HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 12 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 12, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
OTHER BUSINESS
Absent:
None
Knapp stated he prepared a summary on the State Environmental Protection
Act (SEPA) review process, as a result of comments made by Sherilyn Wells
regarding SEPA compliance for the Water Resource Protection Overlay Zone for
Lake Whatcom. The SEPA initially occurred in November. There was a
determination of non - significance (DNS). The SEPA official looks at present
regulations. If the proposed regulations do not have a greater impact on the
watershed, then a DNS issued. These regulations have a lesser impact on the
watershed because they are more stringent than the current regulations. That
review process is different than a project related review because there is not a
baseline of the existing conditions.
Hoag asked how it works as it goes through the process and different
changes are made. There was an initial SEPA review. Wells did not comment on
the SEPA determination during the designated comment period. If there is a
programmatic review, she questioned how someone comments if something occurs
later in the process that one feels would have a negative impact. Knapp stated the
second review occurred in March. The SEPA official looked at the original
determination. Based on the changes made during that period, he determined
there were no significant impacts.
Hoag asked if the public had an opportunity to comment on that in March.
Knapp stated they would have had to comment from the beginning to bring forward
the review.
Hoag stated she was trying to find a balance between efficiency and full
public review. Knapp stated the public gets a chance to respond to changes that
are made. They don't get another chance at SEPA if they don't comment during the
initial comment period. This is only an effort to see if there were any significant
changes from the original SEPA determination.
Sutter stated, as an example, they have said they will allow greenhouses
with certain stipulations. Those stipulations mitigate against an impact that those
greenhouses might have without the stipulations. If they just allowed greenhouses,
without any restrictions, then it would have potential impacts and would trigger
another SEPA review.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Hoag stated that, in that example, the existing regulations said that any
greenhouses had to be chemical -free. Now they don't have to be chemical -free.
Knapp stated they have to be monitored. When a project comes forward there
would be SEPA review for the projects, as well.
Sutter stated that when someone wants to put in a greenhouse, they would
have to go through a SEPA review for that project. Greenhouses are a conditional
use.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
stated there is a SEPA threshold determination of approximately 5,000 square feet.
A building under that size traditionally doesn't have a SEPA review.
Hoag stated her concern was that a citizen may not have a concern at the
beginning of a process, but may have a concern later on in the process, after
changes have been made. Knapp stated they are talking about making
determinations on regulations that would mitigate impacts. When they introduced
monitoring, they are mitigating any kind of impact.
Sutter stated the proposed regulation outlines the mitigation activities before
the Hearing Examiner or SEPA official does.
Hoag stated the proposed language does not specify that there will not be
any impacts. The proposed language tries to avoid and mitigate the impacts, but
the public should be able to have a chance to respond to them, in terms of SEPA.
Knapp stated the public did have a chance to respond initially.
Hoag stated the proposed regulations weren't there initially.
Sutter stated the appropriate place for the public to comment is at the public
hearing. They can object because they feel it needs a SEPA review.
Hoag stated Wells testified that they need SEPA review, and know Knapp is
saying they did SEPA review at the beginning. Knapp stated they could have
continuous SEPA review, and they allowed the initial determination to stand,
without looking at it again, then the citizen could make a case for that.
Brenner asked Knapp to be specific about Wells' comments. Knapp stated
Wells feels there should have been another complete SEPA review.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated she understood Wells'
argument to be that the regulations don't go far enough and there should be an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Hoag stated that isn't what Wells testified at a previous Council meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Knapp stated he had spoken with the State Department of Ecology (DOE)
and the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development
(CTED). They all agree this is the proper process.
Sutter stated that they don't have to go through another SEPA review if the
County's SEPA official looks at the changes and doesn't amend his determination.
Knapp stated they also took another look at the proposed regulation in September
to review the changes that have been made in the last couple of weeks. There is
no significant impact that would warrant triggering an EIS.
Sutter stated they need to move on to the agenda items.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
Sutter stated item numbers eight and eleven under "Discussion and
Recommendation to Council" are the same. Under "Other Business," item numbers
two and five are the same. They will eliminate items eleven and five. Those two
are the definition of aquaculture and the lot consolidation.
Goodwin stated item numbers three and four under "Other Business" are also
the same items. Item three under "Other Business" does not have the correct
version of the proposed ordinance. The correct version was to strike the provision
that everyone within 300 feet did not have to petition to get it changed.
