HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 24 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
October 24, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Sam Crawford Connie Hoag
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS: APRIL 18, MAY 2 AND 16,
JUNE 27, JULY 11, AND AUGUST 8, 2000
Brenner stated she had corrections that were scrivener's errors.
McShane moved approval with the corrected scrivener's errors.
Motion carried unanimously.
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 the committee held a work session on this item. Staff
provided a written report regarding some of the comments made during the work
session. Also, a member of the audience wanted to comment on boundary line
adjustments.
Mark Weinberg, Bellingham, stated he had concerns about the boundary line
adjustment changes being proposed in the new ordinance. There was a great deal
more flexibility in the old ordinance. Some of the flexibility can be worked into the
new ordinance. Many lots were platted in the 1800's and early 1900's, when
people weren't as aware of issues such as critical areas and septic systems. Since
many of the lots have been platted, there has been a great deal more regulation
that has been put onto the lots and their potential uses. Many citizens are more
aware of the need to protect critical areas. Some building sites may now need to
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
locate the building further from a critical area. There may be many reasons why a
citizen or a pair of citizens owning parcels adjacent to each other might want to
adjust the boundary. In the past, there was a provision that two lots, neither of
which are conforming, could have the boundary adjusted so that one of the lots
might be reduced in size if the other was increased in size, making it a conforming
lot. That flexibility has been removed. It is very important.
There are also instances of boundary line adjustments between different
zones. Under this new ordinance, that would be prevented. There are instances
when that might be a great advantage. Under the old rules, one could take some
land from a lot with a large amount of acreage and transfer it to an adjacent lot
that is very small and nonconforming, making it buildable. These rules do not allow
for the reduction of an existing conforming lot below it's minimum size, even
though some of that land is being added to another parcel.
McShane questioned where that issue is in the proposed ordinance.
Weinberg stated the language is on page 12 of the regulation, section
21.03.060(3)(b). Sometimes it is necessary to reduce the size of a lot below the
minimum if they are increasing the size of an adjacent lot.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the current code in
section 20.83.060 regarding lots of record says that legal parcels that do not meet
the minimum area or width requirements of the zone may be developed with
permitted accessory and conditional uses, provided that all other district standards
are met and the lots are created pursuant to applicable state and local subdivision
regulations. That regulation would address Mr. Wienberg's complaint of his
situation. He could still do the development as long as the other requirements are
fulfilled.
Nelson questioned whether that applies to the current lot. Grant stated that
was correct.
Nelson questioned whether one could develop a current lot of legal record
that is too small. Grant stated that was correct.
Nelson stated this language says that the small lot could not be reduced
further.
Grant stated that Mr. Wienberg is concerned that he couldn't take some land
from an adjacent larger lot and make a smaller lot bigger. Both could be developed
if they are legal lots of record.
Weinberg stated that under the old rules, one could take some of the land
from the larger parcel and attach it to an existing substandard lot, which could
otherwise be developed as it is currently platted even though it may impinge upon
critical areas. If there was greater flexibility, it would be in the public benefit. The
smaller lot would be made larger and could be developed without impinging upon
the critical areas.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shores Road, Bellingham, stated Roger Almskaar had
a brilliant idea regarding conservation exempt segregation. In the staff's proposed
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
revisions as expressed in their memo dated October 20, 2000, under issue four
dealing with section 21.03.020(7)(x), it references that all lots are a minimum of
five acres. He requested that the five -acre designation not be in there.
McShane questioned whether there was a legal reason that it has to be five
acres.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated there is. In the state Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) it says that exemptions have to be a minimum of five acres.
Isaacson questioned whether that is true if the land is going to be in public
ownership. He questioned whether it would make any difference if the land goes
into County ownership. There are several reasons why the land might be
substandard for the public.
Grant stated he didn't recall ever seeing an exemption for a property being
held in public ownership. He would look into it.
