollars. There isn't an easy
answer. A difficult survey is spendy. There is an important reason for putting the
boundary line adjustment of record with the record of survey. Although things
relating to real estate are of record in the Auditor's file, the surveyor looks primarily
to a title report that may or may not do an abstract of title and be of limited scope.
The surveyor looks at the research records of the records of survey, the recorded
plats, and the government land office. If the information isn't there, the surveyor
doesn't pick it up. When a boundary line adjustment is done between two parcels,
there are ramifications beyond the two parcels. It affects all the neighbors in the
community. The evidence and monuments established at the corner of a boundary
ripen into evidence over time. If the record is not clear, and one cannot with
dispatch identify what the boundary line adjustment consisted of, the boundary and
its monuments could represent evidence to boundary locations 1/4 of a mile down
the road, in some instances. That is why the State of Washington developed and
formed the Record of Survey Act. They can have these surveys be a public record
in ways that are useful.
Brenner disagreed. She questioned how a boundary line adjustment affects
anyone else when there are two adjoining property, and the adjustment doesn't
affect the outer edge of anyone else's property. Jones stated there are cases where
it might not. Typically, it does have an effect.
Jones continued to state that, regarding Title 21, it is inappropriate to use
water matters as a zoning tool. The proposal is using water as a tool to control
zoning. That isn't appropriate. The Council needs to be concerned about water in
subdivisions and to ensure that a new subdivision has an adequate supply of water,
which is about 100 gallons per day, per capital. The Council should be concerned
that there is a modicum of storage for public class B systems. Last, the Council
should prohibit the use of groundwater in aquifers that demonstrably threatened
using hard science. Title 21 has been in the revision process for approximately
three and a half years. He's tracked it the whole way. It went first to the Technical
Advisory Committee. The goal of staff was to revise the existing 1985 ordinance.
The Technical advisory Committee spent four meetings on it with staff. They
concluded that the document was so convoluted and complex that it would be more
expedient to write it from the beginning. The Technical Advisory Committee and
staff researched various sources for model ordinances. They looked at several
model subdivision ordinances. The best one came from the American Planning
Association. They began with that, and re -wrote it. At this point in time, there
have been about 140 hours of citizen comment at the Technical Advisory
Committee. There have been 940 hours of staff time, 80 hours of Planning
Commission time, 30 hours of Council Planning and Development Committee time,
and 3,300 hours of Technical Advisory Committee time committed to the ordinance.
Using ordinary wages and billing rates, there is about $330,000 of resource in this
ordinance. He hoped it would move forward.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County,
stated she wanted to speak on the issues of subdivisions on packet page 76,
binding site plans on packet page 88, and water supply. Existing state law allows
the use of multiple exempt wells. The courts upheld that. Attempting to impose a
5,000 gallon withdraw per subdivision would be contrary to existing state law.
Likewise, attempting to limit a subdivision to one exempt well would be contrary to
existing state law. She asked Council to remove this language. This has legal
ramifications for Whatcom County. They don't want to spend taxpayers' money
trying to supercede state law with County ordinances.
Roger Almskaar, Roger Almskaar and Associates, agreed with the previous
speakers. Item two on his handout is about an issue that is important to people in
the real estate community. He is also a broker with Coldwell Banker. Whatcom
County is probably the only county in the state that takes a hard line on telling
people they are breaking the law if they offer lots in a short -plat for sale before
they are actually recorded. The state law on subdivisions does not say that at all.
It does say that lots in preliminary plats cannot be offered for sale until after
preliminary approval, and the transaction has to be subject to final approval and
recording. They should deal with short -plats exactly the same way. Bellingham
does not try to enforce Whatcom County's interpretation. It can get ridiculous
when people want to do something, and they have to wait a year and a half to
enter into an agreement. It doesn't serve any public purpose. The protections that
are already built into the system are plenty adequate. One cannot close a
transaction without a good legal description.
Nelson clarified that Mr. Almskaar was discussing WCC 21.04.030, on page
15 of the document.
Almskaar stated Whatcom County has taken a hard line on this issue, which
is ignored much of the time. When there is bad law, there is a lack of respect for
that law.
Crawford questioned whether the intent of the state law was to keep
someone from putting up a sign advertising five -acre parcels on acreage that
wasn't legally recorded, and then taking earnest money from people and skipping
town. Almskaar stated there is language about earnest money going into a trust
account to provide consumer protection. He asked that short -plats be treated the
same as long- plats.
