HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 4 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
June 4, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Acting Committee Chair
Connie Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Kathy Sutter (11:50 a.m.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
AhsPnt-
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT AND MAP (AB99 -184)
Goodwin stated that she had more information on the first three items that
the committee already completed. She made corrections and distributed a revised
text. She distributed the proposed amendments to the Resort Commercial Zone,
File 45- 98:ZT. She redid the text only in the Open Space in the Resort
Commercial. There are two changes. One was to add the words, "being
exchanged." She also corrected a scrivener's error. There was discussion about
strikeout and bold formatting of the text to reflect changes.
Goodwin stated that the second item was the Freeman rezone, File 46-
98:ZM. She provided the staff report. There was a question about the existing
houses and how many more houses there should be. There are 13 existing houses
North of the Birch Bay - Lynden Road and 3 south of Birch Bay - Lynden Road. There
could be 9 or 10 additional houses. She described the map that is Attachment 2 in
the staff report. All grayed areas are considered farmable. The stripes are
wetlands. One property is a County -owned hazardous waste transfer facility that
the County doesn't intend to farm or subdivide. All lots north of the Birch Bay -
Lynden Road are small except three of the parcels that could be subdivided.
Several south of the Birch Bay - Lynden Road can be subdivided, except the houses
are centrally located. The 9.77 -acre parcels may be considered a nominal 10
acres, and be allowed to subdivide further.
Brenner asked about nominal. Goodwin explained that they can count the
right -of -way of the road, depending on how it was dedicated. It may count as
acreage towards those parcels on a nominal 10 acres.
Brenner stated that the County's right -of -way can be counted toward the
acreage of the parcel if the County has not purchased it.
Goodwin stated that there are excerpts from the County Comprehensive
Plan and the Birch Bay subarea plan. She read criteria sections 3.b.1, 3.c.1, and
3.c.3 of the subarea plan into the record. The Council could say that agriculture
could be a viable economic enterprise in the area. Y4 to 1/3 of the parcels south of
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
the road are not agricultural soils. If the Council wants to support keeping it zoned
R10, then that would be the finding the Council would adopt.
Hoag stated that page 280 of the Comprehensive Plan, the definition of
rural, encourages 10 -acre development. Every time a rezone is done that changes
the zoning to a higher density, it opens the area up to being rezoned again.
Language says that zoning can be reduced if the existing density is less than or
equal to the smaller parcel size. Because there are always going to be smaller lots
that exist due to parcel sizes that pre -date zoning, a rezone will always meet the
criteria to be rezoned.
Brenner questioned the zoning that has historically been in that area.
Goodwin stated that area was rezoned in 1987 when the subarea plan was
adopted, to R10 from General Protection.
Brenner stated that it was never zoned for higher densities.
Hoag stated that there will not be any section in the County that doesn't
have a smaller parcel due to pre- dating zoning. The criteria should instead be that
the parcel requesting a rezone be the odd size in the area.
Brenner stated that the average parcel size is only supposed to be one of
the criteria. She suggested the criteria say that each criterion are used as a
portion of the basis for a rezone, but not the entire basis for a rezone.
Hoag read the criteria for changing the density, as outlined in section 3.b of
the Birch Bay Subarea Plan. Goodwin stated that they could adopt a finding that
says that agriculture could be a viable economic enterprise on these parcels, then
they can justify keeping it zoned at 10 acres.
Brenner stated that they need criteria that say the lower density would
remain if, by changing the zoning, they would further promote another, lower
density. Goodwin stated that they need to docket a subarea plan change.
Hoag stated that, the way the criteria are currently written, a rezone can
automatically go to a higher density.
Brenner stated that they have to wait until a property owner builds onto the
property before rezoning to higher density.
Goodwin stated that it would be difficult to say a mistake was made in the
Subarea Plan, which is what these folks have said, if the development didn't occur
until 10 years after the Subarea Plan was adopted. Now, they are saying it was
mistakenly zoned R10 in the first place, because it didn't meet the criteria for R10
at the time it was rezoned. They are saying that it should have been zoned R5
because of the existing lot patterns. The Planning Commission agreed that it
meets the criteria for R5. If the Council wants to keep it at R10, then they need to
have a public hearing and adopt findings that can justify leaving it at R10.