Isaacson stated he owns several parcels that he may be interested in
dedicating for conservation purchases. Several of them would be less than five
acres.
Nelson stated that a lot dedicated to the County would not be buildable.
Isaacson stated a piece of land dedicated for conservation would not be buildable.
McShane stated Mr. Isaacson was proposing an exemption for environmental
mitigation, conservation, and restoration. Isaacson stated that was correct.
McShane stated the committee needed a legal opinion on whether or not that
suggestion would work. Legal counsel would research that suggestion.
Grant stated that under RCW 58.17.040, there is an exemption for
cemeteries and other divisions. The County could take the gift exemption and do
with it what it wants. The RCW talks about lots or tracts. The definition of a lot or
tract would not be different if it were in public ownership or a critical area. He
didn't think that the law would allow it. The RCW doesn't address uses at all. If it
is under five acres, then it can't be exempt, according to these provisions. The
County doesn't have the prerogative to play with it. He didn't know if Mr.
Isaacson's objectives could be met through a conservation easement instead of a
dedication. An objective like that may still be accomplished without dividing the
land.
Isaacson stated he agreed with the idea of an easement. However, it would
be in his interest to dedicate certain lands that he can't use, for tax purposes.
Aamot stated the Land Trust went to some of the local legislators and tried to
get them to change this RCW. It didn't happen.
McShane stated that five acres does seem kind of big. During the previous
meeting, the committee received comments from various individuals. Staff
provided some reply to those comments. He appreciated that reply. The
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
committee will look at those items in which the staff recommends a change to the
text in Title 21.
Aamot stated the first change that staff recommends was issue four on page
three of the memo dated October 20, 2000. Most of that language was reviewed
already. Mr. Grant wrote some language. Councilmember Hoag wanted criteria for
removing a covenant on a conservation parcel. That section is 20.03.020(7)(d)(iv).
Also, the committee wanted to add the requirement for a survey. That change is in
20.03.020(7)(e). In section 21.03.030, staff added that one should get a certificate
of exemption from the County saying the parcel is exempt as a conservation parcel.
McShane moved approval of issue four in the memo from Aamot dated
October 20, 2000.
Pat Jones, Jones Engineering, stated the state law regarding the five -acre
minimum refers basically to residential or building sites. The committee may be
able to couch the minimum size to tie in with state law without saying what state
law is, and allow an attorney general (AG) opinion on the issue of the five acres as
it relates to unbuildable sites. There is some wiggle room in there. Couch it to be
consistent with state law, and then ask the County attorney to ask for an AG
opinion on that special circumstance.
Grant stated he talked to Mr. Almskaar about the language in subsection
(7)(d)(iv) regarding the conditions. There was some thought of making a language
change, "...no longer be fulfilled af�d or changed conditions warrant...." It was
staff's recommendation to have the word "and" because they typically see the
criteria including changed conditions in many rezone activities. The proponent of
this overall idea would have preferred the word "or."
Crawford offered a friendly amendment to subsection (7)(a) that the
minimum lot size shall comply with the minimum standard as set forth in RCW
58.17 instead of defining a specific number of acres.
Aamot stated he liked to communicate to the public what is required. It is
easier to do that with the language that exists rather than referring to an RCW. He
questioned the purpose of the friendly amendment.
Grant stated the change would allow the wiggle room to address Mr.
Isaacson's concern.
Crawford suggested, "...section of land, or in the case of a land conservation
easement, the minimum standards set forth per RCW...." He didn't have the
specific RCW. The option is to exactly specify the acreage and percentage, or
provide wiggle room by citing the state standard and being able to challenge the
state code. This is specifically for a conservation easement.
Grant stated they might be safer to provide guidance by citing the specific
section of the chapter.
McShane questioned who would make the determination of whether or not
this is an exemption. Someone at the desk at the County would interpret it as five
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
acres. Aamot stated that they could come back with an amendment if state law
changes.
