HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council September 14 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
Special County Council
September 14, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Absent:
Kathy Sutter
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Tom Brown
Barbara Brenner (arrived 10:15 a.m.)
Robert Imhof
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO 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)
Michael Knapp, recommended approval in some form. The Council should
think about implementation and the staff resources needed to do this additional
work. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) this year have doubled. They still need Code
work in the watershed. It is hard to do it in the manner proposed without
additional support. They need one more staff person for code enforcement and
following up on regulations. There has been a significant increase in regulations.
This year there has been one new regulation every three weeks that staff has been
doing. Implementation relates to how effective they are. Effectiveness depends on
ensuring there is staff to do the work. They can't stretch out the timeframes due to
regulatory reform. They are stuck with not doing the work as well or finding
additional resources. He strongly supported the document in some form.
Hoag agreed. When going through the work session as a committee, they
kept in mind the staffing requirements when making decisions about whether to
outright disallow a use or allow a use conditionally.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, came
to the podium.
Sutter stated the Table of Contents included four circled items. Those four
items were ready to come forward and could go through committee quickly. She
recommended they be introduced on September 21.
Hoag asked what the rush was. Goodwin stated she would rather prepare
the ordinance ahead of time than at the eleventh hour. In addition, the budget and
various other Planning Commission items will be coming up. She asked each
Councilmember to call her if there are any concerns. She would be putting the
ordinance together the following week. She could prepare one ordinance including
all four items, or separate ordinances for each item.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Sutter stated it would go in committee and also be up for introduction on
September 21, then it would go through committee and be adopted the following
meeting.
Regarding the Lake Whatcom regulations, Goodwin suggested they go
through the notes she made during the public hearing and on calls she received
afterward. Pat Jones made a comment during the hearing that, on page 6, Area
and Applicability was not clear. She suggested they add for clarification, "outside
the City of Bellingham."
Hoag suggested "within Whatcom County jurisdiction."
Dawson stated that would be a scrivener's error.
Goodwin stated Anthony Raab commented on page 8, section 20.71.153(1),
that animal hospitals and kennels should be allowed within 50 feet of the adjacent
property line if they had written permission from the adjacent owner. It is not a
water quality issue. She was concerned that a current owner may give his or her
permission, but a subsequent property owner might not want it.
Sutter stated they could put a note on the deed, or create some sort of
permanent notification.
Goodwin stated they are talking about the Rural, Rural Forestry, and
Commercial Forestry zones. These zones have large lots, and there won't be many
reasons for putting a kennel right next to the property line.
Hoag stated she didn't agree because property owners change, and a new
neighbor might not agree. Also, it would require more staff time to check the
status.
Sutter stated it would just be a checklist item when someone makes an
application for that use. It would be the applicant's responsibility to bring in a
letter of permission.
Hoag asked if there was anything on property lines where this might serve as
a buffer to anything that might be next to the property of another zone. Goodwin
stated an animal enclosure could be a pasture. It wouldn't hurt to have a pasture
next to a forest. Building setbacks would at least make them fire safe.
Hoag stated she wanted the definition of "enclosure" checked. Goodwin
stated she was sure there wasn't a definition in Title 20.
Dawson stated they would need the definition of an animal enclosure
because that would be the neighbors main concern.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Sutter stated they could say, "no building or animal enclosure, not including
fences." They don't want to make people have to get a permit to put up a fence.
They need to except fences from requiring an owner's permission.
Hoag agreed. She questioned how they would handle the situation of
someone putting in a kennel with a lot of fences right next to someone's property.
Goodwin stated that could be next to the property. She suggested "pasture"
instead of "fence."
Knapp stated an enclosure would typically mean a structure, in this instance.
Hoag stated the definition of enclosure should be defined as something that
protects the animals from the elements. The enclosure should include all structures
that house and protect the animals, such as kennels and runs.
Goodwin stated they would need to do a search of the word "enclosure" to
see if the word is used in other instances in the Code. They would have to define
"animal enclosure."
Hoag stated they would define animal enclosure, and not include fences.
Sutter stated she agreed with Raab's suggestion. She suggested it be
recorded on the deed.