Brenner questioned whether the areas left out of the agricultural area are
considered non- farmable. Goodwin stated that was correct.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Hoag stated that they are not prime soils, but that doesn't mean they are
not farmable. Goodwin stated that they are not classified as Prime I, II, or III.
Hoag asked if staff is going to bring forward criteria changes. Goodwin
stated that they could if it is docketed.
Brenner stated that she would like this issue held for more information from
John Gillies of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. She could support a
rezone if there are a lot of creeks and non - farmable soils.
Hoag stated that, at the last meeting, they wanted to redo the criteria. She
explained the rezone problem regarding rezoning to a higher density leading to
another rezone to an even higher density. She suggested the language
"predominant parcel size" instead of "average parcel size." They want the issue of
the criteria to be reviewed.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that this
rezone has to be based on the current criteria.
Brenner questioned the amount of the parcels that could be platted when
this is done, and the amount of the parcels that were owned by the same person
when it was zoned General Protection. She would like that information.
Hoag stated that they will hold this item for the time being.
Brenner stated that, if they give parcel numbers to the Assessor, he can
look it up. She needs parcel numbers.
Knapp stated that they would need a title search.
Goodwin stated that the next item they dealt with was the Pt. Roberts
Taxpayer's Association, file #47- 98:ZT. They talked to legal counsel, who said it
would probably not be constitutional due to interstate commerce laws. If they
want to make a change, it is a change in policy, not a scrivener's error. They
would need to docket the item for the Planning Commission and have a public
hearing. They could do it next year or as an emergency.
Hoag stated that there is no reason to pull it out. Goodwin stated that, if it
were challenged and overturned, then it would have to be repealed or changed.
Knapp stated that they should hear directly from legal counsel. They have
said it is unconstitutional. Whether it is held up in court is a different matter.
Goodwin stated that they can't amend today because it is not on the docket
for a change.
Brenner stated that she was not comfortable with making a regulation that
is unconstitutional. She wanted to send it to the Planing Commission if the
attorney's position is that there is a high probability that it is unconstitutional.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
Goodwin stated that the language has been in place for at least 10 years.
Hoag stated that if she believed it put the County in liability, then she would
remove it. But it doesn't. The County only has to remove it.
Goodwin stated that the next item was the maximum density section
20.72.260 on page 191. Cluster density bonuses should be removed. Staff
agreed. Planning commission did not address it. In the end, they only made a few
changes. There was a long meeting with a lot to deal with. They didn't get to it.
Goodwin stated that page 12 of the staff report recommended that section
on the maximum density, section 20.72.260, be deleted. The cluster density
bonus isn't allowed anyway.
Brenner stated it is not just a scrivener's error. Goodwin stated that is
Council's decision.
Hoag stated that they need a public hearing on the entire thing. Goodwin
recommended that they have a public hearing only on the items that are of issue.
Not the entire ordinance.
Brenner stated that the changes they recommend would not preclude the
changes that someone else wants to make. They have to go through the annual
process. She didn't want to duplicate the Planning Commission process, but
wanted to hear items that the Planning Commission didn't get to.
Hoag stated that her concern was that the majority of the Council members
don't read the public's comments.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag continued to state that the Council should hear all discussion regarding
a decision.
Knapp stated that the Council should give some deference to the Planning
Commission. If they totally redo everything that the Planning Commission did,
then there is no purpose to having a Planning Commission.
Hoag stated that they do give deference.
Brenner stated that the Council doesn't need a hearing to hear the public's
comments. Testimony given at the Planning Commission is forwarded to the
Council. Those people who testified can also contact the Council members.
Goodwin stated that the decision was to repeat the public hearing regarding
Freeman and Pt. Roberts.
Hoag stated that they would hold this item for now. It is a Council decision.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Brenner stated that she would like the Freeman item to have a public
hearing. If the Prosecuting Attorney says the Pt. Roberts section is only a
scrivener's error, then she doesn't have a problem.
Hoag questioned the vehicular access on page 193 regarding changing the
language. Goodwin stated that both of those and the language regarding a lesser
standard were a minor change and wouldn't require a public hearing, according to
legal counsel. She didn't see anything that would require a public hearing.
