HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 26 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 26, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Dan McShane
Absent:
None
Hoag moved to go into executive session for 35 minutes to discuss potential
litigation and also a complaint of a public employee.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee returned from executive session at 3:40 p.m.)
Crawford announced that councilmember Hoag resigned as chair of the
Planning Committee. She had nominated him to be chair of the committee. He
had nominated Councilmember McShane to be the committee chair. He is not in
favor of himself being chair. Councilmember McShane offers a good sense of
balance.
McShane stated he accepted the nomination.
Hoag stated that Councilmember Crawford, who is new on the Council and
was not familiar with the schedule and issues coming from the Planning
Commission, expressed frustration and felt that a better job as the chair could be
done. He did not want her to be the chair any longer. That is why she was
stepping down. She had put in a lot of hours to find a better way to run the
system. They have passed ordinances to make it work more efficiently and address
the backlog. Mr. Crawford was not aware of her effort. This is ridiculous.
McShane thanked Councilmember Hoag for serving as chair. In many
regards, she did a great job, and he regretted that she stepped aside. If, in the
future, she wanted to return to the chair, he would support that.
Motion to elect McShane carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that, in putting together the agenda for this meeting, she told
the public she would allot only 20 minutes to discuss the recreational vehicle (RV)
issue. Both sides requested more opportunity to talk to the Council. Items one and
two were supposed to be quite simple to address, according to the Planning Division
staff.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999/2000 OPEN
SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS (AB2000 -316)
Councilmember Brenner stated the Planning Commission lowered the point
ratings a few times for reasons she didn't understand. The applications are still all
within the allotted point score to qualify for open space.
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner I, stated that was correct. The applications all still
qualify.
McShane stated the first one was the Hull application. It received 13 out of
14 points. He moved to recommend approval of this application.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated the next one was the Swanson application. It received 13
out of 14 points. He moved to recommend approval. He questioned whether there
were any applications that the committee members wanted to pull from the list to
discuss. He had questions about the Kenneth and Barbara Keithcart application,
which received 9 out of 14 points. One area he looked at was the soils description.
It was given two out of two possible points, but that was not consistent with the
other applications, which received one out of two points. All the Keithcart
application had was the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapping description, which
is also all that a few others had and which received only one point. Olsen stated
the Planning Committee could reduce the point score.
McShane stated he had the same issue with the thinning program and the
harvest plan. If the Planning Committee dropped them all from two points to one
point, there would not be enough points to qualify. He moved that the points for
the soil description, thinning program, and harvest plan in the Keithcart application
be reduced from two points each to one point each.
Crawford stated the paperwork says the management plan is for the Roessel
property. He questioned whether the management plan was drawn up for the
previous owner. Olsen stated it was. Aubrey Stargell was the forester and did the
timber management plan. It had been forested by Neilsen Bros. Roessel bought it
and divided it into two ten -acre parcels.
McShane stated the other project he questioned was the Pike application,
which has the exact same description and same forest plan. He didn't believe they
should have gotten two points. The thinning program wasn't thorough. Olsen
stated there is no thinning process because there was a forest practice application.
The owner has three years to replant. There is nothing to thin. In the Open
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Space \Timber designation, that can be waived if there has been a forest practice
application, provided that they replant within three years. They have replanted.
McShane asked if there should be a plan in the future to do some thinning.
Olsen stated they wouldn't be thinning the timber itself, but of invasive species.
That would be the clearing and keeping up of the land, not thinning. Thinning is at
least ten years down the line for which trees would be overcrowding and replaced.
McShane asked if that should be described in the application. If it is not
applicable, then why would they get two points. Olson stated they replanted under
the DNR forest practices application. The trees would be no more than two or three
years old.
Hoag stated that for each of the points they want to change, Councilmember
McShane could say why he wanted that change and then have Olsen respond.
McShane stated the concern with the soils description is that they only copied
the SCS report. Olsen stated a lot of people do that.
McShane stated that in the soils descriptions, that was all they used. In
some of the other applications, they submitted the same information and only
received one point. Other applicants went further. Olsen stated some others were
not so much from the soil conservation service as they were the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) foresters tables. The County doesn't have comparative
books or tables for that. She maintains consistency by using the Soils Conservation
Service. They are all familiar with it.
Hoag asked if an applicant is given one point if a DNR table is supplied and
two points if the Soil Conservation Service information is supplied. Olsen stated an
applicant is given one point only because some of the soils in the DNR report are
not as categorized into groups as they are in the SCS report. The staff is doing
Open Space /Timber management plans on soil that is more of a rural agricultural
type of soil, which can be converted into a rural or an agricultural type of land use.
She uses the SCS to be consistent. For example, if a property is in the rural ten -
acre zone, and an applicant has twenty or twenty five acres, it could go into Open
Space /Timber designation. If there were prime soils, the end result would be
different if he wanted to convert. That is why she uses the SCS information as a
representation of the soils below the mountains, in the flatland.
McShane withdrew his motion to amend the points on the Keithcart
application.