Crawford withdrew his friendly amendment.
Motion to amend language as stated in issue four of the October 20, 2000
memo from Aamot carried unanimously.
McShane stated the motion included the change to WCC 21.03.030 and the
renumbering of WCC 21.03.040.
The committee concurred.
Aamot stated the next recommendation for change is in issue five of the
memo. Mr. Almskaar made the request that a legal description written by a
surveyor for a five -acre exemption be submitted for final approval rather than in
the beginning, along with the request for exemption.
McShane moved to approve issue five regarding WCC 21.03.020(4)(f) as
written by staff in Aamot's memo dated October 20, 2000.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated the next recommended change is issue six of the memo. This
item was for renumbering and reorganization of the sections.
McShane moved to approve issue six regarding WCC 21.03.030 through
21.03.050.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated the next recommended change is issue eight of the memo. It
is a survey requirement for boundary line adjustments. The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) recommended that a survey be required for all boundary line
adjustments. Lesa Starken burg- Kroontje recommended that it be deleted. He
proposed a compromise. A smaller lot of two acres or less would have a survey
requirement. If there is a lot line adjustment between two five -acre parcels, for
example, no survey would be required. The smaller the parcel, the more likely it is
that there would be development near the property lines. They don't want to
create lot lines that go through drain fields.
Weinberg stated the TAC is filled with engineers and surveyors who would
like to fill their own pockets. Recently, they changed the building permit process so
one is now required to do a survey to determine the front property line. Since
there is already a provision required before building, this section is unnecessary.
Jones stated staff recommends that surveys be required when parcels of two
acres or less are created. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. An
important underlying aspect is that the boundaries that are adjusted almost always
create a change in the exterior lines of the property. If a third party is trying to a
survey of another area, it could create confusion. He's seen incidents where do a
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
boundary line adjustment occurred right on a section corner. The owners never
recorded the survey. They just recorded the deed. When they went out to build a
permanent fence on the new boundary line, a number of years went by and the
location of the section was lost, and there was little other evidence to that
particular section corner. The issue goes to the level of evidence to that section
corner. The previous fence was the best evidence of the section corner. Had the
new boundary and fence held up in court, it would have changed the boundary lines
for four square miles. The boundary line adjustments truly affect the rest of the
community. His argument is true for any size parcel, but particularly true for the
smaller tracts. When property corners get lost, evidence like that becomes very
important.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, Lynden, stated her original proposal was to do
away with a survey altogether as a matter of equity. It is wise for surveyors to
obtain deed histories in an attempt to ensure that they have the complete package
of information. Staff's recommendation is a good compromise.
Jack Swanson, Bellingham, stated he often does lot line adjustments that
amount to three or four feet. It is a needless expense for the people to hire a
surveyor to do this. It costs $1,000. There are many small situations of adverse
possession claims that amount to a couple of feet. A diagram on the back of a deed
works just fine. The City of Bellingham Planning Department doesn't like to do the
mylars and feel that they are a needless expense in a situation he just described.
Crawford questioned whether the County currently has that requirement.
Swanson stated it does not. It requires a sketch attached to the back of the map
that accomplishes the lot line adjustment.
Grant stated the County requires a deed of conveyance.
Crawford questioned whether the City of Bellingham requires a survey.
Swanson stated it does lot line adjustments just like short plats. Also, the Council
should scrap the entire ordinance. With half a dozen decent amendments to the
exiting ordinance, they would be in terrific shape. The proposed ordinance is overly
complex and costly. The County will have to hire half a dozen more people to make
it work.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Swanson stated it is an overly planned situation.
Grant stated that the City of Bellingham does require the mylars and
surveys. Even small movements of a line can be of significance to the surrounding
property owners. The misplacement of a fence could end up costing many people
much money down the road. It would have been far less expensive to have a
surveyor set the line appropriately to begin with. He didn't know if the cost of a
survey increases with the size of a lot.
