HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 12 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 12, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he was the only person at the Lake
Samish Committee meeting except for the committee members. The original intent
of creating the committee was to hear public testimony. The committee decided it
wouldn't do that. It would take written testimony only.
Hoag questioned whether it is written in the committee's bylaws to not take
oral testimony.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they don't have bylaws,
but they passed a motion on how they are going to run their meeting. They said
they would accept written testimony, but their orders are to get this done by
December. They only have three meetings. They want to get on with their
business. There has been a public hearing already. They would consider those
comments that were already submitted.
Pros stated they only need three people on a quorum of five to pass a
recommendation. If they pass a recommendation, a citizen has 30 days before the
next meeting to submit written testimony. That makes it difficult to respond. The
committee could have more than one meeting a month.
Hoag stated she preferred to see that the committee takes public oral input.
It is much easier for people to reason orally than on paper. Most committees
function that way. They have an open session before committee discussion. The
committee could have more meetings or limit the length of testimony. She was
concerned, and she would be interested in sending a letter to the committee.
Crawford stated it seemed to be overly restrictive to not allow any oral
comment. It is appropriate for the chair to limit the oral testimony time. There
should be a time allotted for oral testimony. He questioned whether Goodwin, as
the facilitator, had input on the issue.
Goodwin stated there is need to get on with their business, but it is
reasonable to limit the time allotted for testimony. It would be difficult to schedule
extra meetings because of the staffing required of the Planning Department. The
Council could allow more time before the committee must report to the Planning
Commission.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
McShane stated they could draft a letter asking for a 15- minutes public
comment period at the beginning of the meeting. They should show sensitivity in
the letter to the fact that the committee has been asked to take on a contentious
issue in a short amount of time. He moved that the Planning Committee sends a
letter to the Lake Samish Citizen's Committee to encourage them to have a 15-
minute open session for public comment, and the Council understands their concern
about the short time frame and the number of citizens who want to testify.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR MARCH 7 AND 211
APRIL 4, AND JUNE 13, 2000
Hoag stated she had not had a chance to review the minutes and would not
vote. She could vote on them at the next meeting, but not at this meeting.
McShane moved approval.
Crawford stated that packet page 109 shows Councilmember Brenner as
voting member. The minutes should be corrected to reflect a unanimous vote.
Hoag stated her preference was to hold the minutes until the next meeting.
McShane accepted Crawford's suggested amendment.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Hoag abstaining.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, TO CLARIFY CHAPTER 20.04.030 INTERPRETATION AND
CONFLICT (AB2000 -253)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the reason for the
ordinance was to correct a scrivener's error made 20 years ago when this section of
the code was imported from another jurisdiction. As the language is, it doesn't
make sense. Now, with the amendments, it does make sense.
Hoag questioned whether the amendments change anything on the ground.
Goodwin stated no. They make it clear that the more restrictive code is what the
County goes by in practice. That is common practice.
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
McShane questioned the word "morals." Goodwin stated there was
discussion when people developed adult business regulations that it didn't have to
do with health and safety. Zoning can regulate adult entertainment. The courts
say that morals are a cause for restriction by zoning.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 20.92.210, GRANTING THE HEARING
EXAMINER THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE COORDINATED WATER
SYSTEM PLAN APPEALS (AB2000 -284)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Council already
addressed this issue when it approved the Coordinated Water System Plan. There
is a change in state law. There needs to be a local procedure to resolve disputes if
someone is within a water association and is not getting timely service or if there is
a dispute. The Council already approved the process. This just gives the hearing
examiner the authority to deal with it.
Hoag questioned who makes the decisions now. Goodwin stated that the
state previously made the decisions.
Hoag questioned how this applies to the people who want to be in a water
association, but the water association doesn't want to provide shares.
Nelson stated it would have an impact. They are outlining the districts for
certain water districts. The problem is that they don't know where all the water
purveyors are. The reason they put this together was to identify the class A and
class B water purveyors. It depends on which water purveyor one is dealing with.
Hoag stated they are dealing with a water association problem. This talks
about the Coordinated Water System Plan. Goodwin stated she was not the expert
on this topic. The person who is the expert would be available at the next meeting,
if the committee wanted to table this discussion. There is no hurry on this one.
They need to look at section 9.2 of the Coordinated Water System Plan.
Brenner stated the Coordinated Water System Plan includes water
associations. They do know who the water associations are, but they are not sure
where they are. Goodwin stated the Coordinated Water System Plan identified the
purveyors and boundaries.
Hoag stated they know how many shares they are giving out, but she wanted
to make sure the hearing examiner can't force an association to give out shares if
they don't feel they should be. She preferred to hold this item in committee for two
weeks.
McShane stated this is just an update to reflect state law. Goodwin stated
the state law dictates that there must be a local process to hear the disputes, either
in front of the County Council, the Planning Commission, or the hearing examiner.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
The County has an adopted Coordinated Water System Plan. It is a matter of
whether someone wants to dispute what an association or district is doing. It
doesn't give the hearing examiner the authority to amend or change the plan.
Hoag stated that before the Council provides the authority, she wanted to
make sure it is not a process that gives the hearing examiner undue powers.
Brenner stated they don't know of all the shares that are out there. The
biggest problem with water associations is the unused shares that people want to
use. Until they know about all of the shares, they can't add up the unused shares.
Nelson stated this has been going on since 1991. The Coordinated Water
System Plan was submitted to the state. It had to get approval from the state
Department of Health (DOH), who sat on it. Two years ago, the DOH asked for an
update, which the County approved in February. The Department of Health
approved the updated Coordinated Water System Plan on August 7. The state
would give up its authority to the County if the County had policies and procedures
to address failing water systems, which is a part of this hearing examiner process.
The process is what is being put forward here.
Hoag stated they are not clear on the authority they are giving up and the
water systems this applies to. Her concern was about the Northwood water
situation. When someone sets up a water association, it is an independent
operation. She wanted to know more about that before delegating the authority.
Dawson stated that before a system is approved by a state, they map out
where it is going to deliver its service.
Hoag stated it depends on the type of the system.
