HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 10 19981
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
March 10, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Council Member Kathy Sutter in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
DISCUSSION REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE THE STANDARDS FOR
ACCESSORY HOUSING UNITS, THE ZONES AND LOCATIONS WHERE THEY
ARE PERMITTED AND THE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
(AB98 -072)
Sutter stated that this item is scheduled for a public hearing in two weeks. She wanted to
22 go over it and ensure that the changes the committee requested from staff were in the latest draft
23 before it was presented at the public hearing. She questioned language on Council packet page
24 161, Section 20.40. 100 on Agriculture. The committee requested that the owner of accessory
25 dwellings allowed in agriculture derive 65% of their annual household income from the
26 operation of the farm.
27
28 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that he understood
29 the intent to indicate that families working on the farm have to derive 65% of their annual
30 household income from ownership or operation. This is for a person living on the property.
31
32 Sutter stated that they were trying to ensure that the property that has accessory dwellings
33 in the agricultural zone is being used for agricultural purposes. The property use isn't for just
34 someone who has a few acres and is providing cheap rentals or seasonal worker housing on
35 property that doesn't produce.
36
37 Knapp stated that administering that provision will be very difficult.
38
39 Nelson questioned who would monitor the provision.
40
41 Brenner stated that it could be monitored by complaint.
42
43 Sutter suggested that the owner, when paying the property tax bill, submit proof that 65%
44 of the income is derived from operation of the farm.
45
Planning and Development Committee, 3/10/98, Page 1
I Knapp stated that currently there is one person with the County that is doing
2 enforcement, which is not enough.
3
4 Sutter stated that it would be tied to the tax bill. The way she interpreted the old
5 regulation is that the owner of the property, which has the dwellings, has to produce 65% of their
6 income from that piece of property.
7
8 Brenner stated that she wanted to ensure the property owner was not only doing rentals.
9 If they have workers living on the property and are making 65% of their income by working on
10 the property, then she doesn't have a problem. However, there could be an owner who also does
11 other things and has income coming in from other places, but he is still providing jobs on the
12 property for the workers. It is more important that the workers derive 65% of their income from
13 production of the farm.
14
15 Council Member Tom Brown stated that, when this was discussed previously, he didn't
16 think that this requirement was for the owner, but for the people living in the accessory
17 dwellings. He has had conversations with two different farmers. They are losing $4,000 -
18 $6,000 per month. They are making up the money they are losing by doing other work. The
19 requirement should be just for the workers.
20
21 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, suggested that
22 they limit the number of units to the number of full -time positions on that farm. Then the
23 County wouldn't have to track income level.
24
25 Knapp agreed. That would be a much better way to monitor.
26
27 Sutter suggested that section 20.40.102(6) be stricken.
28
29 Goodwin suggested that they would then need to amend section 20.40.102(1), "All
30 dwellings on the property will be occupied by persons and families engaged full -time in the
31 ownership and/or operation of the farm."
32
33 Nelson stated that a farming occupation is not there to provide supplemental income by a
34 housing development. It is there to provide a labor force. By and large, that is what they are
35 going to do. He stated that section 20.40.102(1) is fine the way it is currently written. If a
36 person only works a half a day on the farm, he is still responsible for the operation of the farm.
37 It helps in agricultural practices to have the flexibility that allows the workers to live on the farm.
38
39 Brenner stated that the reason this came up is because some people with agriculturally
40 zoned land are basically using it for cheap rentals. Goodwin's suggestion is a simple way to
41 address the problem.
42
43 Knapp stated that what can happen is that the farm owner is not making it financially. By
44 having additional units to rent out, they can survive financially.
45
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
Nelson questioned whether the purpose of the provision is to help a farmer provide an
income or to provide a labor force.
Brenner stated that the purpose is to provide a labor force.
Nelson stated that if it is to provide a labor force, then they could simply require that the
dwelling be rent -free. That is what most of the farmers do anyway.
Knapp stated that is a better suggestion.
Brenner concurred.
Brown stated that an owner in agricultural zones should only be allowed one accessory
dwellings unit, just like the other zones.
Goodwin stated that in the agricultural zone, there is often more than one dwelling unit
for the workers. In some cases, there are people who build another very nice house and later
they request that it be subdivided because it is already developed.
Sutter moved to strike section 20.40.102(6).
