HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 21 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
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 21, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy
Sutter in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Barbara Brenner
OTHER BUSINESS
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.83,
REGARDING LOT CONSOLIDATION (AB99 -328)
Sutter stated this will be in committee next week and they will also have a
public hearing next week.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.42,
REGARDING HARVEST ACTIVITY IN RF /CF AND CONFLICTS WITH
LANDOWNERS (AB99 -329)
Brenner asked where forestry is going on in Rural Residential (RR) zoning.
Sutter stated it is RR -I, Rural Residential Island, for Lummi Island.
Goodwin stated the task was to look at current development regulations to
see if there were any areas where they needed additional buffers or restrictions on
logging or on additional restrictions on residential development adjacent to logging.
Once they went through it, they found most of the areas, except for the RR -I zone,
already require a 100 -foot buffer. The Right -to- Practice Forestry exists. There
weren't too many other things they could think of that would be acceptable to the
citizens that would prevent the conflicts. The only other thing that was considered
was mandatory clustering, but Planning Commission didn't like the idea. It has not
been popular in the agricultural zone. It would make sense if one had five -acre
zoning adjacent to rural forestry. The houses would be clustered away from the
forest, but requiring that would be difficult. There weren't a lot of requirements.
They are proposing some amendments to make the Right -to- Practice Forestry more
clear. They also recommend a 100 -foot setback in the rural residential zones. The
last item is a clarification that the 100 -foot setback applies when the parcel is being
cultivated for commercial forest production.
Hoag read from page five of Exhibit One regarding 100 -foot setbacks being
exempt to the standard setback if parcel owners have filed an agreement with the
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
County Auditor. She questioned the exception. Goodwin stated a parcel owner
could sign an agreement saying he or she will never complain about the adjacent
logging, and then encroach into the 100 -foot setback.
Brenner stated it is like a covenant.
Hoag asked what happens if a property owner builds a house closer than the
100 -foot setback, and then sells the house to someone else. She questioned
whether it would become a part of the deed. Goodwin stated it would run with the
land if it is a deed restriction.
Hoag stated the goal is to reduce the conflict between forestry and housing.
Sutter suggested looking at sections in Title 20 prior to the next committee
meeting.
Brenner stated the purpose was to keep the buffer. She questioned why the
county should care if the person next to logging doesn't care.
Sutter asked if this was analogous to the Right -To -Farm.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the
purchaser of the house that might be closer than 100 feet would know up front.
They would have been notified.
Brenner stated it is different from Right -to -Farm because Right -to -Farm has
deed restrictions put on other people's property. There is not any negotiation going
on. That bothered her with the mineral resources and the farming rights. This was
good to give the property owner more leeway.
Sutter stated it is a requirement when doing a subdivision or binding site
plan.
Goodwin stated WCC 20.34.651 says a developer or successors in interest
would agree to refrain from legal action claiming damages. It would appear as a
covenant or deed restriction and shall run with the land.
Hoag asked if this sufficiently addresses conflicts such as helicopter logging
or blasting. Goodwin stated they probably could not sufficiently deal with those
types of issues. Insurance would deal with damage arising from those activities.
One must realize there will be adverse impacts when adjacent to forestry. The
most they can do is avoid most of the problems. The average height of a tree is
100 feet. If it were to fall, it wouldn't land on a house. It is far enough away that,
if the adjacent owner were to keep trees or plant a buffer on his or her property,
they would be buffered from any activity on the forestland, even if they clear cut up
to the property line. The County doesn't have any authority to go on the forestry
side of the property line if it is regulated by a forest practices permit.
Hoag stated they were also worried about damage to the forest from fires.
She asked if this was sufficient to address that. Goodwin stated they don't have
houses in an area unless it is within a fire district. That is a criterion for rural
forestry. All they can do is hope there would be enough fire protection.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Sutter stated the next step would be a cleared buffer. Goodwin stated a
cleared buffer is contrary to trying to prevent the impacts of the clear- cutting next
door. This would be the best they could do, other than requiring clustering away
from the forest, or having a transition zone where it wouldn't be logged or
residential.