McShane stated this is a procedural change that reflects a state law. If there
is a problem with the Coordinated Water System Plan, it is the County Council's
responsibility. This only says the hearing examiner would make his decision based
on the plan that the County Council approved. As a Council, he didn't want to
review appeals of decisions on water service. The councilmembers are amateurs at
that, and they would not implement their own law very well. He moved to
recommend approval.
Crawford stated he supported the motion, and read the testimony of Doug
Campbell from the Planning Commission hearing.
Brenner stated she was on the Water Utility Coordinating Committee for a
number of years. The process was one everyone put together. This doesn't
prevent an appeal of the hearing examiner's decision. It just allows the hearing
examiner to hear and rule on it instead of the County Council. Goodwin stated the
Council always has the ability to hear appeals of the hearing examiner's decision.
Brenner stated it doesn't take any authority away from the Council. It has
the hearing examiner do the work. It is a very good idea.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, Page 4
1
2 Hoag stated they are not delineating anything for the hearing examiner.
3 Everyone familiar with the hearing examiner process knows that the Council can
4 only overturn a hearing examiner decision if it finds they are breaking the law or
5 that no reasonable person would come to the same conclusion based on the record.
6 She wanted to take a second look to see if there are any specific things to lay out.
7 The way it is written, everything automatically goes to the hearing examiner. The
8 Council could only overturn the hearing examiner's decision if the hearing examiner
9 has broken the law. The Council needs to delineate things that may need an
10 additional local process. When the Council passes this, it will limit it to the hearing
11 examiner and be subject to only the types of appeals going to the County Council
12 right now. She wanted to have an opportunity to look at how this would impact
13 people who have taken the time and trouble to set up a water system. Her concern
14 goes back to the letters the councilmembers have received and the people who said
15 they don't want to give shares on their system because they don't want to
16 jeopardize the water they have for themselves and for existing shareholders. That
17 is a legitimate right. This language may protect that right, but she wanted to be
18 certain.
19
20 McShane stated the concerns are appropriate, but this isn't the place to
21 address them. They would be addressed within the Coordinated Water System
22 Plan. That situation may warrant another look at the Coordinated Water System
23 Plan.
24
25 Hoag requested a parliamentary inquiry on whether the chair has the
26 authority to hold an item in committee, or whether it is subject to a vote of the
27 committee.
28
29 Nelson stated all actions are subject to a vote.
30
31 Hoag stated she would like a parliamentary inquiry.
32
33 Brenner stated it is a public process.
34
35 Crawford stated there is a motion on the floor.
36
37 Goodwin discussed the staff report, packet page 143. It does specify the
38 three items that are subject to appeal. Those three items are 1) interpretation and
39 application of service area boundaries, 2) the utility's time schedule for providing
40 service, and 3) the utility's conditions of service, excluding rates and fees. Those
41 are the three things that could be appealed. On the next page, a process is
42 outlined. First it goes to a subcommittee of the Water Utility Coordinating
43 Committee. If it isn't resolved then, it goes to the hearing examiner. It could then
44 be appealed to the County Council.
45
46 Hoag stated her original question was where something like the Northwood
47 dispute would fall. When she reads the three items that could be appealed, they
48 don't cover that situation. The three items are not about someone being able to
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
demand a share from a water association. Goodwin stated she didn't have an
answer to that question.
Brenner stated the Council adopted the plan years ago. The amendment was
adopted in February or March. They've read the plan. There is a lot of detail to it.
Hoag stated she didn't say there were no standards. They may need some
additional delineation. She didn't want to spend any more time on the subject.
She's asked for a parliamentary inquiry, and they would move on to the next item
in the meantime.
3. 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 AND ADD A NEW CATEGORY OF "RURAL
BUSINESS" TO THE CODE (AB2000 -251)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that at the last meeting,
she asked the Council to look at the proposal on packet page 181, which was the
original proposal, the February draft.
Hoag stated the Council received a letter from the state Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development. It was dated August 15. The
original letter from them was dated August 1. The August 1 letter said they had a
major concern and did not want rural business in the Agriculture zone and Rural
Forestry zone. They were concerned that this would interfere with the continued
use of resource land and was inconsistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. They cited different sections, such as conserving and
enhancing agricultural land for continued production of food and forage and
discouraging inappropriate conversion of forestland to other uses. They also
recommended language to section 20.40.135 to specify that cottage industries
must be agriculturally related to make this section more consistent with the Growth
Management Act (GMA) and the Comprehensive Plan. They requested language
that would ensure that cottage industry uses are forestry related, wood -based uses.
They commented on the amendments to GMA regarding rural element that were
added to clarify what type of rural industrial uses are allowed in a rural areas. They
cited Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A. They said this statute does not
apply to resource lands of long -term commercial significance, which is how this was
being applied by the Planning Commission.
The second letter provided additional suggestions. They are concerned
because the minimum parcel size for a rural business is five acres. Most of rural
Whatcom County is designated at one unit per five acres or smaller. They
suggested that the Council look at the number of businesses that could occur at this
parcel size, and how that would impact the remaining rural character of Whatcom
County. She continued to read from the letter. There was a comment about how
to allow for the sale of gifts, outdoor recreation equipment, and supplies directed
toward tourists. Much of the Guide Meridian is in a rural designation. There is a
potential to create strip commercial development that would detract from the rural
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
character of this part of the county. The letter continued to mention that the
Whatcom County Council of Governments (COG) received a grant to develop a rural
economic development strategy. The Council could wait until this strategy is
developed.
Crawford questioned the history of this issue.
Goodwin stated the County Council asked the Planning Commission to look at
it because the councilmembers received several complaints dealing with traffic or
noise and fumes relating to business in residential areas. This isn't a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. It has no timeframe.
Crawford questioned whether COG has a time frame.
Mike Brennan, Chamber of Commerce, stated a grant had been submitted.
His organization also has a contract with the Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development. There is a great discussion going on about how to support
small business development, how to encourage small business to get bigger, and
how to appropriately locate businesses.
Crawford questioned the timeframe. Brennan stated he assumed they would
see definitive action before the end of this month. It would be three or four months
to work out a project plan.
Crawford stated coordinating with them seems the obvious way to go, but he
doesn't have any history on where this came from.