McShane moved approval of all the applications.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AGAINST CHANGES TO
THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20,
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
ADDING THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND
OR TIMBERLAND APPLICATIONS TO THE DUTIES OF THE HEARING
EXAMINER (AB2000 -340)
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the Planning Commission
initiated this as a discussion item. It had a public hearing and the Planning
Commission members discussed it. Staff originally recommended approval. The
Planning Commission decided to recommend against it even though they initiated
it. Two citizens complained about the time that it takes to get the timber
applications approved. The Planning Commission is busy and will continue to be
busy. Looking over their schedule the next year, they have several unscheduled
afternoon meetings and they will have time. Staff still has to do the work either
way.
Crawford stated the vote referenced on packet page 365 fails for lack of five
Planning Commission votes. The motion was then to send it to the Hearing
Examiner, which also failed. Goodwin stated they had to correct these minutes.
These minutes are not the corrected minutes. They went through it at the last
meeting and moved to reconsider the minutes. There was discussion about it
failing, it didn't need a majority to fail, only to pass. These minutes indicate that it
failed.
Crawford asked to continue to this for clarification. He was an advocate of
moving this on to the Hearing Examiner when he chaired the Planning Commission.
These are a legal judgement based on criteria that the County established. The
Planning Commission tends to get bogged down on open space applications, when
the review criteria have been objectified. The Hearing Examiner is in the best
position to review the applications based on an objective point system. The
Planning Commission had much discussion about approving the point system, but
none of the Planning Commission members were attorneys and were at a loss as to
how to do that. He wanted to know how the Planning Commission specifically
moved this on to the County Council before making a decision.
Nelson stated they utilized a point system, but the open space designation is
not a right. It is a privilege. The County is trying to help people by exempting
them from the heavy burden of land taxes so they may continue practicing
agriculture. There are times when people take advantage of these laws. Perhaps
that is the reason the Council does this review.
McShane questioned whether Nelson's concern is how the properties are
rated.
Nelson stated not necessarily. They shouldn't look at this as simply
something that they just rate. There are other factors to take into consideration
when deciding if they want to allow this tax privilege to be granted.
Crawford stated the concept was developed before growth management.
The state requires that the County give open space tax exemption. The point of the
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Growth Management Act is to guarantee open spaces. In the meantime, the
County doesn't have an opportunity to develop high value land under the Growth
Management Act. They are seeing a shift away from funding of the County's tax
base. The legislature ought to do something about that. Growth management and
open space tax exemptions don't work hand in hand. It hurts the County. The
people who take advantage of the system are the city folks who put their house on
their ten or twenty acre homesite and then say they are commercial foresters.
They are not foresters. He wants this to have Hearing Examiner review. The
Hearing Examiner is going to come back and say something is wrong.
Brenner stated it should be a privilege, but it is a right. If a person meets
the criteria, they have to be given the designation. The County doesn't have any
discretion. If the applicant has the points, then legally the county is stuck with it,
no matter if there is a public benefit. She would like it to be more of a privilege for
the public good and that the County has the discretion to use this when it is
appropriate.
Crawford moved to hold this item in committee for two weeks.
Hoag stated the Planning Committee went through the same thing last year.
State law sets this up. If the councilmembers want changes on whether people
should or shouldn't be allowed open space, it should be taken up with the state.
Goodwin stated County has latitude on how to set it up.
Motion to hold for two weeks carried unanimously.
Hoag requested that staff check on the discretion the Council has regarding
the criteria that might tighten things up. Goodwin stated it is a lengthy issue. She
suggested taking it up later.
Hoag asked if they should docket this discussion on the Planning Commission
schedule. Goodwin stated they probably should, but it is a low priority. The
Planning Division staff would bring Planning Commission priorities to Planning
Committee.
McShane stated he preferred they put off a review of the public benefit rating
system until the committee has time to devote to it.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20 TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN THE R AND RF
ZONES FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF RV'S, REVISE RV STANDARDS
IN THE UR AND RR ZONES, PROVIDE RV STANDARDS IN THE R, RF
AND RC ZONES, AND DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL AREAS IN POINT
ROBERTS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF
RV'S (AB2000 -215B)
McShane stated he would limit testimony to ten minutes each for the pro and
con arguments.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Brenner asked to substitute her final version of the ordinance.
Citizen stated that version was not advertised.
McShane stated it was. The proposed amendments are within the framework
of the advertisement.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that as long as the public
notice advertises exactly what the ordinance does, which this does, there is no
problem with a substitution. If they changed the geographic areas or added
additional zoning districts, then they would have to re- advertise and have a new
public hearing.
Crawford moved to work from Brenner's final substitute version of the
ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated there would be a public hearing on this item at the evening
meeting, and there will be an opportunity for the citizens to review this carefully.
Brenner stated the only changes were tightening it up. There is more
protection of Point Roberts, Foothills, and Lake Whatcom watershed areas.
Hoag stated there are other changes.
Bob Carmichael, 1700 D Street, Bellingham, stated he represented the
Zenders. He commented on Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.36.056(2).