Brenner stated they could have people on logging property that start a fire
that gets out of hand. They can't legislate against stupidity. She asked the density
size of RR -I. Goodwin stated it is three -acre lot size. In aquifer recharge areas it is
five acres. There is a density transfer provision. If one is in the aquifer recharge,
he or she could make smaller size lots outside of the aquifer recharge area and put
some of the density there. A cluster subdivision could allow smaller lots, down to
one acre.
Brenner asked about a provision for those that can't get 100 feet away from
a property line.
Sutter stated there is a general variance provision. Any lot that is
substandard has the right to apply for a variance.
Hoag asked about the plat language for a proposed subdivision. She asked
why the deed restriction could be removed by a petition. That language
undermines the point of what they just did. Goodwin stated that is the exact
language in every other zoning district that abuts rural forestry zones. Otherwise,
she didn't know why it was in there.
Brenner stated that language is ambiguous and could be interpreted in a way
that is contrary to the entire ordinance.
Hoag asked Goodwin to research the purpose of that language and bring the
information forward at the next committee meeting.
Knapp stated it may be difficult to track why it is in there. It is more
important whether or not it should be in there now. This item goes back to the
1970's.
Sutter stated it should be in there in the event of a forestry conversion. The
covenant runs with the land, and the landowner needs an option to take it off if the
adjacent property is converted from forestry. They would introduce this item and
also hold it in committee.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20.34,
REGARDING LUMMI ISLAND RR -I AMENDMENTS (AB99 -330)
Goodwin stated Lummi Island citizens requested these amendments. The
Planning Commission approved some of them and changed some of them. Most
were aimed at protecting the aquifer and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Sutter asked about WCC 20.34.150 regarding conditional uses. One of the
changes made regarded covered sales areas and associated display areas for plant
nurseries. Goodwin stated the idea was that they not create large retail operations
in an area not zoned for commercial. They are only talking about the sales area,
not the growing area.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
51
52
Brenner asked about subsection (8) regarding synthetic pesticides and
chemical fertilizers. The wording is different than that going into the Lake Whatcom
watershed overlay zone. Goodwin stated it seems there should be some
consistency.
Hoag asked if that prohibition would still exist in Lake Whatcom if the
language were changed. Goodwin stated it would because it was not zoned RR -I.
Sutter stated there was a condition in the overlay zone regarding the
requirement these activities be monitored to the State's water quality standards.
She questioned whether that language would be appropriate for both areas.
Hoag stated they should, as much as possible, use the language the
residents came up with.
Sutter asked if this was language the residents came up with. Goodwin
stated staff drafted the language. This is reasonable language for this area because
of the aquifer recharge area.
Sutter stated the difference is that Lummi Island deals with an underground
aquifer and Lake Whatcom is a surface water reservoir. The proposal on the island
is for organic fertilizers, which won't cause certain types of degradation of water
quality such as oxygen depletion.
Hoag stated they still have to be concerned with overuse.
Sutter stated section 20.34.656(3), should be Lummi Island
Subarea Plan.
Hoag asked about the goal of language throughout this section regarding 'yin
accordance with adopted zoning density requirements as applied to the entire
subdivision or short subdivision..." Goodwin stated there were citizen concerns
about the density transfer provision for clustering in an area that could later be
short - platted. They should go back to the entire subdivision and the original
density should not be exceeded.
Sutter stated this item would be introduced at the evening meeting and held
in committee. There will not be a public hearing.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20,
REGARDING SITE SPECIFIC REZONES, MASTER PLANS, AND SITE
PLAN AMENDMENTS (AB99 -331)
Goodwin recommended having a public hearing. They've come up with an
additional staff recommendation to change only one word, but it created a
substantial change about urban services in a non - industrial urban growth area.
There is no reason to require sewer if there is not going to be a use in an industrial
area.