Brenner stated the Council directive was to find ways to make the existing
businesses more compatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission
works hard and does a good job, but their proposal goes in a totally different
direction. She understood that if the County doesn't do anything in the agricultural
areas, then the businesses are only allowed to be agriculturally related.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Manager, stated he understood the direction the
Council gave. What came out of the Planning Commission doesn't resemble that
direction whatsoever. They are not talking about very small craft businesses. They
ran into several complaints regarding which cottage industries and home
occupations were being allowed. The Council gave direction to the Planning
Commission, and this is what they ended up with.
Brenner stated some of the councilmembers sat in on the hearing examiner's
hearings. Those complaints were legitimate, and the system wasn't working.
Middleton stated the hearing examiner denied a conditional use permit because the
law doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated this gets back to the Council not being able to overturn a
hearing examiner's decision unless it finds a violation of the law. One frustration
was that there was not sufficient delineation in the law to protect the neighbors.
One property owner had a fiberglass industry operating without a permit before
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
applying for one. One of the neighbors was sensitive to the chemicals and couldn't
go outside. Under the current law, there was nothing to protect her. This was
happening repeatedly. The Council requested the Planning Commission to create
something that would keep industrial -type uses in industrial areas and have cottage
industry be what it was envisioned to be. She wanted to see changes that would
give the hearing examiner specific delineations of that, so the hearing examiner
could make decisions that would protect the neighbors while allowing the type of
cottage industries they want to see in rural areas. Her suggestion was to go to the
staff's proposed amendments to begin with to make certain they have what CTED
has pointed out. Then, wait to get to rural businesses until they've seen the
strategy. The rural business provision isn't in staff's version anyway. When they
see the economic strategy, they can add what is missing.
Brenner agreed with the recommendation, but didn't agree that this is the
same as the Coordinated Water System Plan. That plan has a narrower focus of
what the hearing examiner can do. She requested an answer to her question.
Goodwin stated packet pages 158 -159 is the agricultural zoning section. What the
section used to say is the strikeout language. It used to say that cottage industries
are allowed as long as it is carried out primarily within a principle or accessory
building, not more than two people are employed, and the size of the sign is
restricted. As a conditional use, a cottage industry employing three or more people
could be approved. That's where it ties to the hearing examiner authority. There
were no standards.
Brenner questioned whether it specified resource -based business. Goodwin
stated no. There is another permitted use in the agricultural zoning that specifies
resource -based businesses. The home occupation in the agricultural zoning is
pretty wide -open.
Brenner stated she was talking about cottage industry and rural business.
Goodwin stated they are talking about all. Cottage industries in the agricultural
zone allow unlimited employees and an unlimited size building. It ties to the
hearing examiner criteria and has to be consistent with the purpose of the zone.
There is a fine line there that leaves a lot of discretion to the hearing examiner.
Hoag stated the hearing examiner's frustration is with the lack of discretion,
because he could be challenged legally if the law allows something and he does not.
Crawford asked about strikeout language at the top of packet page 159
regarding Conditional Uses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford continued to question the code section 20.36. Goodwin stated
section 20.36 is rural zoning.
Tim Reid, Building Industry Association (BIA), requested clarification related
to the complaints. He questioned how many complaints have been filed, and how
many are directly related to the fiberglass business.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
Hoag asked for the highlights of the staff recommended version and what
they are changing in the code. Goodwin stated Whatcom County Code (WCC)
section 20.36.161 is a lengthy section dealing with cottage industries in the rural
district. It talks about the limitations the hearing examiner may place regarding
building size, outdoor storage and screening, and other issues.
Crawford stated it sounds as if there was specific criteria put in code at the
start, then it was cross - referenced as it was applied to other zones.
Goodwin stated the staff recommendation was best summarized on a chart
on packet page 176. She outlined the changes listed in the charts on packet page
176. They added two employees to respond to citizens who wanted to hire an
occasional janitor or bookkeeper. She agreed with that argument. They are in
addition to family members. Cottage industry is in a separate building, whereas
home occupations have to be located in the home.
Brenner asked if home occupations could also be a separate building.
Goodwin stated the current code says must be in dwelling unit.
Brenner stated one is allowed in a separate dwelling if there was enough land
to have two parcels. Any parcel that is ample enough for two dwellings, not just
one, could have a home occupation outside of the dwelling. Goodwin stated a
home occupation must be in the dwelling. Cottage industry is in a separate or
accessory unit.
Goodwin outlined the remaining changes. There were also restrictions on
building size. A concern about the current regulation is that there is no limit on
outdoor storage. The staff's language prevents an unlimited size being used for
storage.
Hoag questioned how the additional floor area is limited. Goodwin stated
they have to go back and look at the code. Most of these are located in rural areas.
In the rural zones, administrative approval allows a building of 2,500 square feet,
and an outdoor storage area could be 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the site.
A cottage industry building could be the same. The building size for a cottage
industry in a rural zone is 2,500 square feet in the staff's proposal. The Planning
Commission raised the limit to 10,000 square feet.
Brenner asked about going beyond 2,500 square feet for a certain amount of
acres.
Hoag read language from the staff report on packet page 177, which says
that additional floor area would be allowed on parcels larger than ten acres. She
was not finding that language under the conditional use permit. Goodwin stated it
is not an additional building site, just an additional outside storage area.
Brenner stated a building could not be over 2,500 square feet, according to
the staff report. Goodwin stated that was correct. The land area could be bigger.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
Hoag stated the staff report on packet page 177 says that accessory
structures up to 2,500 square feet are allowed with additional floor area allowed on
parcels larger than ten acres by conditional use permit. The conditional use permit
language doesn't specify any larger floor space on parcels larger than ten acres.
Goodwin stated that if the parcel is in a forestry or agricultural use larger than 10
acres, the maximum number of employees could increase. The language says that
the hearing examiner could place limits on the square footage of an existing
building, at his discretion. If it is an existing building, and it is bigger than 2,500
square feet, the owner could still use a bigger area. The limit is on a new building.
She didn't see anything in the proposal that allows it to be greater than 2,500
square feet in a rural district unless it is an existing building.