The changes made to the rural area are now to allow only one accessory guest RV.
When the Council first approved this, before the veto for technical reasons, the vote
was to allow two accessory guest RV's in the Rural area. That has changed. There
may have been discussion with councilmembers about that. He would like to have
the language restored; it had majority approval of the Council once before. There
was a technical reason why this ordinance had to come back. This wasn't one of
the reasons why they had to come back and redo this. He asked that the Council
go back to the original position.
Bruno Morris, Point Roberts Registered Voter's Association, stated there are
12 reasons why this ordinance should not be approved:
1) The ordinance is unenforceable.
2) It is a special interest piece of legislation that appeases lawbreakers who
are part time visitors, and economically penalizes full time residents.
3) Residents and voters don't want RV's on vacant lots. Maintain and enforce
existing law. Petitions and postcards sent to the Council showed this opinion.
4) RV's adjacent to homes decrease property values.
5) The ordinance employs multiple spot zoning. Spot zoning is illegal.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Morris continued to state that a recreational subdivision overlaid on an
existing residential zone results in an incompatible use and lifestyle.
6) The ordinance modifies a 1977 grandfather clause of the existing law by
adding a sunset clause, which is simply a ruse for extending the original
grandfather clause for 23 years. Use of the sunset clause for this purpose is illegal
under the state law.
7) It is a violation of the GMA.
8) The ordinance discriminates because it doesn't apply to other areas of the
county, such as Birch Bay and Sudden Valley.
9) The ordinance would result in the loss of construction jobs in Point
Roberts.
10) The ordinance requires full -time residents to subsidize RV'ers for the cost
of parks, library, fire, and emergency medical services.
Frank Lucci, 1785 Heather Way, Point Roberts, stated he is the vice -
president of the Point Roberts Registered Voter's Association. He distributed copies
of a map of the subarea that the Council proposes to rezone (on file). The green on
the maps are areas that have single family residents or cabins. The red areas are
RVs. The yellow areas are vacant lots. He also submitted a map of The Glen
subdivision and the Foothills subdivision. In The Glen, all lots have RV's. In Point
Roberts, 70 percent of the 933 lots have cabins and dwellings. Only 34 lots have
RV's. This compares to the presently properly zoned recreational subdivision with
1,220 lots, all containing RV's. The average lot in The Glen is 3,000 square feet or
less. The lots in Point Roberts average 5,000 to 6,000 square feet, and are
presently zoned Urban Residential four (UR -4). They are not RV lots. This is spot
zoning and is not legal. This would adversely affect the property owners in these
two areas. The RV park at Whalen's is properly zoned Resort Commercial and can
handle 160 RV's and tenters. This proposed spot zoning would adversely affect
their business and discourage capital improvement because of 34 RV lawbreakers.
All the illegally parked RV's in Point Roberts can be easily accommodated at
Whalen's. They must not continue to cater to the few lawbreakers to the detriment
of the law- abiding majority. The law has been suspended almost a year without
due process. Enforce the law in Point Roberts. Vote to kill this special interest
legislation. It is grandfathering at its worst.
Mary Jane Anderson, Bellingham, stated she has owned property in Point
Roberts that has been in her family since 1908. It is an important issue for all in
the county. The people need cooperation amongst all the groups. Support the new
ordinance. Enforcement would be easier. The administrative approval helps take
care of enforcement and can track the RV's that come in. It is a way of monitoring
compliance issues. She appreciated the Council's and Planning Department's
efforts. Do the right thing. Remember those families who have came for years and
been good neighbors.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Hoag asked if Ms. Anderson noticed the change in the length of stay for
guest from 60 days to 30 days. Anderson stated she would rather have 60 days,
but was willing to compromise.
Bob Warren, 246 Bayview Drive, Point Roberts, stated he represented the
Recreational Vehicle Owner's Association. It may not be ideal, but it finds the
middle ground. Many other residents are not represented by the three individuals
who have appeared in the past. His group had written letters and made phone calls
to the Council. They have acted professionally and with complete commitment. He
believed the Council has a solution before it. Bring the ordinance forward to satisfy
the vast majority on Point Roberts. When the Council made its decision on July 11,
the neighbors were delighted. There was little public outcry. The people went back
to their quite enjoyment and family lifestyle. The Council was on the right track.
There may have been procedural items that were missed. Generally, the ordinance
was well accepted. It was deemed to be fair and equitable. This amendment is a
reasonable response and should satisfy all but a very few. He thanked the Council
for its patience and diligence. He also thanked the County staff. The amendment
supports families that have been there for generations. Don't throw the baby out
with the bath water. If the County wants to allow existing uses, make sure that is
what is accomplished.
Brenner asked if this version does allow existing uses. Warren stated they
are on the right track. It allows existing users to meet standards.
Bill Furnival, 1570 Edwards, Point Roberts, stated he would finish Mr. Lucci's
points. There are 1,700 residents who are opposed to this.
11) The idea of bringing sewer to Point Roberts could fail when voters realize
it would bring more RV's. The numerous small lots that do not qualify for septic
would suddenly be useful for 120 -day RV usage. Voters will not vote to approve a
sewer system that would accentuate RV usage.