Sutter stated they would schedule it for a public hearing on October 12.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Goodwin stated the public hearing on lot consolidation would have to be held
on October 12 or later, due to public notice requirements.
Goodwin stated this item (AB99 -331) would have to have a public hearing on
October 26.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AMENDMENT
#2 TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE CONCERNING ANNEXATION (AB99 -357)
Brenner moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated they would schedule the public hearing for the site - specific
rezone item on October 12, and the lot consolidation public hearing on October 26.
Everything will be held in committee.
Hoag asked how annexation works with the urban growth areas (UGA). She
questioned whether an annexation was automatic if the area is within the UGA.
She questioned whether there are any issues the Council has to look at.
Knapp stated all the issues were looked at before an area was determined a
UGA. Once they make the designation, it puts a huge burden on the process to go
through all those issues again. They should be consistent with the decision to
designate an area a UGA. There may be disagreement along the way that an area
should be a UGA, but that is a different issue. Those issues were looked at in light
of future 20 -year growth patterns.
Sutter stated this process allows them to look at whether there are any
changed conditions from the time the area was designated as a UGA. Knapp stated
one problem is that the cities want to ensure their development regulations are
met. He discussed the idea to send the applicant to the city first, so the conditions
of the city are included in the process.
Brenner stated they are supposed to look at whether a city is doing any in-
filling. She questioned whether Ferndale and other cities were doing any in- filling.
Knapp stated there is some in- filling going on. He would find out.
Sutter stated that was a mechanism for controlling the short -term planning
areas.
Hoag stated there needs to be a mechanism to ensure the in- filling is
occurring before the expansion is allowed.
Sutter stated that isn't practical.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
TITLE 20 ZONING TEXT (AB99 -184)
Sutter discussed retail plant nurseries as a conditional use in WCC section
20.71.154. They talked about revising that language according to Anthony Raab's
input. She proposed, "Retail or wholesale plant nurseries or greenhouses for
storage, propagation, and culture of plants provided a monitoring program has
been established to ensure that chemical and pesticide quantities in stormwater
runoff do not exceed State water quality standards. Complete control of drainage
from operation shall be in effect. Such runoff will be tested (on a periodic basis as
yet undecided) for pollutants with quarterly unannounced spot checks by a licensed
water testing agency. All requirements will be met at the owner's expense." This
would be subsection one.
Hoag stated subsections two, three, and four would apply.
Sutter stated subsection two would not be appropriate.
Knapp stated they need to consider implementation. When they receive a
call from a neighbor reporting a violation, he has to go out there, check the area
and follow through with the process of violation.
Sutter asked if Planning could call the owner and tell him or her to submit the
testing results. Knapp stated they could try to do that, however citizens don't
usually call Planning. They usually call councilmembers or the Executive. By the
time everyone has been called, Planning is the last to know. They have to
investigate and bring it forward.
staff.
Sutter stated the intent is not for there to be an increased burden on the
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Sutter continued to state they could allow retail plant nurseries and
greenhouses, but they can't use any chemicals or organic fertilizers. However, that
would be much more difficult for Planning to enforce. What is being proposed
would be less of a burden on staff than what was originally proposed. That
monitoring will be done by someone else hired by the property owner. Knapp
stated whatever happens there would be some increased requirement of staff.
Sutter stated this would require a lot less staff.
Hoag disagreed. There is a potential for people not complying, which would
require staff doing follow -up and enforcement.
Sutter stated that the way it is now, the County would be responsible for
ensuring that any greenhouse or nursery out there was not using chemicals.
Hoag stated greenhouses and nurseries don't belong in the watershed. The
benefits to the taxpayers don't justify the staff expenses.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Brenner stated she didn't agree with the assumption it would be a huge cost.
The system gets too burdensome. This is something that can be benign. It can be
a positive thing. If someone doesn't play by the rules, then they could be shut
down fast. Knapp stated they couldn't shut someone down fast. By the time it
gets to the Prosecuting Attorney, many hours of work have been done.