Hoag questioned what language addresses their concern about keeping
industry in industrial areas. They've received letters from cities expressing concern
that they will allow businesses to move out of cities and into rural areas. She
questioned what language protects the neighbors from living next to an industrial
site. Goodwin stated the limits are on manufacturing uses and retail sales. There
is a limit on the number of employees and building size. A cottage industry can be
located in an accessory dwelling unit. The use has to be incidental to the dwelling,
and there are other conditions. Sections 20.97.087(7) and (8) on packet page 181
prohibit a business from moving to the area if it is not subordinate to the residential
use. It says that manufacturing is limited to small -scale assembly of parts that are
already manufactured.
Hoag questioned whether cottage industries are specific to a zone. Goodwin
stated this language is the definition of cottage industry. It pertains to all cottage
industries in every zone.
Hoag asked if they could have a furniture manufacturer in an agriculture
zone. Goodwin stated yes. The limitation would be 2,500 square feet for a new
building or an unlimited size of an existing building.
Hoag stated there are fumes associated with a large furniture operation.
Goodwin stated no equipment or process shall be used which creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal
senses off the lot. If someone complains, the manufacturer would have to change
its ventilation or shut down. They could work with the Northwest Air Pollution
Authority. The process would have to be complaint driven. They try to deal with it
by limiting the manufacturing to assembly.
Hoag questioned how they deal with the CTED comments about cottage
industries being agriculturally related in the agriculture zone. She questioned
whether that was a legitimate point. Goodwin stated it is a legitimate point. The
Agricultural Committee suggested some wording that would come before the
Planning Committee next week. It would tighten up agricultural uses.
Hoag stated CTED expressed concern that they would reduce their long -term
lands if they allow other types of industries to come in. If they adopt this language
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
the way it is in the staff report, and then get the recommendations regarding
agriculture from the Agriculture Committee, she questioned whether they would
conflict. Goodwin stated the two conflict. This is more lenient than what the
Agricultural Committee recommends. It is more restrictive than what they have
now. Right now one could have an unlimited number of employees and an
unlimited size building in the agricultural zone. The staff proposal would provide
tighter regulations and greater protection for agricultural land than exists now, but
not as great as what the Agricultural Committee recommends.
Hoag questioned what happens if the Council first adopts the staff's language
and then the Agricultural Committee's recommendation. Goodwin stated they
would have a mess. They would have to modify the Agricultural Committee's
recommendations, which they could do administratively. They could take the staff's
language, once adopted, and insert it into the text of the Agricultural Committee's
amendments that are coming forward, and then put in the text they want. They
could adjust it.
McShane suggested using the original staff recommendation. He questioned
whether they are going to do that. That is a significant difference than what has
come out of the Planning Commission. He would be in favor of that. It would
simplify the discussion. They would drop the rural business provision. It would be
appropriate to be more restrictive in the agriculture zone. See what comes out of
the Agricultural Committee and their recommendations. There are significant
problems there. He didn't want to permanently limit them, and then maybe
liberalize them based on the recommendations they get. The main concern is the
rural business section.
Hoag stated one thing mentioned by CTED was an RCW 36.70A.060(1). She
read that law into the record. Counties must assure that the use of land adjacent
to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource land shall not interfere with the
continued use in an accustomed manner and in accordance with best management
practices. This law talks about what is adjacent to agricultural land. The same
principle in GMA applies to what is in agricultural areas. There tends to be a
misguided effort to allow farmers to stop farming to survive. In the process, they
lose the farmland because it is converted to non - farming uses. That is not
consistent with growth management and the RCW. The County would be in a bad
spot if that were the path they chose. They need to allow farmers to have as many
agriculturally related options as possible. Make farming as attractive and viable as
possible. That does not mean converting to non -farm uses. That is not making
farming viable. It is making non - farming viable.
Crawford stated it was okay with him to go to the original staff
recommendation. They would work through changes and then have a hearing.
Hoag stated she asked staff to schedule a hearing for the next meeting.
Crawford asked for information on the magnitude of the problem. Middleton
stated the issue of the fiberglass business wasn't what he was thinking of. In the
agricultural zone there is an espresso stand, an auto parts store, two auto wrecking
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
yards, three towing businesses, and a cafe. If one is on an arterial, the normal
traffic through the neighborhood is arterial traffic. Holding the business owners to
not increase traffic beyond what is normal for the neighborhood amounts to
thousands of trips per day. Those are the complaints. They are legal under today's
regulations. The neighbors are amazed that it could happen.
Brenner stated it is important to encourage farming. However, they can't
force farmers to farm. A bigger concern is that the land is not converted. Allowing
them to do other things is not a problem if they don't convert the land. It keeps
the option of future use. If they don't make farming economically viable, they can't
force people to farm. They will have to subsidize farming. They can help by
allowing businesses that don't jeopardize the land itself.
Hoag stated the first issue is to work off of the Planning staff's
recommendations.
The committee concurred.
McShane suggested explaining the changes to the audience.
Hoag stated farming subsidizes everything done in the County now. If they
gave greater incentives to farmers, it would reduce their share of the load they are
carrying. Statistics show that for every dollar a farmer pays in taxes, he receives
$.40 in services. A residential home typically receives $1.25 in services for every
$1 spent. The problem with allowing farming to be converted to other uses is that
the smaller the land base shrinks, the more expensive it becomes for the farmers
that are left. Land is at a premium. Many farmers have to lease land for crops that
have to be rotated. The amount of land being leased is lessening every year
because the farmers cannot afford the land at the rates it is going for. They need
to encourage farming in farmland. A different use makes it harder for farmers to
survive, as well as the spin -off industries such as equipment dealers.
Brenner disagreed. Even if they allowed the farmers to operate tax free,
most still will not be able to make it. It is more about the cost of the regulations.
They will end up subsidizing farming with tax breaks.
Hoag asked for an explanation of the differences between the staff report
and the Planning Commission recommendation.
McShane stated the rural business proposed in the packet would not be
there.