Sutter stated items three and four are different. Item number three is
Planning Department file #64- 98:ZT. Item number four is Planning Department file
#56- 98:ZT. Goodwin stated they need to work from the correct version of item
three. The title of item number four is incorrect, and it does not need a public
hearing.
Sutter stated they would remove item number four under Other Business.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, 20.84.240,
APPEALS, TO ADDRESS REFUNDS FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS AND CODE VIOLATIONS (AB99 -366)
Hoag moved to amend packet page 175, "...appellant can prove by clear and
convincing evidence that a violation did not occur." Legal counsel suggested this
language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to recommend approval as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, ZONING
TEXT (AB99 -184)
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
50
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager,
suggested they remove this ordinance, since they've introduced each item in the
ordinance individually.
The committee concurred.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB99 -331)
Brenner questioned whether they should still discuss it in depth during
committee since it is scheduled for a public hearing at the evening's Council
meeting.
Karen Frakes stated it was okay.
Hoag questioned page 178, the seventh Whereas, and where they find the
reasons for actions that are referenced. Goodwin stated in the initial ordinance
they are called Findings of Facts and Reasons for Actions. In this ordinance, they
are called Findings and Conclusions. It is the same thing. Some are attached as a
separate item and some are included in the ordinance. The Conclusions are the
same as the Reasons for Action.
Sutter suggested changing the language to Conclusions instead of Reasons
for Action.
Frakes stated that language is all encompassing and is State law.
Goodwin stated the ordinance they originally brought forward was called
Findings of Fact, Reasons for Actions, and Recommendations. The committee
considered them concurrently, and decided to split the items into 21 separate
ordinances.
Sutter stated the original document she received on this item contained
sections that are not included in this packet. Goodwin stated they are all necessary
parts that are separate sections of the code. They can be introduced separately.
Hoag asked about the rezone agreement part 20.90.020(1)(a), beginning
"The fulfillment of all conditions..." This is saying that if an applicant brings forward
a rezone application, and the Council approves a resolution of intent to rezone the
area, then it will be a binding commitment. The time limitation to meet the
conditions will be one year. The Council may grant up to 5 one -year extensions.
She asked what the criteria are for the Council to grant the extensions.
Sutter stated there are certain criteria already from some the County had
done. It is based on whether the applicant has not shown substantial progress.
Frakes stated that in the past they have built that into the concomitant
agreement. There should be criteria somewhere.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
51
Hoag stated there was something that came forward recently where a
gentleman asked for an extension. The Council was locked in by the language in
the agreement. Goodwin stated that was a subdivision. The gentleman wanted an
extension on the subdivision under the old standards.
Hoag questioned whether that would be covered under this language.
Goodwin stated it would not. These would be criteria for a rezone.
Sutter stated she interpreted it to mean that the Council was committed to
seeing that the stipulations and conditions were met, not that the Council was
bound to making the rezone. Goodwin stated the County was bound to the rezone.
Hoag stated if it was a one -year timeline, she would be okay with it. There is
nothing in there to give the Council a reason to deny an extension.
Brenner stated she did not want to tie the Council to old regulations if
something happens to make the County rethink how the regulations negatively
impact an area.
Sutter asked about the reason for this statement. Goodwin stated staff
wrote this to respond to some instances such as the Custer master plan. She
suggested they include language about having good cause for denial.
Brenner asked if the Council could include regulations that the proponent
meets the current policies.
Hoag stated she had a problem with the length of time. She suggested only
allowing two one -year extensions, and then adding language that gives a reason for
granting the extensions.
Sutter requested staff to work on that concern and bring forward language.
Hoag moved to change the five extensions to two.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
The committee concurred to request staff to develop language about making
progress to justify the extension.
Hoag asked if it is reasonable to expect a rezone to be done within three
years. Goodwin stated it is reasonable in most circumstances. For large projects
such as Custer, it wouldn't be reasonable. The applicant can always reapply.
Sutter suggested that item three on page 182 needs to have quotes. Under
section 20.90.030, Department of Planning and Development Services should be
capitalized. Goodwin stated the codifier does not capitalize departments. They
were being consistent.
Brenner questioned why number six on page 183 was in there, and whether
one could do a site - specific rezone without a concomitant agreement. The following
sentence didn't make sense. The Council should not be approving a rezone where
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
extraordinary potentially adverse impacts could occur. She was leery of
agreements that make those impacts okay. There should be a tighter rein on what
is allowed for site - specific rezones. Goodwin stated the Council recently rezoned
Great Western Lumber, which is in the Goodwin Road area. That was rezoned to
Rural Forestry, with a specific concomitant agreement allowing the mill to continue
to operate.