Brenner stated that she didn't want to look at Pt. Roberts again. They
should forward it.
Hoag stated that they already decided to have a public hearing on the
Freeman item.
Brenner stated that she wanted more information on soils and ownership
before they held a public hearing. She wanted to hear from Gillies on the soils.
FILE #53 -98:ZT — Amendment to Chapter 16.04 WCC re: the
Comprehensive Plan
Goodwin stated that it is just a code reference to the new Comprehensive
Plan. The findings of fact will not go in there. The only thing in there is the
section 16.04 text that would say when the new plan was adopted.
Hoag asked why they are getting rid of all of the language. Goodwin stated
that information is now in the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag asked that they check to make sure that information is somewhere
else so they are not removed altogether. Goodwin stated that they are adopted in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner suggested a reference that they are in the Comprehensive Plan.
Goodwin stated that the goals they are removing have been updated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
FILE # 54 -98:ZT — Lot Consolidation
Goodwin stated that there will be fewer lots that are able to be consolidated
in the County. The changes are to the dates and the criteria.
Brenner stated that it doesn't solve her concern. It is important to
consolidate lots in the Lake Whatcom Watershed and Lummi Island. Goodwin
stated that the comparison of the proposed rules and the checklist is the criteria.
Right now, anyone who purchased two lots that are platted after 1959, and the
zoning is changed, then those lots are consolidated. That was a concern of the
County Council. On the checklist, if all of the boxes are checked, then the lots will
be consolidated. She went through the items on the checklist.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner stated that it wasn't fair that the people who are astute enough to
find a loophole should be able to get away from the regulation. Goodwin stated
that will be changed. There is no longer a need for the loophole. If a person
owned a lot and buys a separate lot, then they won't be consolidated.
(Clerk's Note: A one - minute break was taken.)
Hoag reviewed the reasons the County does lot consolidation. Goodwin
stated that they do lot consolidation so that old subdivision plats without proper
services, under a single ownership, can be consolidated.
Brenner stated that if there are not proper services, then an owner can't
develop anyway. The County shouldn't force a consolidation. She wanted to undo
what the County did, which was consolidate lots.
Hoag stated that zoning did not always exist. Now, there is zoning set up to
preserve a particular benefit, such as agriculture. Lot consolidation is used to
preserve the zoning that should have existed. For instance, the agricultural zone
stated a minimum lot size for that zone.
Brenner stated that the end doesn't justify the means. All it does is
discriminate against those not astute enough to put their additional lot in different
name. If the Council wants to make the changes, then they should give a person
relief.
Goodwin stated that there is a lot consolidation relief procedure.
Brenner asked if lot consolidation has been challenged through court.
Goodwin stated that it has not.
Hoag stated that what they do has to be balanced to address all concerns.
There are areas where consolidation is necessary. She was told that every county
has lot consolidation on the books. The County should not take away the lot
consolidation tool, so that it can be used where needed.
Brenner stated that consolidation is a de facto down zone. Goodwin stated
that it is not de facto. It is an outright down zone.
Brenner stated that a lot consolidation takes away their ability to develop as
they want. It only hits one part of the people in the area. She would only support
voluntary consolidation with a tax relief. She questioned where it only says there
will be lot consolidation in Lake Whatcom Watershed and on Lummi Island.
Goodwin stated that it was on packet page 154, section (2)(e) and (2)(f).
Brenner questioned whether there are other places in the Lake Whatcom
watershed and Lummi Island Goodwin stated that there are. If someone has a lot
less than 6,000 square feet, outside of the watershed, and in an Urban Growth
Area (UGA), then it would still be consolidated. As long as the parcel size is
greater than 6,000 feet, it will not be consolidated. The conditions are described in
section 20.83.070(1)(f) and 20.83.070(2)(f). Goodwin stated that 6,000 square
feet is a small lot.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner stated that is why the conditions should say "and" instead of "or" in
those sections.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner left the room and the quorum was lost. Hoag stated
that they would recess until a quorum was regained.)
(Clerk's Note: Brenner returned and the meeting resumed at 11 :30 a.m.)
Hoag stated that she would like to start at the beginning of the lot
consolidation issue. Goodwin explained the history of the issue. If anything does
not meet the minimum lot size, then there is still some lot consolidation.