Goodwin stated there would not be a rural business section as defined by the
Planning Commission. Also, the staff recommendation had limitations on retail
sales, limiting them to things incidental to the use, manufactured on the site, or
that are related to a service. The Planning Commission draft allowed other types of
retail sales. Another staff recommendation was on the types of manufacturing.
The Planning Commission allowed things up to a certain poundage to be fabricated
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
on a lot bigger than one acre. More manufacturing was allowed in the Planning
Commission draft.
Hoag stated she would like to take the staff's draft and make
recommendations to that draft.
Goodwin stated there is a format difference. The original proposal has the
standards within each zoning district. Then, they set up a new section of the code,
Title 20.80, where all of the home occupation, cottage industry, and rural business
standards are located. For the Council's use, it would be most expedient to go
through the original draft because it is laid out in each section. Ultimately, it adds a
lot of repetition. They may want to reformat it and put in the chapter 20.80. It is
easier for the public to see it repeated in each zoning district.
Hoag stated that is what she preferred.
Crawford asked if the rural business section came out of the Planning
Commission. Goodwin stated it did. It wasn't in the code before. She did some
research and came up with the concept of calling it a rural business. It is provided
for in state law. CTED stated they did not envision that it be allowed on every
parcel. There should be locational criteria.
Hoag stated it should not be on resource land of long -term significance, such
as agriculture.
Goodwin stated a CTED guidebook had a section on rural businesses. Few
other counties are that liberal with rural businesses. Most are limited to small,
handcrafted items manufactured in a house.
McShane asked if counties have rural business zoning. Goodwin stated they
do have. They are still looking at what to do with the Guide Meridian and other
similar areas. The Comprehensive Plan says to do something with a rural industrial
zone.
Hoag suggested taking care of the home occupation and cottage industry
problem. Later they could deal with the economic strategy and rural businesses.
Brenner asked whether they had limitations on the Guide Meridian. Goodwin
stated they had a 600 -foot gray strip on the Comprehensive Plan map stating they
will further study that transportation corridor. They have not done design
standards. There used to be an overlay for the Guide Meridian, but it is now
annexed into the City of Bellingham. There was an old code title.
Reid asked that his question be addressed. Councilmember Crawford also
brought up his question. There is someone from the Planning Commission present
who has the answer to his question, which is apropos to the discussion.
Hoag stated she would finish the staff report and allow others to speak. She
would then allow Mr. Wiesen to speak.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
Hoag questioned page 181, section 20.97.087(9), regarding customer hours.
Those hours are disruptive to neighbors. Goodwin stated one example of a
business needing those hours is a daycare center, but that is covered in another
section.
McShane moved to amend section 20.97.087(9) on packet page 181, "...prior
to 68:00 a.m. to 96:00 p.m. ".
Crawford stated he wanted to know the types and numbers of complaints
that have occurred. Goodwin stated she has a specific list of complaints that were
enforced.
Brenner stated her concern on the motion was that the time should depend
on the type of business. She didn't want to create a one - size - fits -all solution.
Some business would not cause problems.
Hoag stated that when they finish the motion she will address the complaints
issue. The hours should not be as restrictive. She suggested 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. as a friendly amendment.
McShane stated he was thinking in terms of sales. He accepted the friendly
amendment.
Goodwin suggested additional hours allowed on special approval.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Hoag questioned the sort of criteria to give the hearing examiner. Goodwin
stated she wrote some language for the Planning Commission.
Nelson stated the hours are too restrictive. They are micro - managing when
a business could operate. There are other ways to address traffic and noise
concerns.
Hoag stated this is not in a business district and they can't have people
coming and going at all hours. They need to make sure that the traffic generated is
in keeping with the area. These are areas where people live. They are not
stepping into a zone where this is a use. These are special uses that are being
allowed that should not interfere with the purpose of the zone.
Goodwin stated the language written for the Planning Commission was to let
the administrator grant approval. They could look at the hearing examiner criteria
that exist in WCC 20.84.
Hoag questioned whether that language allows them to use the discretion
they need to use and is protective enough. If they use more general, broad
language, they could end up being forced to approve things they would not want to
approve. Goodwin stated the language with the criteria that exists is protective
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
enough. There are criteria in WCC 20.84. It is an administrative approval. If the
staff findings used to deny it were based on one of the criteria in section 20.84,
then it would be okay. They could try to write more specific standards, but they
can't foresee every situation.
Brenner stated she wanted to support Mr. Nelson's comments regarding
hours of operation. This is not a business area. They could take care of this
concern for home occupations by creating traffic rules, not regulate the hours of
operation. Home occupations do not operate from the hours of nine to five.
Standards need to be set for noise and traffic.
Hoag asked if McShane accepted the friendly amendment to add exceptions
for administrative approval. Goodwin stated the language was on packet page 154,
item 14, "...unless an exception is granted by the administrator for specific
circumstances."
McShane amended his motion to amend section 20.97.087(9) on packet
page 181, "...prior to 67:00 a.m. to 98:00 p.m., unless an exception is granted by
the administrator for specific circumstances." It would be nice to spell out guidance
of the specific circumstances in that section. Goodwin stated they could work on
some general language. The intent wouldn't be to have a business owner request
administrative approval each time a client or customer comes in late. The intent
would be to have some flexibility within their approval.
Crawford stated his concern was that they are delving into areas regarding
business hours that are not substantiated. He read from the County code chapter
9.4. They've got codes in place for this situation. He was not in favor of trying to
attach the hours of operation and require government approval for any exception.
The codes they have now are okay. He preferred to defer all the discussion until
they receive more information from the COG regarding economic development. He
wanted more answers on the nature of complaints. It is not appropriate to do that
today.
Hoag stated they've been dealing with WCC section 9.4 regarding the power
plant. The items mentioned sound very nice. When they apply to something
specific, they are going to fall within acceptable criteria of the code Councilmember
Crawford just read. When Planning and Development Services has gotten
complaints, there is nothing it can do. If they are going to try to put businesses
into neighborhoods where people live, they need to look at hours of operation.
They don't allow anything to start at 6:00 a.m.
Dawson stated it was a good idea to delay discussion until later. Some
daycares work until midnight.
Hoag stated that is a separate section of the code. It is not a cottage
industry.