Hoag asked Mr. Almskaar what damage is done by requiring that the notice
of preliminary does not authorize selling lots. That seems the prudent thing to do.
Almskaar stated the County sends out letters now that scold people from putting up
a For Sale sign or an ad in the newspaper. The letters threaten to haul people into
jail.
Hoag questioned why a person would be trying to sell a lot before there is
approval. Almskaar stated there is a distinction between offering it for sale and
closing the sale. Timing is very important. The real estate market is very dynamic.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Brenner stated the problem is not in the wording, it is in what the County is
doing. This is consumer protection. Almskaar stated the County staff interprets
selling lots as offering them for sale. That is the problem.
Almskaar stated his last point was in WCC 21.04.040 regarding the
Restriction of Further Division. The person who creates a short -plat with fewer than
four lots is the only person who can come back and create a fourth lot. It shouldn't
be that way. There could be three different owners, and it should allow whoever
steps up first. If it meets the lot size, it doesn't matter if it is the first person.
Hoag stated she was concerned about taking in information, and then moving
on to something else. She wanted to hear from the Sudden Valley people, and she
also wanted to discuss the things that people have brought forward.
McShane stated it was the choice of the committee.
Nelson stated they should get as much information as possible from the
testimony. They will have the hearing at the evening meeting, and could make the
decision then on whether to act on it, amend it, or put it back in committee to work
on it.
Crawford stated it would be appropriate to hear the people from Sudden
Valley.
Hoag stated Title 21 is not scheduled for a hearing. Anyone who wanted to
say something about it would be limited to three minutes in open session. The
committee is not discussing what changes it wants to make, so the people who
testify would have to try and address everything that has been brought forward in
the last hour during their three - minute testimony. The Council needs to either
postpone the vote at the evening meeting.
McShane stated they could do that.
Hoag moved to recommend holding in committee.
Crawford agreed. The committee needs to continue working on this.
However, in deference to people who have come to the meeting on other issues,
the committee needs to move on.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN URBAN GROWTH
AREA AT SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2000 -315)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Suzanne Blankston, Sudden Valley, stated Sudden Valley is an urban growth
area and seeks recognition as such. They exist in a forest that can get tinder -dry.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
An urban growth area is covered with a statewide ban on open burning. They need
the taxes returned to the valley to fight forest fires and protect the watershed. The
watershed protection plan that was implemented many years ago in Sudden Valley
is more comprehensive than any other in Whatcom County or the state. To
continue this program, Sudden Valley needs the financing that is available from
taxes that would be returned to them. With the extensive density reduction that is
taking place within Sudden Valley, income is lost from 1,400 homes that will not be
built. This loss of income could be replenished with tax money, and they can
continue to finance their extensive watershed protection.
Jim Cates, 4 Par Lane, Sudden Valley, stated he has been a property owner
and resident in Whatcom County for three years. He moved here because of the
beauty in Sudden Valley. He was impressed with the Sudden Valley program to
keep the natural growth. Sudden Valley is already platted out. He was not
subjected to problems he had in the east and the south, when shopping centers
were built near his homes. No other development could be in Sudden Valley,
except what is already platted. They have a very strong stormwater retention
program and strict architectural controls. The request that this be an emergency
action is due to the urgency of getting something in place that allows the
community of Sudden Valley to continue to work with the County and the City of
Bellingham on density reduction. They have a plan in place to reduce the
development in Sudden Valley. Environmentalists talk about Sudden Valley turning
into a city with industrial and commercial areas. Sudden Valley is already platted
out. Sudden Valley can't have those things.
Bob Heely, Sudden Valley, Community Association Board of Directors
President, stated the County Council has received a lot of input from a lot of
different factions with very different viewpoints. Everyone could agree that Sudden
Valley has changed drastically over the last ten years. They are no longer a resort.