Sutter asked if they would have had the concomitant agreement if they had
this language in Goodwin's example. Goodwin stated they would not. She didn't
recall the reasoning for this language. Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Forestry are
zones that are predominantly for resource production. There wouldn't be an
instance that the County would want a concomitant agreement.
Brenner questioned the following sentence in section (6), beginning "It may,
however, be used..." Knapp stated the language is for hypothetical situations.
Goodwin explained a site - specific rezone has to be just a zoning map change.
The whole provision for them is in this section. Site - specific rezones cannot require
a Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the Comprehensive Plan designates an area
as agriculture, then it couldn't be rezoned without a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. She stated the only places these would apply would be urban growth
area or small towns. There is no difference between a Comprehensive Plan map
change and a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The zoning isn't in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan might designate an area rural, but
could be zoned R10, R5, or R2. Also, an area might be designated as an urban
growth area, which could be a broad range of zones.
Sutter asked if they could restate it, 'A concomitant rezone is not generally
necessary for a rezone to agriculture, commercial forestry, or rural forestry district.
It may, however, be used where there are extraordinary potential impacts." They
are saying that it shall not be used, but they may use it here or there. Instead, the
regulation should say that it would not generally be used, unless there are other
circumstances.
Hoag stated she interprets it to not be allowed in certain agricultural zones,
but they can use it anywhere else.
Goodwin stated she could call Kraig Olason and have him clarify question.
Hoag stated she wanted to know the intent of the language.
Goodwin stated staff might have been thinking that they would not need a
concomitant agreement if there was no development.
Sutter stated this was scheduled for public hearing at the evening's Council
meeting. They can always hold it in committee.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated there is nothing that prevents a site - specific rezone from
being outside an urban growth area (UGA). Goodwin stated there isn't, but if it
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment, then it couldn't be used. There aren't
that many instances in which the Comprehensive Plan designation would allow any
other zoning other than what is there.
Brenner stated they should only look at site - specific rezones within the UGA's
when they are of significance. There should be wording that says it shall not be
used as an excuse to extend urban growth areas. Goodwin stated they could not
do that without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Within small towns, there are
areas that have not yet been zoned to that zoning designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Small towns are not urban growth areas. They are rural areas of more
intense development, under the Growth Management Act.
Brenner asked if the density would allow three to five houses per acre in the
small towns. Goodwin stated they are allowed to have more intense rural
development outside of an urban growth area, if they are designated and they are
not allowed to expand.
Brenner questioned what a discretionary development permit is. Goodwin
stated it would be similar to a conditional use permit or a subdivision. "Discretion"
means they would have to look at the criteria and make a decision.
Hoag stated the section on page 183 talks about different rezones that will
be allowed, but there aren't criteria for approval or denial.
Sutter stated the criteria would be site - specific.
Goodwin stated the criteria for a rezone are throughout the Code. They
would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to justify a
rezone, the Council would need to go back to the Comprehensive Plan and decides
what is says about the area.
Sutter stated there are conditions in section 20.90.030. That entire section
contains criteria that have to be met. In addition, the County Council can apply
site - specific conditions. Goodwin stated the approval criteria are also included. It
must be in the interest of the public's health, safety, and general welfare.
Hoag stated they have not revisited the item regarding the predominant lot
size. Anything out there that is currently Rural 10 (R10) acres could be rezoned to
R5. Once it is rezoned to R5, then it would qualify for R2. Goodwin stated one
would have to show how the zoning has a substantial relationship to public health,
safety, morals, or general welfare; the changed conditions; consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, and; consistency with the surrounding and current uses.
Brenner stated she was concerned about expanding site - specific rezones.
The language regarding the public's safety and general welfare could be applied
very subjectively. Goodwin suggested the committee add the rural zone to item
number (6) on page 183.
Sutter stated they would want a concomitant agreement in that instance.
That section says they won't require a concomitant agreement.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Brenner stated she was concerned about allowing site - specific rezones that
way rather than going through the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated it is too easy to meet the requirements. They've seen things
come forward that are not in the best public interest, but the applicants are able to
meet the criteria. She wanted very specific criteria to solve the Custer problem,
without creating more zoning problems.
Sutter stated the variance requirements may be appropriate for this.
Goodwin stated all this allows is a rezone outside the once per year zoning docket.