Brenner asked what happens if a daycare is in a separate building. Goodwin
stated daycare is a separate section of the code.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
Hoag called for the question.
Goodwin stated a family daycare is a separate section of the code, but
always references back to cottage industries. These standards would affect
daycares.
McShane stated they would need language regarding the exceptions. There
should be some leeway for hours of operation that should be spelled out. They can
make a change if they miss some situations. Daycares are an example of where an
exception could be made. In some places, a daycare may not be appropriate.
Hoag agreed. It leaves it up to the administrative official if a plan is drawn
up. The administrator can look at each particular situation.
Brenner stated there isn't a difference between dropping off a child, an
antique piece of furniture, or a hair salon client. It needs to be about standards of
traffic generated. That is where they should deal with this. The problem is traffic
flow. That is something they can regulate. They are talking about impacts, not
hours.
Hoag requested input from staff. Regarding traffic flow, the wording says
that they can't limit traffic flow on a major roadway. The language that
Councilmember McShane suggested can cover the exceptions. Middleton stated the
existing regulation for traffic flow only specifies the neighborhood or use. If the
business is on an arterial road, what are incidental to the neighborhood are
thousands of cars. A high- traffic use would fit for that neighborhood currently.
Hoag questioned whether it looks at the hours the traffic flow occurs.
Middleton stated it does not.
Hoag questioned whether it looks only at the number of cars per day and
whether the business could generate a high traffic flow during hours that would not
normally have a high traffic flow. Middleton stated that if he ticketed someone
outside of hours, he would have a hard time explaining that to a judge.
Nelson stated this could be an administrative approval based on recognition
of the neighbors' approval. The major concern expressed by Councilmember Hoag
is disturbing the peace and rest of the neighborhood. They could establish a certain
zone for administrative approval. There should be responsibility for someone
setting up a business outside the normal context of a residential use. The business
owner could be required to have the approval of the neighbors. That would be on
file as having gone through an administrative process. If approval is gained
through the administrative process, even a neighboring property buyer would know
that the cottage industry exists. They would have a choice.
Hoag stated the language that Councilmember McShane suggested does all
of that except require the neighbors to approve. Requiring neighbors to approve
gets into a spot she didn't want to see the County get into. Neighbors could
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
change. A neighbor who doesn't want the use would be put into a position of
saying no, which would create conflict between neighbors. Good legislation
anticipates impacts and writes it in rather than throwing it on the neighbors.
Nelson stated that he, as a neighbor, may not want someone setting up a
wedding reception business next door.
Hoag stated a neighbor could speak to any special circumstances that would
be before the administrator for approval. The administrative approval process
requires notification of the neighbors.
Nelson stated that if they are having an administrative approval process
already, then all it needs is to go through the process, and then the neighbors are
aware of the hours of operation. He wouldn't even specify the hours in the code.
Hoag stated that the more the law allows, the more difficult it is for the
administrative official. This way, it requires reasonable hours unless an exception is
granted. It would depend on the applicant to prove that it is reasonable to work
outside of those hours.
Nelson asked if the administrative process requires neighbor notification.
Goodwin stated that it does.
Nelson stated that the neighbor notification would specify the hours. The
neighbor would have the opportunity to comment.
Hoag stated that it gets convoluted when a business owner has to specify the
hours of operation, and then staff has to put those hours on the neighbor
notifications. If they restrict the hours, it is much simpler. She asked Mr.
Middleton whether he wanted to establish different timeframes for each applicant.
Middleton stated it is up to what the applicant has proposed. They are talking
about cottage industries only, not home occupations. They would have to go under
the bounds of state regulations for noise and hours of operation, which is
essentially what Mr. Crawford discussed.
McShane restated his motion to amend section 20.97.087(9) on packet page
181, "...prior to 67:00 a.m. to 98:00 p.m., unless an exception is granted by the
administrator for specific circumstances." Staff would add language that would
outline the conditions of what those exceptions may be.
Brenner stated businesses used to be required to specify the trips generated
per day. She questioned whether the County has the authority to limit the trips per
day if they put it into the code.
Hoag called for the question.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, Page 17
1 Bob Wiesen, Whatcom County Planning Commission, stated the Planning
2 Commission members did ask the staff to supply them with a list of complaints the
3 staff had a record of. Most of the complaints were addressed by other issues. He
4 questioned whether they were supposed to write extremely limited rules on people
5 that might do other things that have little impact because they have a few higher -
6 impacting businesses located around the county. They are building layers of
7 regulations. They can't enforce the regulations, so they outlaw other things. He
8 believes that a property owner should be able to do most things on his property
9 that don't affect his neighbors. There are health and safety criteria. That is the
10 basis for all their rules. If a use doesn't affect health and safety, it should be
11 allowed to continue. The Planning Commission had a lot of testimony. It was
12 packed with small business people because they are having a difficult time
13 surviving. Start up expenses can be insurmountable. Doug Smith testified that
14 allowing these businesses would be good for the economy. Home businesses would
15 eventually move into light industrial or retail areas if they are successful. The
16 Planning Commission didn't have any significant testimony from anyone against this
17 issue. The Planning Commission didn't hear a significant number of complaints that
18 couldn't have been addressed in other ways by other rules.
19
20 Goodwin read a list of specific complaints. In two years, there were 15 or 20
21 complaints that included an auto - wrecking yard, tree service, landscaping business,
22 boat repair business, and other businesses.
23
24 Nelson stated the complaints for the cottage industries may compare to
25 complaints in zoning areas where they are allowed. He asked if the complaints are
26 significant in areas where they are actually allowed in the zones. Middleton stated
27 most people who call in complaints where the use is allowed are surprised that they
28 are located in an industrial area. People who call in complaints in areas where the
29 use requires special approval are surprised that the business is allowed.
30
31 Nelson asked how businesses such as auto wrecking yards, towing
32 companies, or espresso stands are allowed under cottage industries. Middleton
33 stated the current code leaves the types of businesses wide open.
34
35 Mike Brennan, Chamber of Commerce, stated that locally there has been
36 recognition of the importance of small business to employment and tax bases. The
37 Chamber put together a business service center. They've worked with almost 250
38 business this last year. One -third of those exist fully in Whatcom County. They
39 have been very supportive of them to get them referrals and make connections.