Most residents of Sudden Valley realize that they are no longer a resort area and
should be an urban growth area. Sudden Valley also possesses the infrastructure
required to become an urban growth area. The state and County have mandated
that areas such as Sudden Valley be identified and recognized as urban growth
areas. He assumed, therefore, that the County would not have any problems in
recognizing Sudden Valley as an urban growth area. The County application only
takes place once per year. If this were not to be initiated as an emergency, they
would have a delay of 12 months to do any improvements to the existing Sudden
Valley water containment systems. He had only been to County committee
sessions. He'd listened to different subjects that were brought up. There were two
major issues. One major issue was regarding the recreational vehicles in Blaine,
and the other was regarding Title 21. Both of these issues have been discussed for
a minimum of two years. Once they get to this issue, he would not like to see them
delay this issue for two or three years, as other issues have been delayed. They
applied for classification as a UGA. It doesn't do anything to what they can do in
Sudden Valley, regarding building permits. They are not changing anything. It
only allows them to take a step forward.
Derrick Stevens, Sudden Valley, stated that he wondered why this proposal
not was brought forward sooner. They have a population approximately the size of
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Blaine. There are many problems. The roads are below standard and need to be
brought up to standard. He urged the Council to consider this proposal. He
participates in the density reduction program. He will purchase the lot next to his
property from Sudden Valley. He encouraged the Council to vote yes on this issue.
Ralph Nogal, Sudden Valley, stated he has been a resident for five years.
They want to become a city because they want the dollars to complete Sudden
Valley the way it should be. They have a lot of things that they've started. They
have density reduction. They are reducing the number of lots by 1,400. They have
stormwater retention, which is the only program in the County. The state
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved their forest and wildlife
stewardship in 1998. Their Architectural Control Committee controls the tree and
vegetation removal and trimming. They have landscape and erosion control. There
are strict building restrictions through the covenants. Only 50 percent of a person's
lot can be built on. They are interested in speeding up this process to become a
city. The only way they can do that is by getting their urban growth approval.
Roger Bowl, Sudden Valley, stated that they also have a project to remove a
number of lots that belong to Sudden Valley as a community. They may or may
not be part of the 1,400 residential lots. They don't have to wait on the citizens to
go from the present 814 to 1,400. They are in a position to apply almost 300 lots
to reduce density in the near future. Most people are afraid that Sudden Valley
would become enormous. The people who live there have no intention of letting
that happen. They want to preserve it as the size it is now.
Ed Whiteman, 544 Sudden Valley, stated his concern was that the County
Council has become polarized about whether or not it is going to hear this issue.
Councilmember Hoag doesn't feel that this is an emergency. To the residents, it is
an emergency. Whatever happens, they know that the state recognizes that
Sudden Valley is an urban growth area. All they are doing is just delaying the
process. They are certainly not going to do anything until it has been well studied.
They have a very desirable, viable community. The community is extremely
concerned about the Lake Whatcom watershed, the stewardship of their wildlife,
and having a nice community. He asked that no member of the Council allow the
Council to become polarized.
Hoag stated her comment to the press was that she didn't think that this met
the legal definition and the threshold they have to meet for an emergency.
Although Sudden Valley may have issues that are very important, the Council has
to operate within a legal framework that requires them to meet certain thresholds.
She was concerned that she wanted questions answered. One of her
concerns has to do with the process allowing Sudden Valley to become its own city.
Each city has its own urban growth areas around it, which is the process that is set
up by the Growth Management Act (GMA). She questioned how they prevent the
type of growth that everyone says they don't anticipate and support. Growth would
become a very real possibility, with the way that the GMA is set up. She wanted
an answer to that question before she makes a decision.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
There has been discussion about where the board members stand on the
issue. People in positions change, and she didn't want the County Council's
decision to be based on the current board policy. That isn't a good way to approach
long -term legislation.
She questioned whether there is a way to allow Sudden Valley to become
incorporated with restrictions so it cannot build out. She questioned whether there
is a legal way to set it up so that they can keep their tax revenues and address
their problems without growth.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the County Council could
prevent the urban growth area from expanding through the County Comprehensive
Plan and its policies. It could be worded as a non - expanding urban growth area.
They could write strong policies that say the intent is to recognize the development,
but no further expansion of the UGA. They've done that in other areas by talking
about Lynden and the agricultural areas. In order to expand, it would be a County
Council decision to expand the UGA. The County Council could also write strong
policies in the goals for Sudden Valley about what they foresee as density build out.
The County could even have an interlocal agreement with the new city of Sudden
Valley so that the city would not increase density beyond what is already platted.