Jones stated the cost of a survey is almost unrelated to the size of the area
being surveyed. It is more related to the incompetently prepared legal descriptions
and parcels that have evolved with erroneous or missing surveys.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
McShane moved to approve issue eight of Aamot's memo dated October 20,
2000 regarding boundary line adjustments.
Crawford stated he would buy Mr. Swanson's argument on this issue.
Motion failed unanimously.
Aamot stated that as the language stands, they need a survey for
everything.
Crawford questioned whether the map for all boundary line adjustments is
the sketch, not the survey. Aamot stated that was correct. "Record of survey" is
also referred to in subsection (4)(c). If they want to eliminate that requirement,
they would have to eliminate all of subsection (4)(b) and then cross out the record
of survey requirement in subsection (4)(c)
Crawford moved to amend WCC 21.03.060(4) to include staff's suggested
changes from issue eight and also amend language,
(4): "...prepared all maps, FeEOFd ef survey, and instruments..."
(4) (a): ........legal description prepared by a land surnveyern, conveying...
adjustments, and a map for all boundary line adjustments."
(4) (b): eliminate
(4) (c): renumber to (4)(b), and amend language in (4)(eb), final map;
and instruments..."
McShane questioned the effect of that motion. Grant stated it gets rid of the
record of survey requirement.
Aamot stated that now they wouldn't need a survey for any boundary line
adjustment.
McShane questioned whether this had to be done by a land surveyor. Grant
stated no. If the language is left in, a surveyor must write the legal description.
McShane questioned whether there should be an indication that everyone
agrees to the lot line adjustment. That requirement is in subsection (4)(b)(ii),
which has been moved to be removed.
Starkenburg- Kroontje stated they already covered it in section (4)(c). An
instrument of conveyance must be something that is signed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Aamot stated that staff didn't propose any more changes. Kathy Bovencamp
had noted that he did not address the issue she raised regarding the six -pack well.
McShane stated they would address that later. They are saving that issue for
the end.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
Crawford moved to amend packet page 275, WCC 21.01.040(1), "...or short
plat that was filed with the Geunty AuditeF at least five yeaFs pFieF te the i9ew la
d+v+sien shall not be required...." He suggested that they go back to the original
TAC recommendation, which did not include that language. Aamot stated that
language was not from the TAC. It is existing language and was recommended by
the Planning Commission. The TAC did not review it. It was meant to address
back -to -back short - plats, which Mr. Middleton and Mr. Grant have had some
experience with. Mr. Middleton had suggested language to the Planning
Commission, which they did not adopt. Instead, the Planning Commission inserted
the existing code in this section. Staff included that language as a response to a
public comment.
Crawford stated he was looking at the May 16 TAC review of the Planning
Commission changes. In that review, the TAC did not insert or change any
language in that section. Wherever the language came from, there was a
suggestion that the language would not be very workable.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend language in WCC 21.03.020(3) by deleting the
second sentence beginning with "Any further...."
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend packet page 282, WCC 21.03.020(6)(d),
"...further exempt divisions eF sheFt PI may be created..."
McShane stated that this is where someone has an exemption from a gift and
can't do any more exempt divisions or short - plats. If there is going to be a gift
after that, it has to be through the long -plat process.
Crawford questioned whether an exempt division is any division. Aamot
stated no.
McShane stated that section (6)(b) already says that they have to be five
acres in size. He was comfortable with the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to add language to section 21.03.020(6)(d) on packet page
282, "...long subdivision, short subdivision, or binding...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford asked about WCC 21.03.060(3)(d) and (3)(e). He received a note
that says there is no way the County could implement this and asked when the
process would be created.
Starkenburg- Kroontje stated her concern was that there be some way in
which the County was prepared to begin implementing those changes. There is no
such thing as a vested application for purposes of an exempt land division or
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
boundary line adjustment. When she gets a pre - approval, it doesn't carry over if
the regulation changes. She asked that there be some way that a pre - approval
would have the right process to follow when the law goes into effect. There should
be an implementation date so staff can begin informing pre - approval applicants of
the pending new regulations.