40 They are beginning to put together an educational package available to any
41 business in the county. There is a proposal before the County Executive that will go
42 before the County Council for the year 2001 to enable the business service center
43 to provide direct services to businesses in the county. The Council of Governments
44 has talked about the planning efforts of small business development in the
45 unincorporated areas. The small cities have responsibility for an excellent proposal.
46 He encouraged a strong look at that. The Port of Bellingham did an analysis
47 regarding the economic activities that exist in the county, its market, its potential
48 market, and how they should work on their economic development effort. They
49 know it will have an enormous support package for small business development.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Six o'clock in the morning is nine o'clock in the morning in East Coast time.
One of the largest growing groups of small businesses that goes into cottage
industry capacity are businesses that sell the product out of the county. He is one
of those people who is talking to Washington D.C. at 5:00 a.m. If there is an East
Coast market and the business owner is working on East Coast time, he or she is in
the office at 5:00 a.m. or 6:00 a.m., potentially with clients, talking to Washington
D. C.
The Council might ask the Chamber, COG, or the Port to give a presentation
on the types of businesses they are seeing. The businesses they are seeing are
distinctly different than the ones mentioned so far. The Council may get a handle
on some of the efforts being done to support better planning and understanding of
what is going on in the marketplace, a more cooperative effort between the
struggling small businesses and how restrictions can cause problems, and how the
community can become more of an advocate for the small businesses to succeed
and go from home business to cottage industry to commercial spaces. He
encouraged the Council to have a little patience and ask the Chamber to give the
Council an in -depth report of exactly what they are seeing.
Hoag asked for clarification on Steve Jilk's recommendation. Brennan stated
Mr. Jilk is the initiator of the county planning grant that was submitted through the
Council of Governments. It is the COG grant they are talking about.
Hoag questioned whether the Port analysis of the market was completed or
was in the works. Brennan stated a draft package was delivered to the Port. They
are waiting for it to be made public. He assumed that the information would come
out soon. It should be presented prior to the final adoption of the budgets of many
local public sector entities.
Hoag asked if it would cause a problem for a business owner to request
administrative approval to have clients come early to deal with East Coast business.
Brennan stated it depends on the business and what they do. Generally, the
impact would be very small. Many emergent businesses are not local. They work
outside the local market.
Hoag asked if the language as it is causes a problem. Brennan stated he
could poll his membership for that answer.
McShane stated they could specifically spell that out.
Dan Warner, citizen, stated there are other values besides making money,
such as peace and quiet and family. They seem reluctant to recognize that. These
are residential rural areas. The point of business is to have them in business zones.
People are trying to live their lives at home. Some balance has to be drawn. He
suggested that they not go overboard and continue to promote the wildness of
moneymaking. It won't result in anything very satisfactory. There is a continued
degradation of the quality of their lives resulting from rampant materialism.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
Regarding the Orca Pipeline project (AB2000 -198), it is going to be a big
deal. The company proposes to run a pipeline from Sumas to Skagit County
through a corridor defined by the Mission Road, Sand Road, Squalicum Lake Road,
Y Road, around the north shore of Lake Whatcom, and out the Cain Lake Road. It
is a 24 -inch high - pressure natural gas pipeline. They propose to clear a 60 -foot
swath through the county and patrol it regularly with aircraft and on the ground.
He could imagine nothing more destructive to the rural ambiance than that.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Hoag stated she sent a letter and reiterated several concerns that the
councilmembers have mentioned to the people promoting the Orca project. They
would not like to see additional families exposed to unnecessary risk. Wherever
possible, she would like to see the lines restricted to existing high - pressure
corridors where pipes of similar diameter size are already located. That is not to
say that is what the County Council says. They have not had a Council position on
it. There are a number of councilmembers that expressed that same sentiment.
She urged the public to express that sentiment.
McShane state that Debra Ross is the chair of the Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and indicated that the Orca Pipeline proposal would
probably go through EFSEC. She would want to come to Whatcom County and give
a presentation, probably to the County Council's Natural Resources Committee. He
encouraged the public to become familiar with that process. That is where they
would have the most say.
Hoag stated the more they can do early on, the less they have to head off
later.
Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, stated that in a cottage industry
category, a conditional use permit (CUP) would give both groups the opportunity to
express concerns about hours of operation and other concerns.
Hoag stated it is currently a conditional use. There are no parameters for
approval or denial. They are trying to create parameters for approval or denial.
Kronenberg stated these issues are site - dependent. People can discuss this
during an open session at a conditional use permit hearing. The administrative
approval process is different and isn't as open as a CUP hearing process.
Hoag stated the process is already a CUP process. Kronenberg stated he is
promoting what was proposed on February 16. It is a fair proposal, but it requires
the administrative approval process for cottage industry. They should go back to
the way the law is right now. There should be a CUP process so there could be an
expanded hearing for all the variables they've been struggling with.
Hoag questioned whether he suggested adopting the changes that are
recommended to tighten up what can be approved, but only have them be
conditional uses. Kronenberg suggested that they adopt Goodwin's proposal of
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, Page 20
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
February 16, leaving out the rural business. Change the administrative approval
process for cottage industry to a conditional use hearing.
Hoag questioned whether he was familiar with the difference between what
they chose for administrative approval and what they chose for conditional use.
Cottage industry falls under both of them, depending on the size and number of
employees. Kronenberg stated the cottage industry only should be conditional use.
The home occupations don't represent a threat to anyone. Ms. Goodwin's proposal,
brought forward on February 16, is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to most
people. The hearing process could be expanded to deal with hours of operation,
the number of employees, the size of the facility, and how much of the land it takes
up. This committee can't begin to deal with that because of all the variables.
Hoag stated the CUP process is set up so the hearing examiner has to go
back to the law without taking in the neighbors' comments. She questioned
whether Mr. Kronenberg suggested a change in the law where the hours of
operation would have to be subject to what neighbors approve. Kronenberg stated
he suggested that it be determined at the time of the hearing. They can't
arbitrarily set all the rules right now.