There was discussion about deed restrictions on selling the accessory dwelling, trailer
parks on agricultural land, temporary accessory housing, and affordable housing.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Sutter moved to add the same language that is in section 20.42.130- 20.42.132 be added to
the agricultural chapter.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved to amend section 20.40.102(1), "All dwellings on the property will be
occupied by persons and families engaged full -time in the ownership and /or operation of the
farm."
The motion was withdrawn.
There was discussion about the definition of full time in relation to the owner, temporary
dwellings, benefit to the agricultural labor force, abuse of the ordinance, and migrant housing as
a conditional or accessory use.
Sutter stated that there are three issues to be addressed. One is the no rent issue.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that they must define what a full -
time employee is. It can be whatever definition they want, but it should be defined.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/10/98, 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
Nelson suggested that they only require the employer submit a W2 form for the farm
employee.
Brenner moved, "Where the worker provides a W2 verification, along with the owner of
the property, that 65% of his income is derived from working..."
Sutter suggested a friendly amendment that they instead replace section 20.40.102(6)
with the added stipulation that the income would be verified on request by W2 forms.
Brenner accepted the friendly amendment. The language at the end of the section would
be, "...operation of the farm, verifiable by W2 forms on request."
Brenner suggested establishing a filing fee to eliminate frivolous complaints, which
would pay for the enforcement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that another issue would be the temporary or permanent nature of the home.
The suggestion would be that the homes be mobile homes, so that they can be removed at the
time they cease being used for farm workers. The mobile homes should meet current standards.
Frakes stated that it would be difficult getting the people to remove a permanent
structure, if it were no longer being used for farm workers.
There was discussion about the differences between manufactured homes, mobile homes,
and modular homes.
(Clerks Note: End of tape one, side A)
Brenner moved to amend section 20.40.102, "Additional temporary single - family
detached dwellings in the form of a manufactured home, a fully serviced travel trailer, or motor
home shall be permitted..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that they also need to discuss the size of the dwellings. It should be
something less than the permanent accessory dwelling units allowed in other zones.
There was discussion about the possible allowable sizes for the temporary homes.
Brenner moved to limit the size to 800 square feet.
Motion carried unanimously.
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
Sutter stated that section 20.40.102(2) should have language added about financing. She
suggested, "...the dwelling cannot be financed or sold separately from the farm..."
There was discussion about financing.
Brenner suggested that staff insert language everywhere that it is applicable. The intent
of the committee is that they don't allow financing separate from the farm.
The committee concurred.
Sutter questioned the purpose of section 20.40.102(4). Goodwin stated that it has always
been there.
Frakes guessed that they wanted to limit as much accessory housing as possible to
prevent each lot from having an accessory house at the expense of agricultural land.
Sutter moved to add a provision in 20.40.100. Strike 20.40.102(4), and substitute a
required minimum 40 -acre lot size for the temporary dwelling units.
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson moved to add a review clause, requiring mandatory review by the County Council
in two years.
There was discussion about whether the two -year review would actually happen and
whether a review or a sunset clause is more appropriate.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter questioned whether they should incorporate language into section 20.40.102 that is
similar to language in section 20.36.131.
Sutter moved to include the same approval requirements from sections 20.36.131,
subsections (1) through (4), (7), (9), and (10) to section 20.40.102. Subsection (4) would be
amended to state, " When daily unit is no longer necessary..." and subsection (1) would be
amended to state, "Temporary seeen dwelling units shall..."
There was discussion about the applicability of the requirements should the farm be sold.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown stated that he was concerned about the requirement of daily supervision for
elderly family members in the accessory housing. It is in most of the zoning designations.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/10/98, 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
Hoag suggested an exemption that would allow the parcel owner to keep the accessory
dwelling if they anticipate a need for it in the near future, provided that they don't rent it out.
That would keep people from turning it into a rental.
Brenner moved to remove the term "daily" in section 20.136.131(1) and 20.36.131(2).
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated that she received correspondence regarding the Birchwood Neighborhood
Association. It will be discussed in Committee of the Whole.
Sutter stated that she also received a letter from Mark Anderson regarding property that
was a gift short -plat. They now need to sell the property, but are not allowed to. She requested
that this be scheduled in committee in two weeks.
Goodwin stated that the emergency interim development regulations and emergency
short -term planning area ordinance is going to expire five days before the new one will take
place. During the evening meeting, she will bring forward an emergency interim development
regulation ordinance and an emergency short -term planning area ordinance.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Record Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member