Hoag stated one neighbor might not care about the use, but a subsequent
owner might.
Sutter stated that the person considering buying the property wouldn't buy it
if they are notified of the use and disagree with it. They do it with agriculture.
Hoag stated that would eventually cause problems. With agriculture, there
are very good reasons not to do it, because it inhibits people being able to farm the
land. In this instance, it doesn't hurt anyone if they can't put an animal enclosure
within 50 feet of a property line.
Dawson asked for an example of doing it in agriculture.
Sutter stated a cluster subdivision in an agricultural protection area has to
have a notification on a deed of the houses that there are agricultural practices next
door.
Goodwin stated in Title 20 zoning, in the Rural zone, an animal hospital and
kennel are restricted from being 50 feet from a property line. It is not just Lake
Whatcom, it is throughout the County.
Knapp read the definition of a barn from Title 20.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Goodwin stated the underlying zoning still prohibits any animal enclosure. It
makes sense to leave it as it is, and include the definition only.
Hoag stated they need to be clear in the definition that it doesn't include
pastures and property line fences.
Hoag stated she wanted to go back and check the previous recommendation,
regarding 20.71.021, was to separate everything out and then ensure all the zones
are included. They were to also add language to reference special stormwater
districts and special management areas with clearings. Goodwin stated everything
in this draft included what the committee added.
Goodwin stated the next item was golf courses and cemeteries, page 8.
Sutter stated she had a concern on page 7, regarding the private, non-
commercial fish ponds. Goodwin stated that is now on pages 8 -9.
Sutter stated Raab didn't want this to be a prohibited use. He wanted a
provision made for private, non - commercial fishponds to be an allowed or
conditional use. Goodwin stated the suggestion would be that the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife would approve it. She already included it on
section 20.71.205, which exempts non - commercial fishponds from prohibition, as
long as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife approves them.
Sutter suggested, ".205 Aquaculture and mariculture projects,. „t"„_ tha
Fish hatcheries and private non - commercial fish ponds are exempted if approved by
the Department of Fish and Wildlife."
Hoag and Dawson agreed.
Sutter asked how burdensome the new conditional uses they have added are
going to be. There are four new conditional uses. Knapp stated he estimated one
additional person for code enforcement and additional work with conditional uses
would be needed.
Goodwin stated on -site storage and solid waste facility uses are already
conditional uses, as are animal kennels. They have just added to the conditions.
Knapp stated it adds to the number of requests coming in.
Hoag stated on .151 suggested adding. '...other than cottage industries as
defined under prohibited uses."
Goodwin stated there have been comments that golf courses and cemeteries
do not have any more impact than lawns and should not be prohibited. Raab also
made that comment.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Hoag stated they received comments that one wouldn't be able to run a
greenhouse or nursery with these conditions. They should not be permitted at all.
Creating conditions increases staff time, and it is easier they just be prohibited.
Goodwin stated prohibition was what the Planning Commission agreed to originally.
One tiny use would cause increased staffing and enforcement, and it wouldn't be
worth it.
Goodwin stated realistically there wouldn't be a productive greenhouse or
nursery without being able to use organic or inorganic fertilizer.
Hoag stated this was the stuff that would end up in the water and they don't
want in the lake.
Sutter suggested adding the word "commercial." They should not preclude
someone from having a small plastic greenhouse in their backyard.
Hoag stated this was dealing with retail businesses. One can do it with a
conditional use permit, but can't use any fertilizers, which is unrealistic. She
wanted to put nurseries under prohibited uses.
Sutter asked what they would do then with section 20.71.154(4). Goodwin
suggested they take out the word "retail" and say those uses would be conditioned,
strike sections .154(1) and .154(2), and leave in that they can't be larger than
8,000 feet or closer to the lake.
Hoag stated they would need to replace the word "retail" with "private."
Goodwin agreed.
Sutter stated they would then be making a homeowner get a CUP to put up a
small plastic greenhouse in the back yard.
Goodwin stated they could move this use to permitted uses.