Sutter asked how many retail greenhouses and plant nurseries exist now in
the watershed. Goodwin stated there shouldn't be any right now.
Sutter asked how they are monitoring right now. Goodwin stated if they
come in for a permit, it is denied.
Brenner asked how much time it has taken so far. Knapp stated he didn't
have the time to look into that.
Sutter moved to add language to Conditional Uses:
.154 Retail or wholesale plant nurseries and greenhouses for storage,
propagation and culture of plants provided:
1. A monitoring program has been established to ensure that chemical
and pesticide quantities in stormwater run -off do not exceed state
water quality standards. Complete control of drainage from
operation shall be in effect. Such run -off will be tested bimonthly
for pollutants and there will be quarterly unannounced spot checks
by a licensed water testing agency. All requirements will be met
at the owner's expense." The size of the activity would be 1,000
square feet instead of 8,000 square feet. They would also add the
current subsections one and two.
Pat Jones, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated the committee directed
staff to involve the BIA in the process. This is the first he heard about it. Goodwin
stated there was a work session that BIA was invited to.
Jones stated the BIA is supportive of the concept of protection of the
watershed.
Sutter stated the public hearing is still open. She explained the process.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Sutter asked about page 12, section 20.80.525(2), regarding parking spaces
being 700 feet from the principal use. That distance seems too far. The way she
reads the regulation is that the dedicated parking for a use is their property and
their parking spaces exclusively, and can be 700 feet away. Goodwin stated it is
already in the Code as a general provision. It is for shared spaces for overflow
uses.
Hoag stated this code is for everywhere, not just the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Parking in the watershed must be shared whenever possible. This just
discusses the location of the spaces. It allows maximum flexibility for whoever
comes forward.
Sutter stated section 20.80.525(5) should be applied so they have to
establish standards. In the watershed, parking spaces should have to be within
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
700 feet to create fewer impervious surfaces. Knapp stated the 700 feet doesn't
have to be asphalt.
Sutter stated that is what it allows. It doesn't prohibit 700 feet of asphalt all
the way around the building. Goodwin stated there are impervious surface limits
and open space requirements.
Knapp suggested they insert language to ensure the 700 feet is not covered
in asphalt. The intent is to ensure one could have a parking area away from the
use. Staff can work on language.
Goodwin stated only 40 percent of a lot could be paved or impervious.
Hoag stated not more than 35% of the pervious surface area can be utilized
in paths or parking areas.
Sutter stated she wanted to look at this item further.
Hoag moved to add language on page 13, section 20.80.632(2)(b), "adjacent
properties and surface waters should be protected..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
Sutter suggested adding language on 20.80.635(1)(d), "Development shall
minimize impervious surface areas with minimal compromise of project function
and viability. Protection of groundwater and aquifer recharge are important
objectives."
Hoag asked if they were talking about groundwater and aquifer recharge.
Hoag moved "Protection of ground water and aquifer recharge..." in section
20.80.635(1)(d).
Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room
Goodwin stated Jones was present to address a concern on page 12, section
20.80.632(1)(a), "Individual detached single - family residents and duplexes are
exempt from having to have erosion and sediment control."
Jones stated he interpreted it as an exemption of existing and new single -
family from anything but the temporary facilities used during construction. It does
not provide permanent storm drainage for single - family dwellings.
Goodwin stated section 20.80.635(6) on page 14 addresses that
requirement.
Jones stated it creates a loophole for not requiring retrofitting, unless there is
a major remodel. The cause of the problem with the lake is the people that are
already living in the watershed.
Sutter asked if they should expect the individual property owner to do
retrofitting, or would the homeowner's association be responsible.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Jones stated most homeowner's associations have provisions for stormwater
facilities.
Hoag stated a lot of the problem is homes in the City of Bellingham. The
development regulations grandfather existing uses. They are addressing
development regulations for future development. She agreed with Jones, but it
needs to be addressed in a different manner. This is for the future, and doesn't
address retrofitting.
Jones stated the 50 percent is a number that lets the homeowner off the
hook. He asked why the county would allow that.