There is a similar interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham for the Geneva
area. That agreement says that the portion of the city UGA within the Lake
Whatcom watershed will not be rezoned to a higher density. They've already set
the precedence for that. Legally, she didn't know if they have the legal authority to
do that and if that agreement would hold up in court. That would be a legal issue
they would have to research. If a new city decided to change its zoning and
increase it, the County would have a good case before the Hearings Board to make
an appeal. Conversion of existing un- platted areas into additional commercial or
industry is more of a concern that, as a city grows and is looking for a tax base,
because it is always attractive. There are a few un- platted areas of Sudden Valley.
There may be some pressure down the road to rezone those areas to commercial,
or expand the small commercial area that is there. Those are legitimate concerns.
The County staff would have to look at those concerns and work with the
association on policies to make sure that didn't happen. The current board may
envision continuing lot consolidation and not having increased density, but once the
reality of being a city sets in, people are elected, and the budget may or may not
balance. There is always pressure to allow additional development. That would
have to be looked at in the policies.
Hoag asked what the concern would be if there was commercial
development. Goodwin stated the concern with commercial development is with
impervious surfaces. There tends to be more parking and lot coverage with
commercial use than residential use. The Lake Whatcom Resource Protection
Overlay Zone would no longer apply if there were a city. There may be gas
stations, dry cleaners, and other uses that use toxic chemicals.
Hoag stated industry concerned her. Goodwin stated some types of
commercial could contribute to water quality, but mostly its impervious surfaces
and stormwater that are concerns.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Crawford stated people testified that the state already recognizes this area as
an urban growth area. He understood that the state is not in a position to
recognize an urban growth area. He asked for clarification. Goodwin stated the
state has not recognized Sudden Valley as an urban growth area. Sudden Valley is
not an urban growth area. The people who testified may have referred to the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that says what types of areas qualify as urban
growth areas. If they look at the GMA criteria, Sudden Valley closely complies with
the state's criteria for a UGA. They don't have urban services because they have
substandard roads. Most of the urban services associated with a city are currently
available in Sudden Valley.
Crawford stated his one concern was that there is an overwhelming
assumption by people interviewed by the press that this is economically good for
the people for Sudden Valley, and that the people of Sudden Valley could somehow
develop the infrastructure of a city by keeping the tax dollars there. He asked for
Ms. Goodwin's opinion on that assumption. He questioned whether that is an
assumption that it would naturally occur, simply by becoming a city. Goodwin
stated she would not make that assumption. She suspected that once they do a
cost - benefit analysis, they would find that it would be more expensive to operate a
city than they are ever going to bring in with taxes. Once they do that analysis,
she suspected the entire process would stop there. The cost of police protection is
extremely expensive. Sudden Valley does have a private security force that they
pay, but they aren't insured or licensed to carry guns. The costs associated with
having a real police force, or contracting with the County for that, could eat up all
of the tax revenues that they bring in and not leave anything left for roads. At this
point, the County staff has not looked at that. She didn't think the Sudden Valley
Community Association has not spent a lot of time looking into that. They've done
some preliminary assessment. Unless the area is an urban growth area, she didn't
intend to spend much more time looking into it. She talked to the County Assessor,
who told her that if it is an urban growth area and there is a serious attempt at
incorporation, he would get some figures on assessed valuation. When Birch Bay
looked at it the numbers didn't pencil out.
Crawford stated the application for the Comprehensive Plan amendment says
that the changed conditions outlined by the Planning Department explained that
there is a potential of improved water quality through the reduction of density in
the Lake Whatcom watershed. From a legislative perspective, he questioned
whether they are creating a potential for better water quality. If the potential
exists, he questioned how the Council could change it from a potential to an
assurance. Goodwin stated the association did a density reduction study at the
request of the County, as part of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
program. The County required them to look at how they could reduce density.
They've started on that. They are saying that, because of the need for reduced
density, they have fewer dues coming in and less ability to maintain their roads.
That is the changed condition. By reducing density, they are reducing revenues
and need to look at alternate sources. Forming as a city would be a changed
condition resulting from that.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
How they assure reduced density goes back to Councilmember Hoag's
question. They assure reduced density through strong Comprehensive Plan
policies. They would need to put in tighter policies about density reduction, and
follow that up with an interlocal agreement.