These can be approved any time in the year. If someone has a real project, and
they need a zoning change to do it, they shouldn't have to wait an entire year for
the next docket. Also, the committee doesn't want to have 21 items on the
agenda. It doesn't guarantee they will be approved.
Hoag stated she agreed, but the problem is that the code is vague. Unless
they can prove what was done was illegal, the rezone has to go through or the
County will be sued. She didn't want that. The zoning should protect the resources
and planning.
about.
Sutter requested Hoag come forward with the specifics she is concerned
Hoag stated there is no criteria for denial.
Sutter stated the County Council could put on any restrictions or criteria it
wants, according to section 20.90.020(1)(a). Goodwin stated that is the purpose of
the concomitant agreement.
Hoag stated that was under an area -wide rezone. Goodwin stated subsection
(3) is separate and regarding concomitant rezones. That section allows for
conditions to be placed.
Brenner suggested they include a definition of spot zoning. Goodwin stated it
is defined by some court cases, but is not included in the Code. They need
definitions of the items they are prohibiting.
Sutter stated the Hearing Examiner reviews it. The County Council has the
final say and can deny a rezone. It would not be appropriate to include the
conditions in the Code. They need to be covered in the subarea plan.
Hoag stated she agreed. However, there are no criteria for denial.
Sutter suggested Hoag come up with something in writing.
Goodwin stated there are criteria for denial in section 20.90.030.
Knapp stated there are a lot of criteria for approval or denial. The Council
would create findings based upon the facts that come forward.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Hoag stated those are very vague and too easy to meet. Goodwin stated
that if they find the conditions are not met, then that would be the criteria.
Brenner moved to insert Councilmember Hoag's language.
Hoag stated her language goes in the section beginning on page 182, item
number two at the bottom, and continues to page 183:
"(e) In addition, The County Council may, at its discretion, deny the
application based on the criteria that it is not in the best public interest."
Sutter stated that language allows the Council to deny the application only if
it is not in the best public interest.
Knapp stated the County would be in court with that statement.
Sutter stated that language would tie the Council's hands.
Knapp stated that statement would be an overall statement that denies all
the other criteria.
Sutter stated there is already a requirement that it be in the best public
interest in section (2)(b).
Hoag stated section (2)(b) doesn't specify that the rezone improves or
protects public health. It only says it bears a substantial relationship.
Brenner suggested amending section (2)(b). Goodwin stated the language in
section (2)(b) is commonly used legal language.
Brenner suggested they specify in section (2)(b) that the rezone does not
have a negative impact on public health.
Hoag stated that only means the rezone does not have a negative impact,
but doesn't say why it should be there.
Knapp stated the Council determines what is in the best public interest
through the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is how
the County determines whether the rezone is proper. The County has to say why
the rezone is not in the best public interest.
Sutter stated the Council has never approved a rezone because they had to.
There have been times Hoag disagreed with what the majority of the Council
decided. What the Council decided was perfectly legal and not done under any
duress.
Goodwin stated they should address those concerns by updating the subarea
plans. They should change the problems through the policy, not the process.
Hoag so moved to add language, as stated previously, on page 183, under
item (2):
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
51
"(e) In addition, The County Council may, at its discretion, deny the
application based on a finding that it is not in the best public interest."
Brenner stated her concern was that, if they do this, it would tie the County
up in court.
Knapp stated the Council already has the capability to deny a rezone based
on the fact that it is not in the public's best interest. They don't need Hoag's
motion.
Hoag stated there is no legal basis to deny a rezone.
Knapp questioned whether Hoag's intent was to override the Hearing
Examiner's decision, based upon a finding that it is in the best public interest to
deny the rezone, without any criteria to determine what the best public interest is.
Brenner stated that, if they meet the criteria, and the criteria is not
developed enough, then the County Council doesn't have the discretion to deny it
because they found something unique in that case. Knapp stated that is why they
need to update the subarea plans.
Sutter questioned whether, in the Conditional Use Permit process, the County
Council can only overturn the Hearing Examiner if there was an error of law. She
asked if that was the case with a rezone. Knapp stated the final decision is by the
County Council in that instance.
Brenner stated the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is only advisory.
Sutter stated it is based on State law that they can only make determinations
to overturn the Hearing Examiner based on an error of law.
Brenner stated that was true for Conditional Use Permits.
Hoag stated this was new language and they will open up a can of worms.
They already have a problem with R5 and R10 rezones. It is not wise to do this on
top of those problems. It compounds the problem rather than solves the problem.