Sutter stated a remodel doesn't have to have a permit unless there is a
remodel of more than 50 percent in value of the structure. There is a threshold
where a permit is not required.
Jones stated he was surprised 50 percent was the threshold.
Sutter stated the 50 percent threshold is what the permitting requirement is.
Jones stated the permitting requirement is less than 50 percent.
Hoag suggested that it may be a 50 percent threshold on whether or not the
structure would have to be brought up to code.
Jones stated retrofitting would occur through utility local improvement
districts. People should have an incentive to create local improvement districts.
Sutter stated for now they should stick with 50 percent and look into the
options regarding retrofitting.
Jones stated on item (2) on page 14, regarding the watershed, the most
important storm event to control for run -off and erosion control is the storm that
represents the peak flow or dominant discharge of a given channel or stream. The
large storm events don't do much work because they happen so infrequently. The
most important storm event is the one -year storm event.
Sutter stated the difference is that the 25 -year event has a lot going at once.
The little changes can be more readily absorbed.
Jones stated that wasn't true. The small events collectively represent
between 75% and 90% of all the work done on streams over time. That is what
causes erosion. Whatcom County, in chapter three of the storm drainage
standards, has prescribed the one -year storm event countywide if within 1,000
horizontal feet of a stream or channel. He urged them to add the one -year storm
event to section 20.80.635(2)(x).
Sutter stated that if a homeowner could provide run -off controls for a 100 -
year storm event, they are taking care of events that are less frequent than that.
Jones stated Sutter was thinking of conveyance. They are talking about
runoff control. Runoff control limits flow rate of a system to pre - development flow
rates. The conveyance capacity is different from the rate of flow. The capacity of a
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
100 -year storm is significantly larger than the capacity of a channel that will take a
ten -year storm. The flow rate of a ten -year storm is much smaller than the 100 -
year storm. If they've only controlled the 100 -year storm, they are not going to
control the rate of flow for a more frequent storm.
Hoag stated the regulation requires the homeowner to bring it to the rate
prior to development. If a 100 -year storm event is the only one conditioned, then
any smaller storms would not be controlled because they don't have the flow rate of
a 100 -year storm event.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Jones stated the issue of controlling the rate of flow is detention. Detention
is to try to provide for flow rates out of a project or a basin that approximate the
flow rate before man did anything to the land. As development occurs, flow rates
increase. For instance, the flow rate for pre - development land might be 5 cubic
feet per second (cfs). Post - development, the flow -rate might be 12 cfs. The same
amount of water fell out of sky in both events. The conveyance system would have
been adequate to carry that amount of water. However, it is the rate the water is
released that is the control of the flow rate.
Hoag stated, for example, the two -year storm flow rate is 5 cfs. When a
landowner is required to provide controls to the rate of pre - development, then they
are required to engineer controls to release stormwater at a rate of 5 cfs. However,
if a landowner is only required to engineer stormwater controls to a hundred -year
storm event, then the landowner is only required to control stormwater to a rate of
the hundred -year, pre - development rate of flow, which may be 30 cfs. Therefore,
the smaller stormwater events will not have their flow rates controlled.
Jones stated there are critical storm events. The one -year storm even is
critical because that is where most of the erosion occurs. It is nickels and dimes in
terms of constructing the controls. The ten -year event is important because the
State Department of Ecology (DOE) has it listed. The 25 -year event affects
property damage, and the 100 -year event is important because it affects human
life.
Sutter asked how one would engineer for the different flood events. Jones
described the engineering.
Hoag moved to add the one -year storm event to section 20.80.635(2)(a).
Goodwin stated this would apply countywide.
Hoag questioned whether they need to include the one -year storm event
countywide.
Jones stated it is already there.
Goodwin stated there appears to be a discrepancy between the code and the
Development Standards.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Jones stated they need it in the entire County, with the caveat that the one -
year storm event controls only apply if within 1,000 horizontal feet of a stream or a
channel.