McShane questioned what the changed conditions are that would constitute
this as qualifying as an emergency. He also questioned how long the density
reduction program has been in place. Goodwin stated there were strong density
reduction policies in place. The goal of 1,400 lots was in the original
Comprehensive Plan when it was adopted in 1997. That is nothing new. It is not a
changed condition. The only changed condition is that the association has taken it
seriously, has done a study, and is actually making progress toward density
reduction, which is affecting their dues revenue. That might not have been
something the County Council or community association considered when the
County Council first put those policies in there. It might be a stretch, but that is a
changed condition. Through reducing the density and the loss of lots, they are
facing a budget shortfall on road maintenance. That is something that may have
not been as pronounced in 1997 when the Comprehensive Plan was first adopted.
That is a small change in condition.
McShane stated Sudden Valley was proposed as a UGA in 1997. Goodwin
stated it was an interim UGA in 1995, when the County Council first adopted an
ordinance on UGA's. That ordinance on interim urban growth areas was overturned
for all of the UGA's. When the County redid the comprehensive Plan in 1997, which
pre -dated her history with the County, a decision was made to leave Sudden Valley
out and not establish it as an urban growth area. That's when it became a resort
recreational subdivision.
Brenner stated that her first reaction to this was that it was great, because
the County would not be responsible for taking care of the roads and other
maintenance. However, she couldn't imagine how they could have enough money
to make it as a city. She would keep an open mind, but her concern would be that
the numbers don't pan out and people's taxes would go sky -high if they become a
city. Ferndale and Bellingham have higher taxes than in the county, and they have
a lot of economic development. It sounds wonderful, but she didn't think that the
numbers would pan out to reduce density, not have any commercial or other
development, and survive as a city without heavily increasing taxes. Sudden Valley
should produce the numbers to show her how they would survive and thrive. She
also wanted to find out if a city could take already platted areas and rezone them
internally. The County would be out of the loop. They could say lots are already
platted out, but a city could do an internal reconfiguration. Sudden Valley is an
incredible example to the rest of the county by working with the bad it was
originally dealt to make it a much better area. She didn't understand how this
could work financially.
Dawson stated the substandard roads are compatible to the reservoir status
of the lake. She questioned whether Sudden Valley is going to be forced to
increase the standards of the roads if they become a UGA. That is going to be a
real cost factor for the property owners. Goodwin stated that would be up to the
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
city, if they are formed as a city, to set their own road standards and their own
levels of service. If the city chose to adopt a road standard that is less than the
County's, it is an option. Other cities allow private road standards.
Hoag questioned whether state law intervenes in that. Goodwin stated she
wasn't aware of any state law that would say they would have a minimum standard
on roads.
McShane stated one road issue is that the city can do what they want with
the roads, but when they go for state or federal funds, they have to do the road a
certain way to get that funding.
Dawson questioned whether the standard for an emergency could be met
because of the economic aspect. The fact that Sudden Valley would be eligible for
grant funding for environmental improvements would be a form of economic
support.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there needs to be a real
significant economic potential for the entire county or region. To pull it out of the
normal procedure for that situation seems to make sense. The Council is going to
have to find that one of the two conditions exists and are justified in order to allow
the amendment to go forward outside of the normal process. The examples he
thought of don't match this particular circumstance.
Dawson stated they have an airstrip out there that has never been used.
That would be an appropriate place for a retail expansion area. If the Sudden
Valley people are kept there locally, then the traffic would be minimized. Some of
those things are a wash.
Grant stated that this committee was getting to concentrate on whether or
not it is a good idea to do at all. The real issue is whether it should be pulled out of
the normal process. It might be easier for the committee to make a decision if it
were focused on that question.
Crawford questioned the two criteria for an emergency. Grant stated they
have to find that the expeditious action of this proposal is needed to either preserve
the health, safety, and welfare of the public, or to support the social, economic, or
environmental well being of the county or region. They are not talking about a
region of Sudden Valley. The region refers to a larger area than the county.
Hoag stated Councilmember Brenner's comments were appropriate. There is
another issue of whether they should be tying up staff time on this issue. She
encouraged and supported Councilmember Brenner's proposition that Sudden
Valley look at the numbers on this first. If they are convinced that this is
something they can support financially, then they can ask that the Comprehensive
Plan amendment be initiated. All the land use studies she'd seen show that
residential homes use more in services than they pay in tax dollars. The farmers,
who pay more in taxes than what they use in services, subsidize a lot of what they
do in this county. There may be an older population and fewer schoolchildren,
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
which may affect the equation. She urged the Sudden Valley proponents to run the
numbers with someone who knows what they are doing.