Crawford stated that the difficulty is not knowing how quickly they can be
prepared. Aamot stated they've been emailing the proposal to the Land Use
Division for two years. He's alerted them to the concern about the forms. He
didn't know how this would be different from any other regulation. Many other
regulations are adopted and require form changes.
Crawford stated he would let that issue go. In reference to WCC
21.04.090(2)(a) on packet page 290, he questioned whether the County Council
added the language about smaller lots.
McShane stated yes.
Crawford questioned the conversation that led up to the inclusion of WCC
21.04.100 regarding sewage disposal and the additional sentence in subsection
(2)(a). Aamot stated the TAC recommended that private water be allowed for lots
of five acres or larger. Someone testified that it penalizes someone who is
clustering development, which is encouraged. Someone with smaller lots due to
clustering should be allowed to have private wells. The Planning Commission said
that was fine. The overall intent that one shouldn't have many wells on small lots
didn't get included. If clustering, the overall density should be one dwelling per five
acres, so there won't be a large concentration of individual wells in a small area.
Crawford questioned whether the Planning Commission inserted the sentence
in subsection (2)(a). Aamot stated that was correct.
Crawford stated the committee reacted by adding WCC 21.04.100. Aamot
stated he couldn't recall. Staff may have brought it up. Regarding the next one on
long- plats, the committee did add that the number of clustered lots shall not
exceed four.
McShane stated that was not applicable to this section, only to long- divisions.
Crawford stated that Starkenburg - Kroontje has suggested removing that
language. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated her concern was not with the underlying
language. It was with the idea that one is allowed to drink the water from his or
her own well if it is a clustered lot, but not if the zoning allowed something smaller
than a five -acre lot. This ignores people who have R2 zoning. If they want to stay
with the concept of restricting people from using private water supplies, and yet be
fair to those clustered lots, specify that lots must be smaller because of clustering
or because of zoning. An R2A lot should be able to have its own private well. This
seems to have been written from the R5A and R10A perspective.
Aamot stated it is more of a health perspective. The Health Department
originally recommended only public water. It got remanded to the Planning
Commission, who then said that private water would be limited to big lots.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that the language goes on to say that it's okay
for clustering.
McShane stated the purpose was to not discourage clustering. Starkenburg-
Kroontje questioned the difference between a clustered lot and an R2A lot. They've
ignored the people who have R2A property.
Aamot stated that on a larger scale, there could be a concentration of many
parcels with individual wells on one -acre zoning. If the overall density is one
dwelling per five acre, then there would be fewer wells.
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated there are several
different issues. As the public health agency, their long -term goal is to get more
people on public water and fewer on private wells. The County has had some
problems with people being surprised at the low quality of their own drinking water.
When they started with the platting process, their original proposal was to allow
public water for all long -plats and all short - plats. Long -plats currently require
public water. There is no provision for private water. Through a lengthy process,
they got down to the fact that there are times when private water does make some
sense. A lot size of five acres or greater is one of those times because, as lot size
increases, so do the miles of line that has to be put down for a public water supply.
The TAC and the Health and Human Services Department both agreed that the five -
acre limit would be fine. With clustering, the intent is still to limit the number of
lots in any one particular area so that the overall density isn't that great. In an R2
zone, a fairly large parcel could result in 20 wells in a 40 -acre parcel, which doesn't
make sense from the public health standpoint. The argument about small lot sizes
on long -plats is a problem. Experience has shown that there could be difficulties in
maintaining zones of protection around wells. They like to have at least 100 feet,
especially in areas where the area is completely unconfined. As lot sizes get
smaller and there are more and more wells, there is less opportunity to actually
provide protection for the water source. From his perspective, what was originally
proposed was a reasonable compromise, understanding that clustering is an option
for people to maintain large open spaces. There are opportunities to put some of
the wells in the reserve tract. To the Health Department, it makes sense to leave it
the way it is currently written. That wording was put in to clarify that the TAC
initially said that there needed to be five -acre tracts to have a private well in the
future. The clustering thing came in, and they made it clear that the density would
not be any greater than one house per five acres.