Goodwin suggested they include the language or the language that it is
required in a stormwater special district.
Hoag suggested they list the storm events, and then require the one -year
event separately in special districts to apply regardless of the distance from a
stream or channel.
Jones stated any place farther than 1,000 from a stream or channel, even in
the watershed, wouldn't matter.
Goodwin stated stormwater regulations are going to be re- written next year
and this will become irrelevant.
Hoag stated she did not want to require it beyond 1,000 feet except in
special districts, where it should be everywhere. She suggested "In the stormwater
special districts, or within 1,000 feet of the channel or stream in other areas, a one -
year event."
Goodwin suggested making it consistent throughout the code and requiring it
within 1,000 feet of the stream or channel.
Jones stated maintenance is also a problem in the watershed. Private
systems don't get maintained. All the efforts to control the surface water
management will go for naught if they are not maintained. Item five is hopelessly
inadequate and is not practical to do the job. The County, in the watershed, needs
a surface water utility entity that has financial capacity to do maintenance. They
would need a staff and equipment to maintain the facilities. BIA emphasized this
need when communicating to the Council.
Hoag stated they received a suggestion to require performance bonding on
these. She asked Jones if that would address the problem. Jones stated the cost
of enforcement, operation, and inspection on the part of the County to effectively
manage maintenance bonds would be same if they just did it. They could put out a
bid for a contractor.
Hoag asked how they would keep the cost on the private sector. The County
should not have to pick up the cost for maintaining these ponds. Jones stated the
County doesn't pay for anything. The taxpayers pay for everything.
Hoag stated it is the developers and the new people moving into the
development that get the benefit of a maintained system. She questioned why a
taxpayer would have to step in and pay for the maintenance when the developer or
landowner person doesn't maintain the pond.
Sutter stated that, if they set up a surface water utility, then the users of the
utility are paying for it, similar to a water bill or electric bill.
Jones stated he personally advocates the formation of a surface water utility.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
52
53
Sutter stated these are large items that need to be dealt with later, along
with the issue of 50 percent of assessed valuation threshold for detention facilities.
Hoag stated there needs to be a fallback until such utilities are formed.
Performance bonding might at least give someone a reason for keeping the system
maintained. Jones agreed. The maintenance on those facilities are critical.
Hoag asked if BIA would support performance bonding until such time as
utility districts address the problem. Jones stated he personally would support it.
He would have to ask the BIA members.
Hoag asked what are the stormwater system maintenance requirements of
the Whatcom County Development Standards. Goodwin stated they could read
them. They are in chapter three of the Development Standards.
Jones stated they were done relatively recently. They are fairly restrictive.
They don't have a performance bond requirement.
Sutter asked about item number six under Special Districts, "In areas
designated as Stormwater Special Districts, permanent on -site stormwater quality
and quantity facilities shall be required on all new construction or remodels."
The committee concurred.
Sutter asked if the next language, "...unless detention and water quality
facilities have been approved as part of a comprehensive stormwater management
plan for subdivision or major site plan approval" was redundant language.
Jones stated it is not redundant. It is consistent. One can have a project
designed and built that has a regional detention facility. Then, having any
additional on -site detention facility is redundant and a waste of money.
Sutter suggested removing the term "regional."
Hoag suggested, "...on all new construction or remodels unless regional
detention and water quality facilities have been approved as part of a
comprehensive stormwater management plan for that subdivision or major site plan
approval."
Jones stated surface water management in the Pacific Northwest is
comparatively new. There are water quality and detention facilities that were
constructed many years ago that are close to worthless because an inadequate
facility was installed. An inadequate facility should not provide an exemption. If
the facility meets current standards, then there isn't a problem. A number of them
do not meet current standards. The way the language reads, they would be
exempted.
Sutter suggested "...unless connected to a common detention and water
quality facilities that meet current standards. have been appr-eved as part ef a
The committee concurred.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, 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
OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1999 ZONING DOCKET (AB99 -326)
This item was not discussed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 9/21/99, Page 13