Goodwin stated there is nothing in the section that specifies that the County
Council has to do anything special to overturn the Hearing Examiner.
Sutter stated the language says the County Council makes the final decision.
Sutter asked the councilmembers to write down specifically what they think
is missing.
Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to Hoag's motion, to instead amend
section (2)(b) on page 183, "That the proposed amendment to the zoning bears a
substantial r-elatiens" is proven by clear and convincing evidence not to have a
negative impact to public health, safety..." It is up to the proponent to prove the
rezone won't have a negative impact.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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 agreed with Brenner's friendly amendment.
Hoag did not accept Brenner's friendly amendment because it will not
address her concern.
Brenner asked that the committee delay the vote until there was legal
review. She would not support the motion if it will cause legal problems.
Hoag withdrew her motion until they could check with legal staff.
Brenner moved an amendment (b) 'the proposed amendment to the zoning
is proven by clear and convincing evidence not to
have a negative impact to public health, safety,..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated there are other sections of the code that specify it will not cause
increased cost to fire and safety. This doesn't cover increased cost to public
services. She moved to amend page 183, section (d)(ii), "not create ej�e
significant additional..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Getting back to the question about agriculture and forestry, Knapp stated it
would typically be when a development was occurring or there was a use that
someone may have desired in an agricultural zone. There may be some aspect to
the use that is important to the zone.
Sutter stated this was a rezone to agriculture or forestry. The problem with
the language was that it was contradictory. First it said it shall not be used, then it
goes on to say that it can be used. That's why she suggested the language that a
concomitant rezone is not generally necessary for a rezone.
Hoag suggested that the language specify it could be used in other
situations, so that it wouldn't apply to agriculture, commercial, or rural.
Sutter stated she wanted to leave it open in the off chance that there is
something in agriculture or forestry zoning for which they could require a
concomitant agreement if necessary. Knapp stated they would be taking away the
natural resource based use.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Sutter moved to amend subsection (6) on page 183, "Concomitant rezone
shall net be used is not generally necessary for a rezone to agriculture, commercial
forestry, and rural forestry zoning districts."
Hoag stated that the language 'shall not' indicates there was a reason they
didn't want that to happen. Knapp stated those are the natural resources lands and
they don't want to encourage development in those areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Sutter stated they should make it easy for a person to rezone from a rural
zoning to an agriculture or forestry zoning. Knapp stated they typically don't want
development to occur in those areas.
Sutter stated one way to make it easy is to not require a concomitant
agreement, however there may be situations in which a concomitant agreement
would be advisable.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Hoag asked about the cumulative effects of all the rezones. Knapp stated
that would be addressed through the Comprehensive Plan and the SEPA process.
Hoag asked how. It is not there now, and they are opening up new language
that allows additional latitude. Knapp stated they should determine the overall
pattern in the Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag stated the Comprehensive Plan only designates Rural zoning.
Sutter stated the Council has to look at the surrounding zoning.
Goodwin stated they need to write specific policies in the Comprehensive
Plan on when an area should be zoned R5 and when an area should be zoned R10.
That needs to be docketed for the next docket, which is due December 31, 1999.
Otherwise, the current rezone process has no criteria. This proposal is far better
than anything on the books now.
Hoag stated, in the meantime, they are creating a loophole.
Goodwin stated they are tightening up a loophole. Currently, there are no
criteria.
Hoag stated that, until the Comprehensive Plan policies are changed,
everyone under the current policies could apply for rezones.
Sutter stated the County Council doesn't have to approve the requests.
Hoag stated the County Council has to have a basis for denial.
Sutter stated the basis for denial is incompatibility with surrounding uses or
zoning.
Dawson stated they need to move on.
Hoag moved to add language to the end of section (d)(ii) on page 183,
"...community. Cumulative effects of recent rezones in the area will be considered;
or11
Motion carried 2 -1 with Sutter opposed.
Brenner asked why Sutter was opposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Sutter stated it isn't necessary or appropriate. Staff had directed the
committee to make that a policy.
Sutter asked how section 20.90.040 affects the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process. Goodwin stated it doesn't change the annual Comprehensive
Plan amendment process. It allows the area -wide ones to be done outside of the
annual process. They are working on a docket item this year to look at other
exceptions. They are trying to avoid the bottleneck of items.
Hoag moved to recommend approval to the full Council, as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, TO ADD
CHAPTER 20.71, WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE
AND AMEND OTHER SECTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND CLEARING AND
STORMWATER REGULATIONS (AB99 -286)
Goodwin stated the draft in the packet was not the most current draft. The
September 28 memo contained the most current draft.