Jones stated that was the way the TAC decided it. In his mind, there
remains a troublesome aspect of the water requirement for short and long- plats. It
is mandatory on a long -plat. That isn't necessarily logical. For instance, a short -
plat on an 80 -acre parcel would create four 20 -acre lots. The guy who buys one of
those 20 -acre lots is required to do a long -plat within five - years. That is state law.
He may really only want to do a five -acre tract and a 15 -acre tract. Now, he has to
have a public water system. From his point of view as an engineer, not the point of
view of the TAC, the notion ought to deal with the physical science of the aquifers
and the lot size, and not the mechanism by which the lots were created. The
mandatory requirement of long -plats having to be on public water does not take
into account those exceptions.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
Isaacson stated this is a significant downzone. If one has property in a R2A
zone, and splits it in half, there are several issues in meeting public water. One
issue is that the person would either have to get water rights or go through a group
B process to get public water. A group B process is very difficult. Also, the Growth
Management Act (GMA) prohibits extending public water supply outside of urban
growth areas. He is within the RR2 and R2A zones. Both of zones, under this
change, would be gone unless one does a formal plat. The theory at the Planning
Commission was that a formal plat could justify the cost of bringing in the
extension or changing urban growth area boundaries. He didn't see an individual
extending public water to serve only three lots, for example.
Roger Almskaar, real estate broker, agreed with Mr. Jones, Ms. Starkenburg-
Krootje, and Mr. Isaacson in general. They do need more flexibility on this issue of
water supply. He's known Paul Chudek for a long time. He has always been
positive and constructive. If the goal is to have all lots on public water supply, the
state government makes it impossible.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
McShane stated that long -plats are a separate issue. Here, they are not
talking about extending water service lines. They are still dealing with exempt
wells. Almskaar stated there are probably circumstances where they would not
want to use an exempt well, but have a water right. Some of the water
associations could expand their customer base if they could get a water right. The
County needs to recognize that a state bureaucracy that is using its power to stop
growth is adversely impacting their situation. It is an anti - growth policy. It is
unfair to penalize Whatcom County citizens and landowners for that reason. They
have well protection areas. They don't need to worry so much about some of the
smaller lots.
Dawson stated that subsection (2)(a) is very confusing. It says that one
could have multiple homes on five acres if the zoning is allowed, but the new
section 21.04.100 seems to contradict that.
McShane did not agree. This issue has been hashed out over months and
months. This is a compromise, and he was comfortable with that.
Chudek stated a public water supply could be as small as a two -party well.
Those are approved locally in his office, unless they are withdrawing surface water,
and there is no requirement for a water right. There have been two recent court
decisions that have struck down the total of 5,000 gallons of water being withdrawn
for any one individual project. They are not requiring people to go to DOE to get a
water right simply because there is a requirement for public water. The public
water requirement assures that there will be, in the future, a minimal requirement
for testing of well that are being used for new lots that are being created. These
are the subdivision rules.
McShane stated it ultimately reduces the number of county residents who are
drinking contaminated water.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
Crawford stated he was looking for a way for water quality protection based
on the distance, without limiting the number of dwelling per acre, so they can keep
the encouragement for clustering. Chudek stated that even though they are
requiring public water, the worse thing they are doing is requiring a two -party well.
McShane stated that it requires occasional sampling and there won't be as
many holes in the ground. This underlined sentence is already a compromise.
They don't want to discourage clustering. If he was buying a lot in a cluster, he
would prefer to have a shared well.