Hoag stated they would need to include a size threshold smaller than 8,000
square feet. "private, non - commercial greenhouses not bigger than 250 square
feet on a residential property, for storage propagation and culture of plants." It
would be moved to permitted uses, item .052.
Goodwin stated there was comment about picking on greenhouses, which are
enclosed, when the County allows agriculture, which goes right up to the lake.
Hoag stated they shouldn't allow agriculture in the watershed. They only
allow agriculture with a conservation plan, which would not allow agricultural uses
right up to the lake. Agricultural uses only kick in if there are five or more animal
units. They could lower the animal units required. Goodwin stated that right now it
is consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
Hoag stated they might have to be tighter in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A.)
Hoag stated she was for agricultural uses, but not in the watershed.
Sutter asked if, according to the CAO, a farmer was subject to the buffers in
the CAO if they didn't have a farm plan. Goodwin stated she believed it is only if
one has five or more animal units.
Sutter suggested they make it so the prohibitions apply to the greenhouses
and the agriculture in the same way. On page 8, section .154(4), would be the
condition that greenhouses and agricultural uses must meet.
Goodwin suggested adding private non - commercial greenhouses to the
agriculture section.
Hoag stated private greenhouses are different than agriculture.
Goodwin stated the intent was to combine them and make them subject to
the conditions in .154(4)
Hoag preferred two separate items, both subject to .154(4).
Sutter stated Goodwin and she would come up with new language.
Goodwin questioned whether the intent was to combine or separate
agriculture and greenhouses, and make section .154(4) the setbacks for both.
Hoag stated that was correct. Her preference was to separate the items.
Goodwin stated the CAO says preexisting agriculture could exist within the
buffer of a critical area or wetland, as long as it is not more than five animal units.
New agriculture would have to be outside or get a farm plan.
Sutter questioned whether they could make existing uses conform to new
rules. Goodwin stated they couldn't, unless they amortize it over time, in which
case people must comply after a certain period of time.
Sutter asked what would happen if they didn't comply. Goodwin stated the
County would issue a citation.
Hoag stated the buffers they have set up might not be compatible for both
greenhouses and agricultural uses.
Sutter stated these activities are subject to CAO, no matter what. Goodwin
stated that was correct. They already have to be 100 feet away.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Hoag stated the CAO doesn't include agricultural uses for less than five
animal units.
Sutter stated it does for new uses, not existing uses. This doesn't apply to
existing uses either.
Hoag questioned whether the CAO applies to new uses, existing uses, less
than five animal units, or more than five animal units. Goodwin stated the CAO
covers new uses, not existing uses.
Goodwin stated the CAO interprets old existing plats as allowed to be
developed, because of vested rights.
Knapp stated they would need a mitigation plan if they go into the 100 -foot
buffer. One must increase the potential for water - related planting or other
mitigation efforts to enhance the habitat along the stream or lake. Some lots are
too small to construct the house with the 100 -foot setback. In that situation, one
can mitigate by installing various types of vegetation.
Sutter stated they only need to make the private, non - commercial
greenhouses permitted, and the setbacks would be covered under the CAO.
Goodwin stated the current Code says greenhouses in the Lake Whatcom
watershed and Lummi Island have to operate chemical -free.
Sutter asked if the greenhouse size has to be 250 square feet or less.
Goodwin stated it is not defined and there are no limits. They are going to work on
that next year. This issue came up on Lummi Island.
Sutter stated they don't need section .154(4) any longer.
Hoag asked if the cultivation of crops would be covered under the CAO.
Goodwin stated it would, except preexisting cultivated areas that are less than 2
acres in size could still be within a buffer. A lot of the development is on the road
on the other side of the lake. A lot of the properties along the lake don't have
cultivation of crops, because there isn't space.
Hoag stated they are talking about getting rid of section .154, and moving
the 250 square feet greenhouse over to permitted uses. She questioned whether
they would be carrying .154(4)
Sutter stated it wasn't necessary
Goodwin stated they decided .052 would say, "Private, non - commercial
greenhouses of less than 250 square feet."