12) The ordinance requires full -time residents to subsidize the RV visitors for
the costs of parks, library, fire, and emergency medical services. The ordinance
does not require access for fire departments and emergency vehicles.
Brenner stated her amended version does not allow lots that can't get septic
to stay for 120 days.
McShane stated there would be a public hearing at the evening meeting.
Hoag stated the committee was going to work out any wrinkles before the
night meeting.
Crawford stated he wanted to add another section, WCC 20.71.053, to go
between items five and six.
Hoag stated she already typed that language up.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Goodwin stated similar language was already added in all districts as number
four, both in Rural and Rural Forestry, the only two zones in Lake Whatcom that
allow RV's. She read the language into the record.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
Hoag stated she didn't approve of requiring that language in all places.
Crawford moved to amend language on page six of the ordinance, sections
20.36.056(2)(a), "...and ene two accessory guest RV's per lot" and (b) "...one
recreational vehicle and ene two accessory guest RV's..." He didn't want to do that
in the Rural Forestry zone.
Hoag stated the first change reflects what the Council adopted previously.
She supported that change. She didn't want to get carried away. She supported
the change in section (a). In section (b), the language of allowing one is what they
had before. They are already allowing quite a bit.
Crawford stated the reason why he proposed this was because he was
convinced by the arguments of Mr. Carmichael in terms of their current use, which
was an acceptable use. The owner had an RV and allowed up to two guest RV's.
Two guest RV's is an acceptable number. When passed, there were two additional
guest RV's. The correction would match the ordinance passed.
Nelson stated one of the things he was concerned about was a lack of
consistency between the various zones. A person doesn't know if a rural area is
zoned R5 or R2. Many times, these have impacts on the communities in the rural
areas. His assumption was to allow additional RV's for accessories because it allows
people the recreational use of their property. They also address uses of property to
add more RV's by getting a simple permit to let neighbors know of the use. He
questioned why they would increase the number of RV's and have more problems in
the future. Keep this limited and still allow the flexibility to use the property and
have friends over by going through the permitting process.
Brenner stated she liked allowing the two accessory RV's on the bigger lots.
In deference to the work Councilmember Nelson did, they've all had to compromise
and tighten this up.
Hoag stated she would support Crawford's motion, and then she would move
to change additional language to reflect what Councilmember Nelson just said.
McShane stated he was under the impression that there was room for
someone to bring in additional guest RV's under a special permit. That language is
in there already.
Hoag proposed a friendly amendment to allow one RV per lot and two
additional accessory guest RV's. Then a person would have to get a special
occasion permit for more RV's than that.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Nelson stated that sounds reasonable. He uses recreational property. He
didn't think it was asking too much to limit this and recognize that some of the
places aren't in areas where people are doing this. He didn't have a problem with
neighboring lots being used for recreation, but he would not like to see three RV's
parked there all summer long. It becomes an administrative nightmare.
Crawford stated Councilmember Nelson had a good point. He was thinking of
the people who traditionally had three RV's parked there. He withdrew his motion.
Hoag stated the new substitute had sunset language. She questioned the
effect of that language. It is in the Point Roberts section WCC 20.72.135(2). She
questioned whether it becomes illegal for an RV to be on that lot for more than 120
days when it sunsets. Goodwin stated that when the timeline sunsets, those people
are recognized as legal non - conforming lots. If they apply within the 90 days, they
can get their administrative approval and can remain indefinitely. Any new ones
could not come in.
Hoag asked how grandfathering affects administration and enforcement.
Goodwin stated it is simple to check because it is administrative approval. There
are about 25 of them. If all applied, there would be 25 grandfathered RV's. Once
they are discontinued, then the staff would scratch them off the list. That is
assuming they can get septics. Probably not even half of them would get a septic
tank, and there might even be fewer.
Hoag asked about the grandfathering and whether the sunset language is
saying that the ones that are there and meet the requirements can stay, but no
more would be added after 90 days. Goodwin stated that was correct.
Hoag stated the Council has heard that there are a lot of problem with the
current RV's because, if they change the size or type, they have trouble. She
questioned what happens if an RV becomes old and run down and the owner wants
a new one, and if the owner would still be grandfathered. Goodwin stated the
owner would still be grandfathered. One nonconforming use can be changed to
another similar nonconforming use. The only problem with the current
grandfathering is that it's been so long since the law changed in the 1970's that
most people can't definitively prove that they had an RV. There are none that have
gotten approval for a grandfathered existing RV now because it was so long ago.
There may have been a couple.
Dawson asked if the Council has done anything like this sunset after three
months to accommodate a certain group of people. Goodwin stated the Council has
done many sunset clauses. When she began working at the County, there were
about a dozen ordinances that were all on sunset clauses. There was interim
zoning in many places. The accessory dwelling ordinance had a sunset clause.
There were also setbacks in the light industrial zone that sunset.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Dawson stated they have not created a sunset to accommodate people who
have broken the law. Goodwin stated she was not aware of any other situations
where the Council has done that, but the Council has authority to do that.