Hoag questioned on what criteria Mr. Kronenberg would suggest they set the
rules. Kronenberg stated the rules would be based on public comment, the need,
the size of the operation, and other factors. That is the role of the hearing
examiner rather than here with the Council. He suggested a change from
administrative approval to conditional use process.
Hoag stated that the language was specific to cottage industry. It doesn't
talk about home occupation. It breaks it into two categories. Some occupations
require administrative approval and some require conditional use, depending on the
size and number of employees. Kronenberg stated there are too many variables
that could be dealt with by the hearing examiner, who would let everyone have
their say.
Hoag stated the hearing examiner turns to the laws. Unless they change the
law to say that they must satisfy the neighbors, the neighbors' opinions aren't
considered according to the law. Kronenberg stated the hearing examiner would
have to weigh all the evidence without a specific law.
Hoag stated the hearing examiner couldn't do that. That is the problem.
What the hearing examiner does is weigh it against what the law says. If the law
allows it, the hearing examiner has to have a reason to say no if the he or she
thinks it shouldn't occur. That is what the Council is trying to draw up; parameters
for the hearing examiner's decisions. She was unclear as to what Mr. Kronenberg
would have as the criteria in the hearing examiner process. Kronenberg stated that
the hours of operation should be reasonable, from 8:00 to 6:00, and that the noise
and size of the operation be limited.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated the hearing examiner has had in the
past the opportunity to set the hours of operation, depending on the testimony.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
That is the way it is working now. For the administrative approval process to work
well, the law has to be specific because the administrator can deal only with the
law, not additional testimony. They lose a lot with the administrative process. If
they leave discretionary things to the administrator, they may as well be in the
conditional use process if there is anything in the law that is discretionary. They
are asked to encourage rural businesses while being fair to the neighbors, to allow
no negative ecological impacts, and to do it without damaging the rural character.
They have to make rules that apply reasonably to sites that are less than an acre
and over 100 acres. That would be very difficult to do unless there is a variable
answer. They have to have rules that are applicable to quiet county lanes and also
major highways. He read from packet page 181. The definition of cottage industry
needs a definition of "small." Otherwise it is meaningless. They need to limit this
to the scale of things they are talking about. They could look at the design section
for help in that. Section 20.97.087(4) provides for traffic limits being the road
classification that serves the property. This is a sprawl perpetuator. If they are
going to allow, in rural and agricultural zones, roads like the Guide Meridian,
Hannegan Road, and the Mount Baker Highway, there will be businesses that have
huge impacts instead of small operations.
He hoped the Council would make contact with Lummi and Eliza Island
residents to make sure they really want cottage industries on those islands. They
are very special places. At the very least, make sure the islands require a
conditional use hearing. They could be heavily impacted by this. He doubted this
is even being considered.
Hoag questioned whether the residents of the islands are aware of the
changes. Goodwin stated she couldn't say for sure that they are. There hasn't
been any testimony from residents on the island.
Hoag questioned whether this is something that has been allowed on the
islands. Goodwin stated she believed it has always been allowed.
Ernst stated he believed it has always been allowed. The question is whether
they would want it allowed without any conditional use hearing. That is the critical
issue.
Crawford agreed with Mr. Ernst regarding Eliza Island. He wasn't sure about
Lummi Island. There isn't any cottage industry use that could be out there.
Goodwin stated home occupations have always been allowed. Cottage
industries aren't. It is proposed.
Ernst stated there are some people on Lummi Island who do their production
out there, and they may find out it is okay. They need to make sure they are
aware of it.
He raised the issue of signs in the agricultural zone. In the agricultural zone,
it is important that they be able to put up signs to let people know that it is berry
season and that agricultural products are for sale. This is the way to allow
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
agricultural signs that are specific to agricultural commodities that are in season
and for sale. They don't have to be big signs. It is within the rural character of the
area. They would have to be on private property, not on the County's right -of -way.
Hoag stated that the Planning Commission version expanded the size of the
signs. She questioned whether the staff version addressed signs. Goodwin stated
it keeps the size limitation for a cottage industry at four square feet, which is small.
A sign for an agricultural business, which is not a home occupation, is in the sign
regulations and should be done separately from this. It is a permitted use. They
need to re -do the sign ordinance, but not this year.
Wiesen stated that when farmers and ex- farmers are leasing prime farmland
for poplar trees, it doesn't indicate that there is a market for cropland. The concern
about farmers retaining their viability is a valid point. The Planning Commission
considered that and allowed a few things in the agricultural zone that are looser
than in other areas. An example is Krause Manufacturing. He was a dairy farmer
and a manufacturer on the side. He outgrew his operation and now has a nice
operation on the Guide Meridian. The buzzword today is rural economic
development. They are constantly finding more impediments to the economic
development in rural areas. The Planning Commission discussed conditional uses.
The problems with that are the cost and the time. When someone is trying to
establish a new business, he or she wants to do it quickly. Entrepreneurs are the
kind of people who implement a new idea quickly. They were very conscious of all
those issues.
Hoag stated this will still be in committee and will come up for a hearing at
the next Council meeting. People will be welcome to speak then. For the sake of
getting this out of committee, she asked the councilmembers to bring forward any
suggested changes to the next meeting.
Goodwin stated that if they are going to have a public hearing on the staff
version, they should revise and re- introduce the staff version of the ordinance. The
Planning Commission draft is what was introduced. The staff draft is different
enough that they would want to re- introduce an ordinance.
Hoag stated they are scheduling a hearing. Goodwin stated they need to
introduce the version they intend to adopt. If the public hearing were on the
version they don't intend to adopt, they would have to repeat the hearing. They
should introduce an ordinance with the staff draft.
Hoag stated they would introduce the ordinance with the staff version as a
substitute ordinance.
McShane questioned whether the description in the public announcement
would be adequate. Goodwin stated the description doesn't say they are creating a
new category of rural business. They could also hold off on the public hearing until
they have the new ordinance written.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, 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
4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999/2000 OPEN
SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -316)
This item was not discussed.
POSSIBLE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.10 AND 20.97, TO MODIFY THE
PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS (AB2000 -300)
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/12/2000, Page 24