Sutter suggested that section B on the bottom of page 203 is substituted
with section 13(B), which is referenced and is on page 205 of the packet. Goodwin
stated they would want to call section B, "Water Resources Special Management
Areas..."
Hoag stated that item 13 was not a County Review Threshold, as titled in (4).
It is a Water Resource Special Management Area.
Sutter stated section 13(B)(1) specifies County Review Thresholds.
Sutter moved to amend packet page 203(B) to say "...exceed the following
thresholds: ." Then, 13(b) will be
listed underneath. All the language regarding thresholds are to be moved.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated she received comments that the thresholds would be difficult
to determine. This is to decide whether a land- clearing permit is required. People
have suggested it would be easier to make it only 5,000 or 2,000 feet for everyone,
and either require a review or not require a review.
Brenner stated someone with less of a slope and distance would rather go
through this than be stuck with the 5,000 feet. Goodwin stated it would cost more
to determine the slope and distance than to get the permit in the first place.
Brenner suggested giving them the option.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Hoag stated she received positive comments on this issue. This regulation
acknowledges that it makes a difference what the slope is. It is not an undue
burden to ask someone in that area to know what his or her slope and distance are.
Brenner stated they are going to end up creating an undue burden for people
who don't have a steep slope.
Hoag stated they received testimony on item 4A on page 203. Goodwin
stated the concern was that someone would be required to get a permit if they
were just mowing their lawn. However, that item has not been struck, it was
redundant.
Hoag asked if brushing a slope next to a stream causes problems such as
runoff. Knapp stated it does not unless they expose soils.
Sutter stated those things are covered under the Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO). If they leave this item in the regulation, it may be contradictory to the
Development Standards.
Brenner stated they need exposed soils language in this section.
The committee concurred to leave the language as it is, and not include it
into the regulation.
Sutter moved to amend on page 204 at the top. Item (5)(b) is not a permit.
Goodwin suggested adding language, "(b) Building Permit. Erosion control..."
The committee concurred.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.80,
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (AB99 -376)
This item was held in committee.
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.82,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (AB99 -377)
This item was held in committee.
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS) REGARDING PERSONAL STORAGE BUILDINGS
(AB99 -378)
This item was held in committee.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.97,
DEFINITIONS (AB99 -379)
Goodwin stated the definition of aquaculture was discussed as part of the
Lake Whatcom discussions. This item has already been added to the end of the
Lake Whatcom Overlay regulations.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
Sutter stated they want to apply this as a countywide definition.
Hoag stated that the definition should specify "commercial." Goodwin stated
the reason it doesn't say commercial is to keep it consistent with the Shoreline
regulations. The Shoreline regulations don't say "commercial."
Hoag stated they would have to make sure and say "commercial" for the
Lake Whatcom overlay. Goodwin stated they did. It is in the revised draft
distributed with the September 28 memo. What they changed is what was
prohibited. The commercial aquaculture projects were not exempted.
The committee concurred to forward to the full Council.
9. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.85,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (AB99 -380)
Brenner stated she wanted to change the language so that it says, "In the
event there is a conflict between the state and the federal regulation(s), the state
more stringent regulation(s) shall apply."
Goodwin stated there might be a reason they have to designate the State
regulations. The State has regulations that are specific. The federal government
does not have regulations; they just have guidelines.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
This item was held in committee.
10. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS) REGARDING ADULT FAMILY HOMES AND
CHILDCARE FACILITIES (AB99 -381)
This item was held in committee.
11. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.97, TO
ADD A DEFINITION FOR "AQUACULTURE" (AB99 -382)
This item was withdrawn because it is the same as the above item number
eight.
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.89, DENSITY
TRANSFER PROCEDURES (AB99 -386)
This item was held in committee.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1999 ZONING DOCKET (AB99 -326)
This item was held in committee.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/12/99, 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
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.83,
REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION (AB99 -328)
This item was held in committee.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.42,
REGARDING HARVEST ACTIVITY IN RF /CF AND CONFLICTS WITH
LANDOWNERS (AB99 -329)
This item was held in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20
(VARIOUS SECTIONS) TO INCREASE SETBACKS FOR PARCELS
ADJACENT TO FORESTRY ZONES (AB99 -384)
This item was withdrawn.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.83, NON-
CONFORMING USES AND PARCELS (AB99 -385)
This item was held in committee.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 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, 10/12/99, Page 16