Brenner stated there was not a sunset date originally in this ordinance.
Then, there was a six -month sunset date. She worked with Goodwin on this. They
came up with a three -month sunset date.
Hoag asked if a 90 -day sunset is reasonable in terms of processing permits.
Goodwin stated the concern about six months was that County Executive Kremen
felt six months gives a lot longer period for someone to get an RV in there. He
suggested that they keep the timeframe as short as possible. There are not too
many people with RV's who aren't aware of the issue. Staff could process 25
applications in three months. The RV network of owners would make people aware.
Hoag referenced WCC 20.72.135(1). They are requiring that all RV's that
remain onsite for more than 14 consecutive days shall be connected to a permitted
onsite sewage system or public sewer. She didn't support this in the first place.
Now the requirement has a 90 -day deadline, or else a person can't get the
administrative permit. One reason the Council discussed doing this was because of
the septic tank constraints on small lot sizes in Point Roberts that would limit
regular development, but would be ideal for RV use. She moved to add the
language from the original ordinance in other sections, "...or public sewer, or shall
dispose of all sewage, including gray water, at a recreational vehicle dump site, or
have such sewage and wastewater removed by a licensed sanitary disposal
service." The other areas also required documentation of removal, which would be
fine. If someone has an RV on a lot that isn't feasible to have septic, the owner has
been there historically for generations, and the owner is taking care of their
wastewater appropriately, the County should not prohibit someone if he or she
can't get septic or sewer. The Council could always come back to that provision if
staff finds it is a problem. They are going a little bit far in what they are trying to
achieve.
Crawford stated they have to have sanitary sewer on each lot that is going to
have an RV.
Brenner stated that Point Roberts is unique. She supported only hooking up
to an approved septic system or public sewer. This is what staff thought would be
easiest to work with. There are no places for them to dump their wastewater on
Point Roberts. They'd have to go off the Point with it. There are going to be some
people who are not going to be able to keep their RV's there. By adding this
language, it would create more of an investment in the property so people would
keep it up to a certain standard. That is important for the neighbors also.
Hoag withdrew her motion. She moved to change the sunset to six months.
If someone doesn't have a septic tank or sewer, it is going to be impossible to do
that within 90 days and get their administrative permit.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Crawford stated he was against that motion out of respect for the County
staff and Executive. The County Executive had a valid point about trying to create
as narrow a window as possible so existing users are respected in this regard.
Brenner stated it isn't as if people don't know what is going on. People have
been aware of this for quite a while. According to staff, the people can get their
applications in.
McShane questioned whether someone who submitted for approval of a
septic system would have difficulty. Goodwin stated it might be difficult if the
person hadn't given a designed sewer any thought. It isn't as if this issue hasn't
been discussed for the past year. Anyone who had an RV and is interested in
getting a septic tank would have it installed by now. Those that have a difficult
site, which many of them are, are not going to get a septic tank permit and maybe
shouldn't have an RV all year long. If their site conditions are so bad that they
can't safely install a septic tank, then they shouldn't have an RV. They should
remove it after 120 days and take it to a licensed dumpsite.
McShane stated he hadn't heard any public comment regarding this type of
concern. It may not be an issue for those who are aware of what is happening.
Hoag stated that the change to dispose of all sewage was not done until they
voted on it last time. It isn't something they would have been aware of. Keeping
the window short is important to keep in mind, but they also need to have balance.
She didn't know if the Executive considered the time that it would take to get
septic. It would be fairer to give people six months and a chance to comply with
the regulations that the Council is setting out.
McShane restated Councilmember Hoag's motion to increase the sunset from
90 days to six months.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Crawford moved to recommend the substitute ordinance without any
changes to the full Council.
Hoag stated there are changes over what they had in the packet. She
wanted to retain the original language in some areas. In section 20.32.135(3) of
the substitute ordinance, she suggested adding language, "All recreational vehicles
located on the property for more than 120 days shall be screened..." To require
screening from someone who is setting up temporarily is not appropriate. It is
excessive regulation. She so moved to amend.
Crawford stated they couldn't stay for more than 120 days.
Hoag stated the RV could stay for more than 120 days, not the people. If
the RV is not there for more than 120 days, they shouldn't require screening.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Brenner stated the Foothills area had originally been all but ignored when the
Council took its vote. It is one of the places they've had the most problems with
crime and people using the lots for things other than as a residence. There are
more full -time residents. In deference to the full -time residents, she would rather
it be consistent with the rest of the section.
Hoag stated that if people are doing crime and using their lot for other
things, screening is going to make it easier for them to do those things.
Nelson stated he hates excessive regulation as well. If there are no
problems from the neighbors, no one is going to complain. If there is a problem,
he questioned how the County would then administer that.
Hoag stated this is only for the Foothills subdivision.
Goodwin stated that now this is administrative approval, someone would
come in for their approval for a new RV. All the existing ones are already there. An
applicant has to show the staff their septic tank and screening to get their permit.