All councilmembers present concurred.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Hoag asked where they are on the protection of the watershed regarding
agricultural uses that involve less than five animal units. Goodwin stated there is
no protection. They could strike "less than five animal units" and say they will be
setback 250 feet or get a conservation plan.
Hoag stated 250 feet from the water is more than they need.
Sutter stated they could just leave it subject to the CAO.
Hoag stated it wasn't covered under the CAO. That is the problem if they are
right on the banks of the stream. She suggested a 50 -foot set back on existing
agricultural uses of less than five animal units.
Knapp stated they should default to 100 -feet to be consistent with the CAO.
Hoag stated less than five animal units would have less of an impact.
Knapp stated it would be more difficult to track.
Sutter preferred it be a 100 -foot setback. They should bring it to the council.
Hoag stated she didn't want to put people over the barrel.
Knapp stated they would be unhappy no matter what the regulation is, if
they can go to the bank currently. If there is a variation between the regulations, it
creates an additional workload for staff.
Hoag stated that a 100 -foot buffer takes away land people could use.
Goodwin suggested a 100 -foot buffer or the option to work with the
Conservation District to do a Conservation plan.
Hoag agreed.
Goodwin asked about golf courses and cemeteries as a prohibited or
conditional use and subject to a pesticide and fertilizer management plan.
Hoag asked if they agreed that section .052 would be private non-
commercial greenhouses less than 250 square feet. Goodwin stated that was
correct.
Sutter stated they should discuss the information regarding fertilizers and
lawns. Goodwin stated there was an ordinance that would further limit pesticide
application on private lawns. The Planning Department staff could accept direction
from council to go forward with such an ordinance.
Sutter stated they would need direction from the entire council.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Goodwin stated it would be a big enforcement issue.
Sutter stated they could allow cemeteries and golf courses as long as they
approve an ordinance that restricts the application of pesticides. Goodwin stated
they could have an approved management plan.
Sutter stated she would rather leave it out for now, and do it all at once
later. They would look at the example ordinance from the city of Burlington,
Vermont.
Dawson and Hoag agreed.
Sutter suggested a countywide provision for chemical and pesticide
prohibition.
Goodwin asked if they would, for now, leave golf courses and cemeteries
prohibited.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived at 10 :15 a.m.)
Hoag moved on page 6, under 20.71.021, "...Watershed..., within Whatcom
County jurisdiction."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved on page 7, section 20.71.051 "...Critical Areas Ordinance. Pre-
existing units with less than five animal units will observe a 100 -foot buffer unless
they have a conservation plan allowing a smaller buffer."
Brenner asked what happens if a farmer has more than five animal units.
Hoag stated that a farmer with more than five animal units is already
required to have a Conservation Plan.
Brenner asked about a pre- existing use of less than five animal units, and
whether the Conservation District will be able to do a plan for those with small lots.
Goodwin stated they would do a plan.
Anthony Raab, 2834 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated he has two
horses and is 500 feet from the lake. There is a small drainage ditch that flows six
to seven months of the year. Nearly all the pastureland is within 100 feet of the
ditch.
Hoag stated the problem is the animals next to the drainage ditch carry the
pollutants into the drinking water. The Conservation Plan will take into account
conditions such as soil and types of animals.
Raab stated he was concerned about writing it in.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Dawson stated property owners need to be aware of their effects on the lake.
Sutter suggested they check with the Conservation District to see if they will
do plans for the smaller property owners.
Hoag stated they already said they do.
Goodwin stated the County has a contract with the Conservation District that
requires them to do it.
Brenner stated she was concerned about hard rules that will put someone out
of business.
Hoag stated there are problems with the water and it will have to be done.
Brenner stated the Conservation District should be more flexible. If the
property owner can prove he has other ways to deal with the nutrients, then the
Conservation District should be flexible enough to allow the alternate methods
without requiring the property owner to stay 50 or 100 feet away from the ditch.
Sutter asked if they are going to require people to sell their animals if they
don't meet the requirements.
Dawson stated it would be more devastating if a child got sick from the
water.
Raab stated his property is in control of liquid run -off that should be handled.
The run -off could be dealt with by alternative methods.