There were comments made about expanding or not expanding density. She
didn't know whether or not the residents would support a non - expandable UGA.
She would like to know that.
McShane stated those are things that have to be considered if they move
forward with this. The questionis whether this amendment constitutes an
emergency. He urged Councilmember Hoag to focus in on that. He wanted to
proceed.
Hoag stated she wanted to know where this proposal leaves the county.
When they are weighing whether or not it is an emergency, they are supposed to
take into account health, safety, welfare, and the economic benefit to the county.
If they are paying money to buy up lots in the Lake Whatcom watershed, but also
allowing increased density in the watershed, it plays into the equation of whether
this is in the economic benefit of the county. She questioned the number of lots in
Sudden Valley that are not developed, but could be developed.
McShane stated it is in the application.
Goodwin stated they are talking about taking 1,400 lots out of circulation.
There are still many vacant lots, amounting to double or triple that amount.
McShane stated there are 3,248 lots that would be developed in the end.
Hoag questioned whether that amount is the amount that is vacant or that
could be developed.
David Olsen, Sudden Valley Association General Manager, stated the density
reduction program in existence now calls for a reduction to 3,200 developed lots.
There are currently 1,775 developed lots. They don't want to grow. That is the
opinion of the committee appointed to pursue the possibility of becoming a city.
They do not want to grow outside of the current boundaries they have. They are in
favor of putting strict covenants in the Comprehensive Plan. The association will
co -exist with the city. There will still be dues that are being paid, which are $340
plus an $80 special assessment, and would be paid in addition into the taxes that
would be reduced. Those taxes amount to $160 per $1,000, which equated to
about $500,000 returned to the city just for the roads portion. That does not count
the Sheriff, the library, and the other portions of the taxes that would come back to
the city. The numbers have been looked at. The association has to co -exist with
the city. It has to be a limited city with limited responsibilities, based on the funds
that are returned.
Crawford moved to recommend against the emergency Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
Goodwin stated that if the Council does not approve of this as an emergency,
the staff could keep the same application for the regular docket if the association
wants.
Crawford questioned when it would be considered. Goodwin stated it would
be considered after the first of the year. It would go through the regular process.
About one year from now, the County Council would make a decision on it.
Crawford stated his motion was to recommend against sending this to the
Planning Commission as an emergency consideration.
McShane stated that the biggest problem is not with sudden Valley itself.
The other problem is Water District 10, and the impacts that Sudden Valley would
have on Water District 10, which may cause significant changes in the watershed.
Until that connection could be broken in some way, it creates a large problem. That
is what drives his decision. They are looking at the overall regional economic and
health impacts to the community as a whole, not just Sudden Valley.
Crawford stated that he was not taking a position against the incorporation of
Sudden Valley as a city. He encouraged the association to put this on next year's
docket and to have this go through the regular process. Thomas Jefferson said,
"Delay is preferable to error." Some people in the County think that is the Council's
motto, but it isn't. This has big ramifications that would take more time than what
is practical for the Planning Commission to process as an emergency ordinance at
this time. The deliberation would take more time than the current cycle they are
in. This is a huge issue. It is important to him. It is an exciting prospect. There is
opportunity, but they need to make certain that they understand the ramifications
of it.
Brenner stated they are supposed to make a motion in the positive, not in
the negative.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated there is no positive way to make the motion.
McShane stated that there is no recommendation from the committee.
Goodwin suggested a positive motion that is voted down unanimously.
Brenner stated that is what they are supposed to do technically.
McShane stated that, for the sake of a correct motion only, he would move
approval of the amendment.
Motion failed unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, 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
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AGAINST CHANGES TO
THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20,
ADDING THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND
OR TIMBERLAND APPLICATIONS TO THE DUTIES OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER (AB2000 -340)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that corrected minutes
were on packet page 116. The Planning Commission did vote to not recommend
this approval. They voted against it, after they initiated it. Staff was neutral on it.
There are advantages regarding scheduling and expeditious processing. The staff
time and cost to process is about equal.