If a person puts in a cedar ladder fence or a row of shrubs, they get their permit. If
they don't do screening, they don't get their permit.
Hoag stated this is in the Foothills area. There isn't anything about it being
an administrative approval. Goodwin stated it is specified in all subsections .135.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Hoag stated the original language in section WCC 20.32.035(6) included the
language, "Recreational vehicles adjacent to single - family residences shall not be
parked in front yard setbacks." There is already a lot of this going on throughout
the county and it would be difficult to administer, according to Planning Department
Director Sam Ryan. However, it is an appropriate legislation. The Council should
not allow people to store an RV right in front of their house.
Crawford stated Sam Ryan felt that this would be an administrative
nightmare to have to go through all the unincorporated areas in the county and tell
everyone they are now illegal.
Hoag stated they are not illegal, they just have to move it to the back of the
property where it doesn't offend the neighbors. She so moved.
Crawford stated this was something he threw in, but he now agrees it
shouldn't be in there.
Brenner stated this is in the Foothills area, and those are small lots. It would
be very difficult to put a parked RV on some of those lots. This is a recreational
subdivision. When they legislate, they need to provide legislation that is balanced
with fairness and the ability of staff to administer.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner continued to state that they did this in deference to their concern.
Hoag stated she agreed about the Foothills part. It isn't okay for the other
ones. She withdrew the motion.
Hoag stated section 20.72.051(3) in the packet version included the
language, "Existing trees and natural vegetation that provide visual screening shall
be maintained in all side and rear setback areas adjacent to the recreational
vehicle." That was language the Council adopted last time. It is language that is
important, particularly in the Point Roberts special district. It is part of their
character plan. The Council added language to it that they weren't required to
leave every tree, only the vegetation that provided visual screening in the side and
rear setback areas. She moved to include that language into the substitute
ordinance.
Crawford asked why that got pulled from the substitute ordinance.
Goodwin stated Councilmember Nelson desired to have consistent language
throughout all of the zoning districts. A concern in the rural forestry was how to
maintain existing trees when the purpose of the ordinance was to have a forestry
area. If they didn't have regulations on tree cutting, as long as there is screening,
it was overly excessive to say that it had to be the existing tree. It was in all of the
sections and is now gone from all of them for consistency.
Brenner stated the Point Roberts Special District is still an administrative
approval and will be overseen by the administration. If there are trees there, the
administration will have the authority to tell them what to do.
Dawson stated she'd heard the comment that this would be easy to enforce.
She questioned how they will know if someone is there for 120 days as opposed to
300 days, especially if it's screened and people are coming and going. The 120 day
requirement will be difficult to enforce.
Hoag stated that wasn't her motion. She was talking about the existing
trees. Regarding consistency, the language was in all the zones, and so there
wasn't a problem with it being inconsistent. Even in the forestry zone, they allow
different uses that are appropriate in different zones. It doesn't have to be the
same wording in every zone. That's why they have zoning. The natural vegetation
is an important part. They have heard in public hearings that the language was
important, but now it's gone. If it's a problem in the Forestry zone, then address it
there, but don't take it out of the other places. She restated her motion to add
language to section 20.72.051(3) "Existing trees and natural vegetation that
provide visual screening shall be maintained in all side and rear setback areas
adjacent to the recreational vehicle."
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Hoag stated the language in section 20.72.135(7) is different than in the
other zones. This language doesn't include the word "chassis," which is included in
the other sections. Goodwin stated there shouldn't be a difference. At one point,
the word "chassis" was in the language. There was discussion at the Planning
Commission that the park models don't have a chassis anymore. It should be the
same throughout, either in the language or out of the language. Wheels are
connected to a chassis, so it doesn't matter.
Hoag moved to remove the word "chassis."
Crawford stated he would move to take the language from subsection (7) of
the other zones and put it in sections 20.20 and 20.32, subsection .135(7).
Hoag stated there are other differences between the sections. The
requirement for the Point Roberts Special District also prohibits placement of an RV
on a foundation or removal of the wheels. They didn't want to do that in the
Foothills area because most of them are on foundations. She restated her motion
to amend language in sections 20.20 and 20.32, subsection .135(7), "...by their
owns wheels; or camper jacks, and..."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated there is a motion on the floor to recommend approval as
amended.
Hoag moved to put the setbacks in the front yard back in the zones except
the Foothills subdivision. The setback language says, "Recreational vehicles
adjacent to single family residences shall not be parked in front yard setbacks."
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
McShane stated the motion is to recommend approval of the staff's
recommendation with one amendment regarding removing the word "chassis."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Hoag stated she voted against it because it wasn't appropriate to allow less
than six months for people to get things in order before their use is taken away
permanently.
McShane stated this would go to the full Council at its evening meeting and
have a public hearing.
4. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN URBAN GROWTH
AREA AT SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2000 -315)
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
McShane stated he was looking for input on the Sudden Valley issue. They
shouldn't move on it today. It was short notice for the Council. They would discuss
the next item, and then come back to hear comments from the audience about this.