Hoag questioned when zoning came in the County. Goodwin stated that
there was General Protection and individual subareas. Zoning came in during the
late 1970s and early 1980s.
Hoag questioned whether they did the consolidation at this time, so that
anything that did not meet the new zoning and under one owner would be
consolidated. Goodwin stated that was done in 1981. The idea was that there
were a lot of small lots plotted in the middle of nowhere. They were paper plats
that didn't have roads constructed to them or services did not exist. They could
not be developed, but were legal when there was no zoning. The subarea plans
tried to look at the existing development patterns and lot patterns when they set
the zoning, so that it matched the development where appropriate. There are
paper plats that exist that are not developed.
Hoag questioned the basis for picking 1955 as the exemption date.
Goodwin stated that the original exemption date of 1959 was someone's best
guess of when the County first had subdivision regulations. In reality, that was
when the subdivision regulations were revised. They were first adopted in 1955.
The Planning staff recommended that those regulations ensured there were
services and standards for these lots. In 1959, they were amended. She
discussed the comparisons of the existing rules vs. the proposed rules.
Brenner stated that there are a lot of things that they don't want to
encourage. It will affect properties outside of the watershed and Lummi Island.
When sent to Planning Commission, they only talked about consolidation in those
areas. This will still require consolidation outside of those areas. Goodwin stated
that was correct.
Hoag stated that it will only affect someone outside of those areas only if
one of the properties meets one of the criteria.
Goodwin stated that there are separate rules for areas outside of the UGA,
as outlined on Council packet page 154. She gave an example of how the criteria
apply. The Growth Management Hearings Board found two acres to be the
minimum to qualify as a rural parcel.
Brenner stated that Hearings Board doesn't have jurisdiction to un -plat
property that has already been platted. Goodwin stated that is not the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
interpretation that legal counsel for the County has said. Legal counsel says that
the Skagit County case doesn't apply to Whatcom, because the Hearings Board
forced down - zoning in an area that didn't have an adopted comprehensive plan.
Whatcom had an adopted comprehensive plan and adopted zoning. It is a totally
different situation.
Brenner stated that she believed the issue was that they can't down -zone
something that was already platted. Goodwin suggested an executive session with
legal counsel for interpretation. The intention is to give relief from what currently
exists.
Brenner asked if there is a legal opinion on the legality of consolidating lots
owned by one person, but not those owned by one person, but titled under
different names. Goodwin stated that there has not been a specific opinion on that
issue.
Hoag asked where in the language it addressed the 1955 exemption.
Goodwin stated that it was on page 155, section .073. It also makes lot
consolidation relief an administrative approval instead of through the Hearing
Examiner. It would be more expeditious.
Brenner asked about cost for that process. Also, she questioned whether
people from Pt. Roberts have been informed about this process. Goodwin stated
that there was a public notice. No one testified. They were aware of it because
they discussed the Pt. Roberts special district, which was listed on the same
agenda.
Hoag described the current process through the Hearing Examiner. She
questioned whether there was a process to consider exemption before it goes to
the Hearing Examiner, so it would not have to be appealed. Goodwin stated that it
would be difficult to write the criteria in.
Hoag asked who the zoning administrator is. Goodwin stated Michael Knapp
would appoint someone in the land use division.
Hoag questioned what would happen if someone didn't like the
administrative decision. Goodwin stated that appeal goes to the Hearing
Examiner.
Hoag asked about exempt lots in separate ownership purchase by a single
owner. Goodwin stated that there is a provision to exempt lots that are in
separate ownership, purchased in the future. There is lot consolidation relief to
separate consolidated lots through administrative approval process, under the
proposed rules. There wasn't in the existing rules.
(Clerk's Note: Sutter arrived. End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated that there was a citizen concerned with an area with a bunch
of lots. Someone is moving old trailers onto the lots. She was concerned with
enforcement. Goodwin she spoke with the person, who wanted lot consolidation
so the owner of the lots could not install a bunch of trailers in the area.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner stated that they were moving the trailers on without a building
permit. Goodwin stated that is an enforcement issue.
Sutter asked about page 154, section 1.b.1. Goodwin stated that all of the
circumstances have to apply.