Crawford stated he was not sold on the argument. He moved to remove the
underlined portion of WCC 21.04.090(2)(a) on packet page 290, beginning "If the
lots are smaller..."
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
Dawson questioned whether an exception could be made in WCC
21.04.090(2)(b) for saltwater intrusion using osmosis. Some people consider that
groundwater contamination.
McShane stated one might be treating his or her water, but would be
increasing the saltwater infiltration that would impact other well owners in the area.
Then they have to put in osmosis protection as well.
Dawson stated she meant areas of known saltwater intrusion. There are
some areas where it has been known for 25 years.
McShane stated that the landowner could impact the aquifer and other
people in the aquifer.
Dawson stated there is an area where there is saltwater intrusion, but the
public water system won't service non - tribal members, so there is no way for
people to use their property. Aamot suggested using a private well. This wouldn't
affect pre- existing platted lots.
McShane stated this is only for subdivision rules.
Dawson questioned whether pre- existing platted lots could use osmosis.
Aamot stated that was correct. This ordinance wouldn't address that one way or
another.
Crawford asked the history of the Starkenburg - Kroontje comment on WCC
21.04.100. Aamot stated this is sewage disposal. The TAC had language to the
effect of requiring public sewer unless one could qualify for an onsite sewage
disposal system pursuant to the Health Department regulations. They had a
comment that the GMA discourages sewer outside of urban growth areas, so they
tried to develop language. This committee voted on that language earlier in the
yea r.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated they figured out last time that it was okay. She
dropped her concern.
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
• Its moo • -• • - • 1 1:1 •
I. WIN MI *111�ffiffl_ NO NIOI
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend WCC 21.07.080, "...Health and Human Services
requirements Department, pi=evi-
subdivisieen, unless the applicant helds a valid wateF Fight te withdFaw n9enee. All
Motion failed 1 -1 with Crawford in favor.
McShane moved to amend WCC 21.05.080(1), "...Health and Human Services
Department, provided that usage does not exceed 5,000
subdivision, unless the applicant holds a valid wateF Fight te withdFaw . If the
applicant does not hold a valid water right, usage of water shall not exceed 5,000
gallons per day per subdivision under any of the following circumstance:
(a)the subdivision would withdraw ground water from source aquifers in
hydraulic continuity with streams defined in WAC 173- 501 -030 as streams where
no further consumptive use can take place.
(b) the subdivision would withdraw groundwater from an aquifer declared
closed to further water rights by the Department of Ecology."
They can go ahead and put in the exempt wells and multiple exempt wells,
but not in a place where the code is saying there are impacts to streams. They
couldn't put in multiple six -pack wells and draw up to 5,000 gallons of water in a
place where no one could get a water right because water isn't available any more,
as determined by the Department of Ecology. The streams have all been defined
within the WAC. As they are moving through the Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA) process, those streams may no longer be listed as they gain more
information. Instream flow is a major issue they are addressing. He questioned
why they are even doing this if they allow wells in areas where there are impacted
streams.
Dawson stated the law says they can't use instream flows to keep people
from putting in their wells.
McShane disagreed. If they go into any legal discussions, they need to go
into executive session because they've already been threatened with a lawsuit.
Nelson stated he had legal questions.
McShane moved to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation.
Kathy Bovencamp, Building Industry Association, stated that she has spent
considerable time and resources on this issue. As a matter of public process, a final
vote on an ordinance is to take place at the evening meeting. Two hours ahead of
time, they are talking about amendments that she hasn't had time to have legal
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, 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
review for. That isn't how they want to start making public policy in Whatcom
County government.
McShane stated this was done and came before the full Council in August.
Bovencamp stated this motion was the first time she'd heard this language.
McShane stated language that was originally voted on, the 5,000 - gallon
issue, came before the full Council, who could have voted on it that night. He
moved to put an extension on it. He would be interested in allowing that to occur.
(Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on, however the committee went
into executive session for 15 minutes.)