(continued below)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.92, TIME
LIMITS ON APPEALS OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS (AB2000-
305)
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated this proposal does two
things. First of all, it provides a remedy of dismissal for appeals from the Hearing
Examiner to the County Council when they are not prosecuted in accordance with
the existing timelines. The code currently does not provide any sanction for not
doing this. This issue arose most recently regarding an appeal of a Sprint tower
conditional use permit decision, which went against Sprint, who stalled the process.
After several months went by, the other parties asked that it move forward. He
looked at the code and found there isn't any remedy. These changes give the
parties to an action the prerogative to make a motion to the Council. They initially
thought about making an automatic dismissal if the time limits aren't followed.
However, sometimes parties will agree to allow for more time lapse. They made it
dependent on a party bringing a motion forward. They also incorporated the
provision that extensions could be granted, but they also added that the extensions
have to be requested before the time limit expires. Those are the two things that
happen. There is a slight change regarding the Council rendering its written
decisions, from 15 to 30 days.
Hoag stated it is interesting that they want to give themselves 30 days to
issue the findings of fact and conclusions, but the applicant only has ten days from
the final decision of the Hearing Examiner to appeal to the County Council. It
seems that the same type of legal paperwork is required for both of those things.
Grant stated it is not. One simply has to file a letter saying he or she wants to
appeal a Hearing Examiner's decision. A person doesn't have to create a briefing
until after a transcript is created. A person is supposed to have the transcript
prepared within 30 days of filing an appeal. A person has to file the notice of
appeal within ten days, and has a month to get the transcript to the Council. After
that, a person has more time to file a written argument.
Hoag moved to recommend approval. She moved to amend language in
section 20.92.610, "...within 10 business days of the final decision..." Grant stated
that would comport with the courts' scheduling procedures.
Crawford stated other sections use the term "working" instead of "business."
They should be consistent. He questioned which term is more appropriate. Grant
stated he would change the word "working" to "business." It is more widely used.
Crawford stated section 20.92.840 does not say what kind of days it refers
to. Grant stated that if there is no specification, it refers to calendar days.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
Crawford suggested removing language in section 20.97.750, "The county
council shall, within 28 working days of filing..."
Motion to amend by adding the language in section 20.92.610, "...within 10
business days of the final decision..." carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to amend language in section 20.92.740, "...but not to
exceed 15 weFking business days from the date..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Grant suggested changing language to have a 30 -day timeline in both
sections 20.92.650 and 20.92.750.
Crawford moved to amend language in section 20.92.750, "The county
council shall, within 28 werking 30 days of filing..."
Hoag stated this was set up so that the Council had to provide its findings of
fact and conclusions no later than 15 days following the decision. The other
information is about the remand. She didn't want to change the timeline from 28
days to 30 days because there must have been a reason for it.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Crawford moved to recommend the ordinance to the full Council, as
amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING AN URBAN GROWTH
AREA AT SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2000 -315)
(continued from above)
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, questioned whether she would be restrained
from speaking before the full Council because she would speak now.
Hoag stated she would not.
McShane stated she could speak on anything she wanted to during Open
Session.
Beddill stated there is no emergency. She wanted to see the problems
clearly specified. If this were in any other area except their drinking water
reservoir, she would be thrilled at the proposal. Since it's in Lake Whatcom, it isn't
a good idea because the implication of this is toward full urban development, which
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
is inconsistent with the drinking water reservoir. She would only consider this if
there was extremely strong language and constraints on any further build out and if
there was a full resolution on the current sewage system deficiencies as
distinguished from the construction of a new sewage discharge line.
Dave Olsen, Sudden Valley General Manager, stated he lives in Sudden
Valley. The issue they are concerned with is whether this is actually an emergency.
The emergency is with the timing and money of Sudden Valley. A committee was
formed to research the aspect of becoming a city for the purpose of dollars. It's
been discovered that there is a possibility of $500,000 of the road tax coming back
into the valley to make the valley a better place and improve the watershed. They
have an annual meeting every November. It costs money to get the people there.
They are on a critical timeline and they've placed the process of becoming a city on
a path with that November meeting.
McShane questioned whether there is a staff report on this item.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there is not a staff report
in detail. They don't normally write one unless something is first initiated and goes
to a Planning Commission hearing. This would be the first step. She looked at the
material submitted by the applicant and believe it is worthy of further public
hearings and discussion.
McShane questioned whether the request is to move it to the Planning
Commission. Goodwin stated the emergency is only to initiate it. Adopting this as
an emergency only sends it to the Planning Commission docket and asks them to
have a public hearing now instead of a year from now. It requires 2/3 of the
County Council to initiate it. They would send it to the Planning Commission, who
would schedule it and have a public hearing.
McShane questioned whether this would only go to the Planning Commission
if it's passed by the Council with five votes. Goodwin stated that was correct. If it
doesn't pass, the applicant could wait until December 30 and bring it through the
regular process.