Brenner asked if all of Lummi Island is considered a part of the Shoreline
Management Plan. Goodwin stated that only the rim of the Island. This wouldn't
apply to existing lots on the Island. It is a rural area, so they wouldn't be
consolidated unless smaller than two acres.
Sutter stated that the State Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development (CTED) recommended keeping the Hearing Examiner
approval. Goodwin stated that they also recommend stricter lot consolidation.
She read from a portion of the letter. They don't want to exempt people with two
separate lots to further protect the environment.
Brenner stated that there has not been a legal opinion on the legality of
consolidating lots in one ownership.
Sutter stated that it has never been challenged.
Hoag asked what happens to lots that were previously consolidated.
Goodwin stated that they could attempt to get relief.
Sutter stated that a high percentage get granted their lot consolidated relief.
Incurring the expense of the lot consolidation relief process, which would be done
anyway, doesn't make sense.
Hoag asked CTED's reason for keeping process with the Hearing Examiner.
Goodwin stated that it would keep the process as difficult as possible.
Hoag questioned relieving those parcels that were previously consolidated.
Sutter stated that, from her experience, most lot consolidations were done
when a landowner divided off a small parcel from a larger parcel. The lots that
were consolidated were small lots, not the big lots.
Brenner asked about the expense. Sutter stated that there are filing fees,
title reports, and other information. The process is also time - consuming. Another
of her concerns was that people were paying taxes on two parcels, instead of on
one consolidated lot, which would be cheaper.
Hoag questioned Council packet page 155, section .071, and what it refers
to. Goodwin stated that there is a formula regarding whether someone has more
lots than they should in an area. The formula is to determine if the lots will be
consolidated or not.
Sutter stated that this does not call for the creation of more lots than there
were originally. Also, she read the language from 20.83.071 regarding the total
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
area of all lots subject to consolidation and questioned how a non - cluster lot size is
different. She suggested striking the word "non- cluster." Goodwin stated that the
language could be stricken. However, there is a minimum lot size. One can still
do a cluster sub - division with a minimum lot size. The word is important. It is
talking about lot size, not density.
Brenner stated that this should have a hearing.
Hoag concurred.
Sutter asked if there was a lot of public information. Goodwin stated that
there was not.
Brenner stated that she was concerned that not everyone knew this was
going on.
Hoag agreed with Brenner's concern, but expanded it to the entire
ordinance.
Goodwin questioned whether there were any specific changes, or they just
wanted a hearing.
Sutter stated that they just want a hearing.
Sutter was concerned that the definitions in section 20.38.050 were not the
same as were in the minutes. They need consistent regulations. Goodwin stated
that they will check.
Goodwin stated that they can make the change when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed for inaccuracies.
FILE #55 -98:ZT — TAC Amendments
Sutter was concerned about #6 on page 197, regarding native vegetation
around storage areas. Goodwin stated that it is a storage area for the entire
facility.
Hoag suggested "common storage areas."
Hoag asked about the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Goodwin stated
that it is appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Council.
It is a group of primarily engineers. Their job is to give input to the County on
technical standards for subdivisions and development regulations. They are
appointed under Chapter 12 of the County Code. They worked on road standards,
landscape clearing and grading, and stormwater regulations. They are now
working through the subdivision regulations. A lot of the recommendations are
aimed at moving stuff around, into, and out of the zoning code. They are also
working on amendments to the subdivision regulations that will come forward
later.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Sutter stated that this moves the language from one part of the Code to
another. There are not any changes.
Hoag asked if there are notes indicating to where the language is being
moved. Goodwin stated that the staff report explains each item, where it went,
what it is, and the recommendation.
Hoag suggested a reference to where the new language is being moved.
Brenner questioned whether this issue was controversial. Goodwin stated
that it was not at all controversial. Everyone agreed. It was not substantive, but
just moving things around.
Sutter agreed with Hoag's suggested addition of the words "common
storage area."
The committee concurred.
FILE # 54 -98:ZT — Lot Consolidation
Brenner asked for a legal opinion regarding the legality of lot consolidation
and discrimination against certain owners who don't put their two parcels in one
name.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, stated that he didn't know,
off -hand. He would refer the question to Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Prosecuting
Attorney. He discussed the history and reason for lot consolidation.
Sutter stated that the purpose for lot consolidation needs to be clear.