Goodwin stated the Conservation District could look at his proposed plan and
then approve it.
Hoag stated she appreciated the concerns of Council Member Brenner and
Mr. Raab. The Conservation District Board is made up of farmers. It is not a
government agency to prohibit agriculture. They are to promote agriculture.
Brenner stated she wanted to require people do it the best they can, but not
be prohibited if they don't meet a set of criteria.
Sutter stated she was concerned about the time it would take to get a
conservation plan. They need to give the property owner a timeline of six months.
Hoag suggested they check with the Conservation District and see if that is
realistic.
Brenner suggested adding an administrative appeal process through the
County Council, staff, or the Hearing Examiner.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Knapp stated the Conservation District decision could be appealed to staff,
then to the Hearing Examiner, then to the County Council.
The Council concurred to add the administrative appeal process and the six -
month timeline to the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to create section 20.71.052, "Private, non - commercial
greenhouses 250 square feet or less, subject to the Critical Areas Ordinance
setbacks." It would be a permitted use.
Raab stated he wanted retail and wholesale commercial uses to be allowed.
Hoag stated they went back to the Planning Commission recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend section .151, "...other than cottage industries as
defined under prohibited uses in this chapter."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated there was a scrivener's error in section .150 "...prohibited by this
chapte , made conditional..."
Hoag stated that staff would create a definition of "animal enclosure" to
exclude property line fences and pastures.
Hoag moved to strike section .154, which allows nurseries and greenhouses.
They've allowed the small private greenhouses elsewhere. Planning Commission
originally prohibited them.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Raab suggested 1,000 square feet as a minimum for a commercial
greenhouse.
Brenner stated she was only concerned about people already existing, not
people who may want to do it in the future.
Raab stated he was already within the 50 -foot boundary with his animals.
Knapp stated he is vested.
Hoag stated it matches the underlying zoning.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Sutter stated she had different ideas than mom and pop selling a roadside
stand for the definition of a commercial nursery.
Hoag asked if mom and pop stands are legal. Goodwin stated farm stands
are exempt from having to have a business license.
Sutter stated that retail plant nurseries refer to a retail establishment that is
there for profit making. If one is going to build a commercial plant nursery, they
would have to get a permit. She questioned whether they could require that,
before there is permit approval, they have a management plan in place that meets
approval.
Hoag stated they should not put a potential problem in a drinking water
watershed.
Sutter asked if the Conservation District does pesticide and fertilizer pest
management programs. Goodwin stated she didn't think so, but the underlying
zoning requires chemical -free uses in the watershed. They are going to define
chemical -free.
Brenner asked if it was never an outright permitted use. Goodwin stated it is
now conditional.
Sutter asked if chemical -free greenhouses would be allowed in the underlying
zoning if they delete that section. If they delete this section, then they delete some
of the extra restrictions. Right now, a greenhouse doesn't have to be more than
250 feet from Lake Whatcom.
Hoag stated the Planning Commission prohibited plant nurseries and
greenhouses. The Planning Committee changed the use to wholesale and broke out
retail as a conditional use. They want to go back to the Planning Commission
version, which would remove the retail from the conditional use and put it back as a
prohibited use.
Sutter asked if they strike section with the provisions of not allowing
chemical and organic pesticide and fertilizer use, limit the size, and limit the
distance to 250 feet, then what would be allowed in the underlying zoning.
Goodwin read from the code regarding the Rural zone. There is no limit on the size
of the greenhouse, but must it be on a collector road and other conditions. Now,
one couldn't have a wholesale greenhouse. One could have a retail greenhouse
that is chemical -free.
Sutter stated it doesn't specify a distance from a water body. If they leave
the section in, then they leave in the extra conditions on the plant nurseries in the
watershed.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Hoag stated allowing a retail nursery without allowing chemicals or organic
fertilizer would not encourage any greenhouses. It would be better to be banned
because it would require less enforcement.
Motion to remove the section failed 2 -2 with Sutter and Brenner in favor.
Sutter asked what additional provisions could be made that aren't already
covered in the proposed chapter or by the underlying zoning.
Dawson stated there is an issue regarding the owner's expense.