Hoag questioned whether this ordinance meets the legal threshold
requirements of an emergency. It was stated that the emergency is the timing and
dollars of the Sudden Valley Association. She didn't know if that would fit the legal
threshold for an emergency.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated there are two different
emergencies. The type of emergency threshold that Councilmember Hoag referred
to is for the emergency moratorium requirements. That is a different standard than
the emergency used for the purposes of subjecting a measure to the batching
requirements under Title 20. Those criteria are in WCC 20.10.030. The proposed
change or revision must arise from a situation that necessitates expeditious action
to preserve health, safety, or the welfare of the public, or to support the social,
economic, or environmental well being of the county or region. Emergency
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
amendments may be reviewed and acted upon outside of the annual amendment
cycle. They are talking about an expeditious review here, not an immediate one.
The provisions of WCC 2.40 would not come into play. Only the provisions that he
read would apply. The Council would have to make a finding that one of those two
bases exists here.
Hoag questioned whether the criteria would have to be on the health, safety,
and welfare of the community or to support the social, economic, or environmental
well being of the county or the region. Grant stated that was correct.
Hoag questioned whether Sudden Valley qualifies as either the county or the
region. Grant stated it is in the county.
Hoag stated it is in the county, but the requirements talk about the economic
welfare of the county, not a portion of the county. She questioned whether they
have to find that it would economically benefit the county as a whole. Grant stated
it doesn't have to be the well being of County government, because its tied into the
region. The County government could question whether this ordinance would
benefit the county geographically or the region.
Crawford stated he disagreed with Ms. Beddill about the sewer because he
supported a second sewer line. However, he agreed with Ms. Beddill that there is
not an emergency situation. This issue is nothing short of huge for this area. He
wanted to see this go to the Planning Commission, but he didn't understand why it
has to go now under an emergency. He wanted it docketed for the next cycle.
There has not been one person he's talked to that doesn't see some extremely
contentious issues and arguments on both sides of the city -hood status.
Rationalizing that there is a meeting in November in which they need to gain the
resident's approval is not the appropriate way to go about looking at the formation
of the potential next city in Whatcom County. This is clearly stated that designating
it as an urban growth area is a step whose purpose is to make this the next city in
Whatcom County. He moved to recommend to the full Council that this not be
moved forward as an emergency, however direct Planning staff to docket this item
for the Planning Commission review during the next docket cycle in 2001.
Brenner stated there is an argument on both sides. The economic well being
to the County would be that the County would not have to do patrols and road work
out there. The big issue is how to justify this under the Growth Management Act
and all the issues they have in the Lake Whatcom watershed. She could see calling
it an emergency because of the effect it would have if it's accurate about what they
say will change. That isn't the only issue they need to deal with, though.
Nelson stated Sudden Valley has been in an awkward position over the years
because it was a development created away from services. As a result, they
realized that they need to do better planning. Everyone is concerned about
watershed protection. If he was to identify an area of concern, it's being able to
help these people to get the necessary tools so the Sudden Valley people can solve
their own problems. Sudden Valley would be the fourth largest city in Whatcom
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
County, with a possible expanding community that has significant problems. The
roads are not maintained by Whatcom County and would not meet County
standards. The sewer runoff from that community is tremendous. They have
issues dealing with fire and crime, but have to depend on rural services. They have
issues regarding pollution problems within Lake Whatcom due to simple residential
build out. They have taken great steps in trying to protect water quality through
their own actions, yet they are unable to receive funding for those because they are
only a community group of people and can only charge community dues. That is
difficult for a community. Dues are often not paid and the community falls behind
on maintenance. This situation has been an emergency for years. It is time that, if
the residents are ready to move on this, the County give them the tools so they can
endeavor toward this.
Dawson agreed with Councilmember Nelson. There is an economic problem
and an environmental well being problem. Giving Sudden Valley the status as a
city will allow the community to get grant funding. The economic problems also
relate directly to the property owners. Many people have lost ownership of their
land because they can't use it. The economic value of that region has gone down
tremendously, which effects all of the County.
Hoag agreed that there is no emergency, but that there are issues that need
to be dealt with. Her concern was how this would affect build out in that area. She
wanted that question answered before they consider sending this to the Planning
Commission. On one hand, they are spending Conservation Futures funds to buy
land in the watershed. On the other hand, they are making an area an urban
growth area (UGA) and allowing it to become a city, which will spawn its own
UGA's. They are going in opposite directions. If there were some sort of
agreement that there would not be build out, but that it only becomes incorporated
instead of unincorporated, she would approve. Short of that, they should not send
it to the Planning Commission.
McShane stated he was not ready to make this decision today. He wanted to
consider this for another couple of weeks. There is time to do that within Sudden
Valley's timeframe. There are real positives to this move, although there are
concerns as well. His biggest concern was that there are things he doesn't know
and wants to find out. This is a challenge to the public. The question is whether
this meets the bar for an emergency. He preferred to wait for a couple of weeks
and get some more information.
Crawford agreed with Councilmember McShane and withdrew his motion.
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)
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, 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
This item was not discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Brenner apologized for her interruptions. This was a very difficult meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/26/2000, Page 21