Brenner stated that it has to treat everyone the same to be legal. It is not.
Hoag questioned whether, if they adopt the changes, lots already
consolidated would be able to no longer be consolidated without going through lot
consolidation relief process.
Sutter stated that they still would have to apply for relief, but it would be
done administratively instead of by the Hearing Examiner.
Hoag questioned whether they need to apply for relief if they are
automatically unconsolidated. Goodwin stated that she would find out.
Hoag stated that, if it is automatically unconsolidated, then she would like to
add language that it would have to go through an administrative process, which
would look at other factors such as the area's general lot size.
Sutter stated that, if lots were created legally under the law at the time,
then they are legal lots and should not have been consolidated.
Hoag stated that they are also changing lot sizes. Creating parcels greater
than two acres in the rural areas goes against policy and zoning. She didn't have
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
a problem if it addresses what the County does in the future, but it is a problem if
it undoes everything that was consolidated in the past.
Sutter stated that it would only unconsolidated legally created lots, which
the County had no right to consolidate.
Goodwin stated that the property had to have been created before 1955 and
it has to be smaller than two acres. If it was created after 1955, then it doesn't
matter if it was smaller than two acres. They are assuming the property was, at
the time, evaluated for water, sewer, flood plain, drainage, and other issues. They
won't be consolidated.
Brenner stated that they can't un -plat a legal lot of record by lot
consolidation, and they can't discriminate against one group of people that aren't
as astute regarding the loophole.
FILE #58 -98:ZT — Public Facilities
Goodwin stated that this is an amendment that pertains specifically to the
County -owned property at Smith and Northwest roads. Public uses associated with
government buildings on that complex would be allowed as permitted uses, so the
County does not have to get a conditional use permit each time they want to build
a snack bar at the soccer fields or make a modification to the buildings that are
there. It is allowed as a permitted use, so they would only need a building permit.
Brenner stated that she wanted better wording instead of "multi -use
character," which can mean anything goes. There needs to be a more specific
language about the character of the facilities.
Hoag stated that the findings state there is a long history of multi -use public
and recreational uses. That language contains the character.
Goodwin stated that it would now allow any type of public use associated
with a government office building. They can make the language more specific.
Hoag was concerned about what would be allowed into the area without
citizen input. It could allow a jail or hazardous waste facility. Goodwin stated that
it would have to be similar and "complementary," not "complimentary," to the
current use.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Sutter stated that they need to look at whole section and see what the
various uses are. If a use is going to be hazardous, then it may need to be a
conditional use. They need to look at Title 20 and see what those uses are for the
section.
Brenner stated that she was also concerned that it deals only with one
property. Goodwin stated that it is government uses for a multi -use public facility.
Currently, each time someone wanted to do outside exterior improvements or
build a storage shed, a conditional use permit had to be obtained.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner stated that they could allow certain uses, but didn't want to leave it
wide open.
Sutter stated that they could look at the full text and make lists of the
permitted use.
Sutter questioned the type of watercraft used in the property, as referenced
in section 20.44.110. Goodwin clarified that this change is for the entire code. It
is intended for all areas zoned rural. It is a different section. It is an amendment
to 20.36.050. Section 20.36 is the rural zoning.
Sutter stated that the file name is misleading. Goodwin stated that this is a
zoning text change to the existing recreational open space zoning.
Brenner stated that the wording needs to be changed. She was suspicious
of including this one page about the County's Smith and Northwest facility location.
Sutter suggested that the Gateway issue be the first item to be discussed on
June 10 at 9:45 a.m. They will postpone discussion of that item until then.
(Clerk's Note: A %z hour lunch break was taken.)
FILE #61 -98:ZT — Lake Whatcom Watershed Development
Regulations
Goodwin stated that the Water Protection Overlay District is a completely
new district. She described the strikeouts and underlines.
Sutter questioned whether the only concern is about phosphorus, on page
163, Clearing Code Revisions #8. Goodwin stated that, regarding erosion control,
phosphorus is the main thing leached out of exposed soil and is leaking into the
lake.
Sutter asked if they anticipate using this new district anywhere besides Lake
Whatcom. Goodwin stated that they do. Citizens around Lake Samish are
requesting it. Planning wants to make it applicable to other sensitive areas.