McShane moved to recommend support of the Planning Commission
recommendation against changes to the official Whatcom County Zoning Ordinance,
Title 20, adding the review and recommendation of open space land or timberland
applications to the duties of the Hearing Examiner.
Crawford stated that open space review in the current form is time
consuming. The cost and staff time is the same, however the cost in Planning
Commission time is incalculable. Most of this is a legal review based on an
objective set of criteria, which makes him believe the that Hearing Examiner
review, based on the established criteria, is a more appropriate venue for this. He
would not support the motion.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
POSSIBLE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
This item was not discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20,
TO REVISE STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS (AB2000-
251B)
McShane stated that this item is up for a public hearing and vote at the
evening's meeting, although he would not support that.
Crawford stated he was also not inclined to support a vote on this item at the
evening's meeting.
McShane stated that there are many questions on this.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, Page 20
1 Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County,
2 stated the number one request is that the County Council be provided with
3 documentation of the complaints that exist. Her feeling is that there are thousands
4 of cottage industries in the county, and there are not many complaints. If it isn't
5 broken, then don't fix it. There may be a couple of bad apples. Go after the bad
6 apples. The County should not spend staff resources on increasing regulations that
7 are working well. She asked that the complaints be documented on where they are
8 and what their targets are. Look at the problems before deciding where to change
9 the regulations. She's been asked to remind the County Council that it has a
10 resolution, 94 -024, which says that implementing and revising regulations must be
11 considered in light of the economic impact to Whatcom County. The ability to start
12 up new businesses and create jobs is vital. They are taking a big whack at a huge
13 sector of the economic base. There isn't any cost - benefit analysis about how these
14 regulations will affect the County economically.
15
16 The Planning Commission members don't know who said to implement this
17 review. They don't know who said to look at the cottage industry regulations.
18
19 Hoag stated the County Council initiated it because of complaints that had
20 been brought forward. Staff, including Michael Knapp, told the County Council that
21 the County couldn't go after the bad apples because there isn't sufficient criteria.
22 They are not looking at driving cottage industry out of the county. They are looking
23 to develop clear criteria so they can prevent the bad apples from causing a problem.
24
25 Bovencamp stated she still wanted to see the documentation that supports
26 the review so they know exactly what problem they are going after. She questioned
27 where the complaints are and the areas that the complaints are about. Target those
28 complaints. She didn't mind rewriting regulations, but wanted to know that there is
29 an end - result that they are trying to get to. So far, that hasn't been presented in
30 any clear manner to the County Council. She encouraged the County Council to
31 work from the Planning Commission recommendation.
32
33 Crawford stated that he was not on the County Council at the time that this
34 came up. He didn't question that the County Council got hit with complaints. He
35 hadn't heard, in reading the cottage industry ordinance or the presentations, any
36 enunciation of the specific problems. He agreed that the problem needs to be
37 addressed before they adopt an entire new set of regulations.
38
39 Brenner stated the purpose of moving it forward was because there were
40 complaints. Those complaints were big enough that she attended a Hearing
41 Examiner's hearing, which got her attention.
42
43 Bovencamp stated she wanted to know what the complaints were so they can
44 be clear that the revisions address them.
45
46 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she had a list of the formal
47 complaints in a file. There were complaints against an auto wrecking yard on Tom
48 Road in a Rural Five Acre zone.
49
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, Page 21
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
McShane stated he recently looked at a property for environmental
contamination. It was a chop yard. The people were bringing in stolen cars and
cutting them up into parts, and had been doing this for a couple of years.
Goodwin continued to state that there was a tree service on Sweet Road,
which was more of a nuisance. There was a landscaping business, a boat repair, a
commercial storage and office that turned out not to be in violation, a ceramics
manufacturing company in a Rural One Acre zone, an unspecified complaint that is
not a violation, a lumber yard in a rural area that has since been relocated, a sign
company, a tire and battery store, a fiberglass repair place, an auto repair, a stained
glass manufacturer, and another sign manufacturer company. They get numerous
complaints about the auto repair place, the fiberglass place, and the tire and battery
store.
Brenner asked if the sign manufacturing is done with big machines or if
people are painting signs and cutting stained glass. Goodwin stated it is a good
building with metal equipment that they use to put in the glass panels. It is more
about welding and drilling. A wooden sign painted in a garage probably wouldn't
cause an impact enough that anyone would notice it.