Motion to approve McShane's motion failed 1 -1 with McShane in favor.
Weinberg discussed boundary line adjustments on page 12 of the August 8
version, WCC 21.03.060(3)(b). He suggested changing one word, "...or that each
the smallest parcel, if already..." If they are going to do a lot line adjustment
between two parcels, there may be times that there is a good cause to change to
larger parcel and make it smaller. It might become a non - conforming parcel, but
it's in the public interest if the smallest parcel is being increased in size. A building
site on the smaller parcel could be moved away from critical areas. It's better for
the purpose of septic systems or other reasons. There is no public harm, because
the overall density will remain the same. It is a minor modification in the language.
Crawford stated Mr. Weinberg was talking about removing the line between
the parcels. He didn't understand why subsection (3)(b) prevented him from doing
that right now.
Starken burg- Kroontje stated two small parcels created before zoning
regulations went into affect, and are now zoned in five -acre zoning, would not be
able to adjust the boundary between them.
Grant stated that is already handled under subsection (1).
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated it is only handled in court with a valid dispute.
The neighbors aren't allowed to agree to it on their own. Another situation would
involve a 36 -acre tract and a neighboring 10 -acre tract in the agricultural zone,
with a minimum lot size of 40 acres. The 10 -acre tract could not sell five of its
acres to the 36 -acre tract to make it conforming and put it back in the resource
base because the 10 -acre tract is becoming smaller than five. None of those things
are addressed by the proposed changes. Farmers historically took out five acres
when they retire because it was exempt from subdivision rules. That is a lot of
good agricultural ground that is stuck in five acres. A number of people are looking
to do lot line adjustments to move two acres back to the agricultural tract to be
farmed. This language would prohibit that from happening. She suggested striking
language in subsection (3)(b), "...for a building site, er that eaeh paFeel, of already
less than the r-equired n9inimum, is net further FeElueed as a result ef the pFepesed
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
Weinberg stated he agreed with Starkenburg - Kroontje. In all of these
examples, the gross density has not changed. No lots have been created, there are
still the same number of parcels and building sites. He agreed with the language
that Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje proposed.
Crawford moved to amend the language in WCC 21.03.060(3)(b), "...for a
building site, er that eaeh pareel, if , S net
further redueed as a result ef the prepesed boundary line."
Weinberg questioned what defines "insufficient area" in that section.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated she believed it was the zoning ordinance and
each district's requirements.
Grant stated he would go along with Ms. Starkenburg - Kroontje's proposal to
omit the second half of the sentence in subsection (3)(b). That would parallel RCW
58.17.040, which delineates the various exemptions under state law for divisions of
land. Subsection (3)(a) addresses not creating lots.
Dawson questioned whether they could still have two substandard lots
through subsection (3)(a). Grant stated they could. The lots would be legal lots of
record as long as they could meet the minimum setback requirements. Under the
County Code, one could probably build something on them, which would result in
two homes on insufficient lots. That is why they included the language that it
doesn't result in insufficient lots. The remaining language would parallel state law.
If they were to eliminate the language about the insufficient lots, they could
eliminate subsection (3)(b) altogether. Someone could have a sufficient size lot
and an adjoining insufficient size lot, add a little more to the smaller lot, and end up
with two insufficient size lots. If one couldn't build on it, this language wouldn't
allow him or her to build on it. The building codes are the control, not this code. It
doesn't matter if they can subdivide it if they can't build on it under the building
codes. He did not recommend eliminating subsection (3)(b). State law requires an
exemption from this division of land requirements that the lots end up being of
sufficient size, upon which one could put something.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated that Mr. Grant is talking about septics and other
things one needs to put on the lot, not the zoning. Then they would be into the
non - conforming lot section. This suggestion addresses Mr. Weinberg's concern, but
the landowner would still have to have a buildable area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. 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)
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning & Development Committee, 10/24/2000, Page 16