Sutter stated that they need to change the purpose. Goodwin stated that
the Planning Commission wanted to make sure it is only applied to Lake Whatcom
at this point. If added to other locations, then it would have to go through the
annual text amendment process.
Sutter asked about the process to have it be applied to a new area.
Goodwin stated that it would have to be a paid application or a suggested zoning
amendment. Or, the Council can initiate it.
Sutter stated that it is a zoning text amendment change that has to be
done. There is no map change, because it is an overlay. Goodwin stated that
there was interest in applying it to Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor, but would not
be appropriate because they are talking about a much larger area. They may need
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
to do something different for Portage Bay. If they need to restrict certain activities
in sensitive watersheds, then they can do modular approach. This is the most
restrictive area, because of the public drinking water issue. It requires more
stringent control than Drayton Harbor or Portage Bay.
Brenner suggested adding language, "at this time..." in the second sentence
of the Purpose section. There needs to be something that explains that this can be
used for other areas.
Sutter stated that it needs to be clarified that there is a procedure for
applying it to other areas, and that procedure should be referenced. Goodwin
stated that could be done, probably without a public hearing. She suggested they
reinsert the text to include other sensitive watersheds.
Hoag stated that they don't want to open it up to every area right away.
Sutter questioned whether Special Management Areas, referenced on page
205, are the same as Special Districts. Goodwin said that they are in the
Development Regulations, which are adopted separately from the zoning code.
They just happened to be called Special Management Areas as it relates to
stormwater. There is something else that relates to clearing.
Sutter asked the difference. Goodwin stated that they are defined in the
Land Clearing and Stormwater Regulations, which are not part of the Title 20. A
Special Management Area is defined in the Code, on page 206. It was decided
that the Development Regulations would be adopted with the Technical Advisory
Committee writing them, adopted administratively, and not be a part of the code.
A lot of the sections in the Code reference the other development standards, which
are redundant or conflict with what is in the zoning code.
Sutter stated that the problem is that the code designates the Lake
Whatcom watershed and the Drayton Harbor watershed as special management
areas. They are not just talking about Lake Whatcom. Goodwin stated that is only
regarding Land Clearing. 20.80.634 references the Special Management District,
which is the stormwater section.
Sutter stated that one piece of property could be subject to a Special
District, a Special Management Area, and a Water Resource Protection Overlay.
Goodwin stated that they deal with different things. The Water Resource
Protection Overlay Zone deals with uses and impervious surfaces.
Sutter questioned why they can't call it all the same thing if they deal with
the same geographic area. Goodwin stated that they don't.
Sutter questioned whether the whole of the Lake Whatcom watershed is a
Resource Protection Overlay District. Goodwin stated that it is.
Sutter asked why they have to have three names for one thing.
Brenner suggested calling the area something like the Lake Whatcom
Watershed Water Resource Protection Overlay District, and just use the one term.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Goodwin stated that the problem would be that all of the regulations on
stormwater are not in the Code, but in the Development Standards and Land
Clearing Regulations. If they tried to combine them, then they would have to pull
all of that information out of the Land Clearing Regulations and Stormwater
Regulations, and repeat it all in the Special District.
Sutter suggested that the Water Resource Protection Overlay section say
that the watershed is also a Special District under Stormwater Management
Regulations and a Special Management Area under Land Clearing. It should go in
the section of Area and Applicability. They need to make it easier for people who
are trying to read the regulations. A reference needs to be made.
Hoag asked if the Special Districts and Special Management Areas are pre-
existing. Goodwin stated that they are.
Hoag agreed with Sutter's suggestion.
Sutter stated that they are adding Lake Whatcom Watershed as a Special
District and a Special Management Area. It creates a cross - reference to add
clarity. Goodwin stated that it was already a Special Management Area, but they
added requirements. There were no Special Districts identified in the Stormwater
regulations, only a special provision. There will be areas identified now.
Brenner was concerned that it is getting too complicated. She didn't
understand it all. There has to be a way to create enough clarity.
Sutter stated that they will make the language under Area and Applicability
more clear.
Hoag also suggested saying, "...the entire geographic area of the Lake
Whatcom Watershed... Special District regarding stormwater and Special
Management Area regarding land clearing." In the section 20.71.021
The committee concurred.