Nelson asked about the specific type of complaints. He knows a lot of these
places. One of the places was previously a chicken farm. He couldn't image that
the noise and smell would be any worse than what it was. Goodwin stated that
when someone makes a confidential complaint about a particular property owner,
it's not supposed to be public record.
Nelson asked what the compliant specifically is. Goodwin stated they are
almost all related to noise, traffic, and odors.
Bovencamp stated she wanted it documented.
Goodwin stated the complaint she got was from the County Council telling the
staff to look at this. She responds to the County Council, who told her to look at
this.
Hoag stated it is not the staff's job to provide Ms. Bovencamp with
documentation of complaints. If there is even one legitimate complaint, then it
shows the County is not adequately protecting someone. That is the County's job.
She was very familiar with the fiberglass complaint. Someone was chemically
sensitive. The new business that moved in did so without a permit and began
operations. That complaint came to the County Council on appeal. The way the
appeals and the Hearing Examiner's criteria are written, the County Council cannot
deny a use even if there is a concern for public health and the County considers it as
inappropriate because of the criteria does not allow denial. The regulations are to
encourage cottage industry, but make it such that cottage industry does not
negatively impact the neighbors. That is the County's job.
Mike Brennan, Chamber of Commerce, stated that they help folks with the
questions and answers of starting and developing a business appropriately. They
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, Page 22
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
also supported the importance of cottage industries and home occupations in
Whatcom County because of the tax base and employment potential. In addition,
the Port of Bellingham is just about to release information in a study that would
support continued small business development. They are continuing their outreach
programs to provide information to the businesses in the county. The concept is to
take the high road, not to create confrontations. Work with county businesses to
retain those resources. Enable them to have a handle on what they need to do and
how to do it. Conservative estimates are that about 1/3 of the businesses in the
county are completely unlicensed. Many of the concerns addressed are as a result
of those unlicensed businesses. That group is a completely different story because
they have entered into the system without any concern for normal business
practices. Successful businesses have to understand that they are not going to be
successful if they are going to ignore everything in the system.
Pat Jones, Jones Engineers, stated the County Council should not promulgate
new rules and laws based on an extraordinarily small bad apple. The country is
filled with laws, many of which were designed to take care of .01 percent of the
problem, and burden 99.99 percent of the population. Unless there is a real issue,
the notion that they need a law if one guy has a legitimate complaint is what leads
to enormous laws and regulations. The average guy can't live long enough to even
read the index. He urged the County Council to not create more laws unless there is
a real problem and issue with real problems.
Hoag stated they aren't creating new laws. They have cottage industries on
the books. Many staff recommendations are to make it easier for cottage industries
by switching approval to administrative approval rather than conditional use
approval. They have looked for the gaps that allow abusers to come in. She'd had
many calls on this from constituents. Each time she's looked at the ordinance in
relation to the complaint, there wasn't anything in the ordinance that causes a
problem. The constituents are under the impression that the County Council is
trying to drive cottage industry out of the county. She asked that people speak on a
particular part of the ordinance that is going to cause a specific problem. They are
not coming forward with new laws and new regulations. They are simply trying to
make changes to clarify and make it tougher to abuse, yet easier to do the right
thing.
McShane questioned what the agenda for the next day's work session should
be. Goodwin stated the next day's work session was to finish working on
Comprehensive Plan items. There are several items.
Hoag stated that the first work session was for Comprehensive Plan
amendments. This second work session was for anything else that is hanging out
there that needs to move forward.
Goodwin stated they finished the Sandell and the Lynden UGA items, and they
sent the Capital Facilities item off to Public Works. There are only two
Comprehensive Plan items that are remaining, regarding forestry maps (AB2000-
345) and urban growth area and short term planning area policies of the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (AB2000 -344).
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, Page 23
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
McShane questioned whether there are other Comprehensive Plan
amendments coming up. Goodwin stated not until next year. The one thing they
had on the agenda today was the agricultural issue that was on for possible
discussion. Some people would want notice about that item. She recommended
that they carry that item over.
Hoag stated there are a number of items that the committee members need
to discuss. Goodwin stated she wanted to have other Planning staff present to talk
about Title 21. She is very familiar with cottage industry.
McShane stated they would work on the two Comprehensive Plan
amendments and the cottage industry item.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 10/10/2000, Page 24