Knapp stated he understood that it might be worthwhile to increase the
allowable size to 1,000 square feet, but the problem is enforcement.
Sutter stated that it would be the owner's responsibility to test the run -off,
and there will be two unannounced spot checks by a licensed water - testing agency
that would be at the owner's expense. All the County has to do is receive the
report from the water - testing agency.
Hoag questioned what happens if a property's test results are not acceptable.
Brenner stated they would be shut down.
Knapp stated his professional judgement was that this was very risky.
However, the Council can do that.
Hoag stated they tried to achieve a balance between not being unreasonable
with the landowners and providing protection. The length in which they are going
in order to allow a use doesn't have a gain. She questioned what would be so
beneficial that makes it worth that.
Brenner stated they are allowing people to use their property in a reasonable
way. Raab's proposal does not sound unreasonable.
Brenner moved an amendment that they restrict greenhouses from being
larger than 1,000 square feet.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to insert that there would be two unannounced spot- checks
per year by a licensed water - testing agency and paid for by the property owner.
Raab stated a property owner could probably absorb the cost of three -spot
checks, if Planning was uncomfortable with only two checks.
Brenner stated the property owner should also test monthly and send results
to Planning and Development Services. They should also do quarterly spot- checks.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Sue Blake, Planning and Development Services Water Resources Planner,
stated she liked the intent of the motion. However, the dilemma with staff is if
there is not someone who monitors who does the sampling, then someone could
come in with a monitoring program that will have to be updated by the property
owner and staff. They can do it, but it takes staff resources.
Brenner questioned whether that could be included in the cost of the permit.
Blake stated they could do that.
Dawson asked if they really want that in the watershed.
Sutter stated the County is depending on the private sector to do septic tank
installation and monitoring. They provide a list of approved septic designers. They
could do the same thing with the fertilizer management program or the water
testers. The only staff time expense is when the reports come in. They would need
annual or quarterly reports and testing.
Knapp stated they could get a proliferation of property owners doing this. In
the next 20 years, this area is going to experience incredible growth. If the Council
does this, they need to keep in mind the required resources. It would increase the
staff time to review the reports. They get complaints all the time. It would involve
staff time to investigate complaints.
Sutter suggested that anyone coming to this County that wants to do a plant
nursery or greenhouse is not likely to go to the watershed because of all the
restrictions. If they put this in there, it would be at the owner's expense. They
would require monthly testing and quarterly reports. There will not be a
proliferation of small plant nurseries under 1,000 square feet.
Hoag stated the proposed language does not say who would approve the
pesticide and fertilizer management program. Also, she proposed a friendly
amendment that they should amend the motion to include "stormwater runoff
would not exceed State drinking water quality standards."
Brenner accepted Hoag's friendly amendment.
Blake stated the drinking water standards might not be a good resource for
referral. They refer to water coming out of the faucet after treatment. Even water
in the cleanest part of the lake does not meet drinking water standards.
Brenner asked Blake if she was comfortable leaving it "State water quality
standards." Blake stated she was. Those will be plenty restrictive.
Hoag disagreed that those standards would not be stringent enough. Also,
there are more ramifications to staff other than reviewing a report. They also have
to track whether the reports are coming in like they are supposed to and what
happens if there is a failure.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Hoag stated Raab's suggested language would become section .154(5).
Sutter stated they need to leave out the reference to chemical and pesticide
quantities, since they are not allowed.
Goodwin stated a restriction against using pesticides and herbicides would
ensure the monitoring wouldn't show traces of those chemicals.
Sutter stated that if they ban inorganic fertilizers and all chemicals, then they
might as well ban the entire thing.
Brenner stated they should hold this item for the full Council.
Sutter suggested that all of this be done at the owner's expense. Also, they
need to include a timeline for testing.
Brenner restated her motion to require quarterly unannounced spot- checks
and monthly testing by the property owner.
Knapp suggested they also say the staffing costs would be borne by the
property owner.