Hoag asked about section 20.71.021 regarding the second sentence.
Goodwin stated that the second and third sentences are saying twice that the
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is more restrictive and shall apply. It has to do
with setbacks.
Sutter suggested striking the second sentence.
The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that 20.71.401 deals with setbacks. It is a shorter setback
than in other sections of the code, to allow for shorter driveways and fewer
impervious surfaces.
Hoag stated that the third sentence in 20.71.021 did not include those in the
underlying zone districts. Goodwin suggested adding "or the underlying zone."
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, 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
50
51
The committee concurred.
Brenner stated that section 20.71.021 was too confusing. Goodwin
suggested, "...with the exception of the setbacks provided in..."
Sutter read section 20.71.021 as approved by the committee. "...
Watershed.
Manage I., It P. eg. ang shall apply. Heweve , 'If the provisions of this Chapter
conflict with the underlying zone district, Shorelines Management
Program, or the Critical Areas Ordinance, then the most restrictive shall apply, ...
with the exception of the setback provisions established in section 20.71.401."
They also added language regarding it be subject to the Clearing and Stormwater
Regulations. Goodwin stated that they added language between the first and
second sections, "This district could be expanded to include other areas through
the annual zoning amendment process."
Sutter suggested to instead add sections 20.71.021, subsections 1 through
4 that reference the overlay zone, process for expansion, the special district
regulation, and conflicting provision.
The committee concurred.
Hoag stated that the language regarding the conflicting provision language
should be before the language regarding underlying zone districts.
Goodwin stated that the concept on page 200 is that everything in the
underlying zone applies, other than as it is specifically amended in this section.
Hoag asked if any of the recommendations are looser than the underlying
zoning. Goodwin stated that they are not.
Brenner asked if they want to allow on -site storage facilities for hazardous
waste. Goodwin stated that it is only associated with an outright permitted use or
an approved conditional use.
Brenner stated that recycling is different from waste. She wouldn't mind
allowing waste. Goodwin stated that it would have to be associated with an
outright permitted use or approved conditional use.
Sutter stated that a waste pickup facility might discourage people from
dumping waste in the watershed.
Hoag asked how much farming is in the watershed. Goodwin stated that
there are not a lot of cows, but lots of horses around North Shore Road. There is
not any commercial farming. They are all hobby farms.
Hoag asked if agriculture should be a conditional use. If changed to a
conditional use, she questioned whether it would affect existing operations.
Goodwin stated that any already existing use would be grandfathered, but would
require a conditional use permit if they want to expand.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Goodwin described an animal unit as generally being the weight of a dairy
COW.
Hoag asked if they want to have agricultural uses allowed as an outright
permitted use.
Sutter stated that she favors the Conservation Plan program. It allows
people to still do farming, but includes requirements.
Goodwin stated that the Conservation Plan deals primarily with manure
management.
Sutter stated that she was not concerned about agricultural use in the
watershed. There is not much area available for that.
Goodwin stated that they discussed having a setback to allow agriculture.
They also discussed capping the number of animals allowed, to allow a hobby
farm, but not allow a dairy or horse breeding operation.
Sutter stated that they should specify animals per acreage.
Brenner was concerned about putting people in the position of catching
them doing something they are not supposed to do, but didn't know about.
Hoag stated that there is an article about antibiotic - resistant bugs getting
into the water from farm and domestic animals that generally water treatment
plants don't test for. If people ingest those bugs, then their body develops those
antibiotic resistant genes. Then, if they get an infection, they can not be treated.
A lot of the bugs come from animals treated with antibiotics because it is in the
food to prevent them from being sick. They need to protect the water from animal
manure.
Brenner asked if the regulation of manure in the Conservation Plan is related
to the number of animals. Stutter stated that it is.
Goodwin stated that Cryptosporidium in the water is what they are
concerned about, and is in 60% of the calves. The City of Bellingham Water
Department is concerned about this organism.
Goodwin stated that storage of on -site hazardous materials is conditional,
not accessory.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated that they will take this up again on the 10th and the first item
that they will deal with will be the Gateway issue. There will be a possible meeting
on Wednesday, June 16 from 1:00 - 4:00
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/1/99, Page 18