Dawson stated Council members Brenner and Sutter would further work on
the issue of staffing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag moved to amend page 9, section .205 'x.205 Aquaculture and
mariculture projects,. ether- thaff Fish hatcheries and private non - commercial fish
ponds are exempted if approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife."
Brenner questioned why the Department of Fish and Wildlife would approve a
small fishpond.
Dawson stated they do anyway.
Hoag stated that way, they don't end up with diseased fish in the watershed.
Brenner asked about already existing private ponds. Goodwin stated
everything that is already existing would be grandfathered in.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated she had serious concerns about section 20.71.302. She was
concerned about limiting the 10,000 square feet of impervious surface down to
60 %. That is putting it down to a 4,000 square foot pad for the house, driveway,
and parking, which is tight. People should not be penalized if they have a larger
lot. That is what they are trying to encourage.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Brenner stated it is larger than 10,000 square feet. Goodwin stated it is 50%
for everyone except those that have a larger lot, which has a higher percentage
that has to be impervious.
Brenner stated a property owner could build up instead of out.
Hoag stated they should not have that much impervious surface. The reports
show the impervious surfaces have an impact on stormwater.
Goodwin recommended leaving it at 50% in the UR, UR -M and UR -MX zones.
If someone wants to buy a larger lot, then they can have a larger house.
Hoag stated all the zones that are right on the lake are highly concentrated.
They don't want new houses that are bigger.
Goodwin stated she didn't have a concern, but just wanted to bring it to their
attention.
Sutter stated she has received some comment regarding the roof overhang,
in section .402. Eighteen inches seems to be too small. Goodwin stated that goes
into the side yard.
Sutter stated it is also for the rear yard. She questioned what to do if the
overhang in the rear was also the roof of the deck.
Goodwin questioned whether it would extend into the rear yard setback.
Sutter stated it doesn't say anything about setbacks for the side and rear
yards, just the front.
Goodwin stated it is intended to mean rear yard setbacks.
Dawson stated they need to include the word "setbacks."
Hoag moved to include, '...side or rear yards setbacks. Such overhangs..."
into that section.
Brenner asked the size of the typical overhang. Knapp stated the typical size
is 18 inches to two feet.
Raab stated intrusion into setbacks is appropriate, however they've already
dictated the impervious surface allowed on a lot.
Knapp stated it is already in the code, just omitted from this section.
Hoag asked about the intent of the Planning Commission. Goodwin stated
the intent was to protect the setback.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, 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
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Sutter asked about the parking requirements, section .602(A)(1)(b), and if
they want shopping developments in the watershed. Goodwin stated there are a
few neighborhood commercial areas that have small strip malls.
Brenner suggested removing "shopping center" and change it to
"commercial."
Hoag stated they would subject all the commercial uses to that requirement
if they change the word to "commercial."
Sutter suggested only striking "shopping center." It is covered under Mixed
Use.
Dawson stated, "Mixed use and shepping eer9te,F developments with similar
operating hours..." Goodwin stated a multi- tenant retail or commercial facility could
be subject to shared parking.
Motion to delete the words failed 3 -1 with Hoag opposed. A majority of the
entire Council, four votes, is needed to approve the motion.
Hoag stated she needed more assurance that "shopping center
developments" are covered under the Mixed Uses.
Dawson stated Goodwin assured them that they are covered.
Goodwin stated section 20.71.602(A) talks about minimum parking
requirements being lessened if certain methods are used, including multi- tenant
retail or commercial facility. That is what the entire thing is for.
Hoag stated it doesn't end up with the same result.
Goodwin suggested the language "mixed use and commercial developments."
Sutter stated that was redundant.
Goodwin stated that it was redundant, but it would make it very clear.
Hoag stated if they have Mixed Uses and shopping centers with similar hours,
then they are required to submit a plan together. Goodwin stated Mixed Uses
wouldn't all have to be commercial. There could be a church or a school that
operate on different hours and could combine their parking spaces.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag asked if the point was that the mixed uses and the developments have
to submit a plan for similar hours. Goodwin stated it was not two different things.
They are talking about multi- tenant retail and commercial.
Sutter stated a shopping center has different businesses. They would be
addressing whether or not the individual businesses in the center would have
similar hours and could share parking. They don't have to integrate a shopping
center with all of these things into a mixed use. A shopping center itself is a mixed
use.
Greg Rustand, Planning Commissioner, stated that the term "Mixed Use"
allows the conditional use permits and everything else.
Hoag asked the intent. Rustand stated it was language from staff and the
Planning Commission didn't discuss it much.
Hoag asked what staff's intention was when they wrote the language.
Goodwin stated they were looking at areas that could share parking.
Hoag asked how far the area extends and how many people have to get
together to do the study. Goodwin stated it could be as small as two businesses.
It would have to be within a reasonable walking distance.
Hoag suggested "Mixed adjacent uses."
Goodwin stated she would come up with a distance.
Brenner stated they would run into the problem of mixed uses overlapping
each other. Goodwin stated the bottom line is that it has to be approved by the
zoning administrator. It is not a big deal. It is just to try and reduce the number of
unnecessary parking spaces. Obviously a business is not going to reduce the
number of parking spaces to so few that his clients wouldn't have a space to park.
Goodwin stated the Public Works Department had a concern with section
20.71.603 regarding the use of alternative surfacing methods. It requires all
private roads to be pervious materials, which could include bark. She suggested
that wasn't appropriate for private roads and fire lanes.
Hoag moved to make the use of pervious materials on private roads and fire
lanes encouraged, not required.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin asked what a stopping lane is. She suggested they strike that
language.
Knapp stated it is a wide shoulder for pulling off.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag suggested that "stopping lanes" be encouraged instead of required.
Dawson moved to delete the term "stopping lane," and include the term
"road shoulder" as being encouraged for use of pervious materials.
Motion carried unanimously.
Goodwin stated she has had several calls saying the vehicular access isn't a
watershed issue. There is no point in limiting the number or distance of curb cuts.
She agreed with the comments.
Hoag stated this has to do with impervious surfaces.
Sutter moved to strike the last sentence of section 20.71.604, "Access points
to arterial and collectors should not be closer than 400 feet apart except where
physical constraints make closer access points more appropriate."
Hoag stated the point is they don't want a lot more driveways that would
create more impervious surfaces. If access points are not closer than 400 feet,
then they will end up with people sharing driveways.
Brenner asked how they could force someone to share the driveway on their
property with someone else. Goodwin stated they couldn't.
Brenner questioned whether Goodwin believed a shared driveway would
result in less impervious surfaces. Goodwin stated it definitely would, and it is
encouraged in another section. The first three sentences are okay. She
understood the perspective that the 400 feet is somewhat arbitrary, especially
when a lot of the areas are UR -4, where the lot itself is only 100 feet wide.
Motion failed 1 -3 with Sutter in favor.
Sutter asked why they picked 400 feet and if it was based on a reasonable
assessment. Goodwin stated the Technical Advisory Committee JAC) came up
with that from a sample ordinance from California.
Raab stated the State Department of Transportation (DOT) standards for
sight distance safety is 350 feet.
Sutter stated that it was a design matter. She wanted justification for the
number. Goodwin stated there wasn't any justification. It was an arbitrary
number.
air.
Hoag stated it is probably based on traffic studies and is not drawn out of the
Sutter stated it is a safety issue.
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Goodwin suggested adding on page 11 -12, section 20.71.700, "A rural road
standard may be approved by the Whatcom County Public Works Department for
urban density residential areas..."
Brenner asked if they can make a smaller road if they want to. Goodwin
stated they can, if it says so in this code.
Dawson so moved.
Knapp stated the Public Works Department would go by their standards.
Brenner stated the Public Works Department doesn't allow for smaller
standards. Goodwin stated Public Works has two standards, urban and rural. They
can use the rural standard in the urban area if they want. They would want to go
narrower, to the rural road standards, for now. They would then look at all the
road standards, which the TAC is working on, and come up with a narrow standard
for this area.
Motion to add the language carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION
1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
LAND USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICIATIONS FACILITIES
(AB99 -317A)
Hoag moved to accept the introduction item.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 11 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Meeting, 9/14/99, Page 20