HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 9 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 October 9, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the Council
7 Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Ward Nelson
11 Barbara Brenner
12
13
14 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
15
16 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO
17 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
18 PURPOSE OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
19 COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169F)
20
21 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that the
22 committee has the Planning Commission's recommended version, which is different than the
23 adopted, interim regulations. Planning Commission accepted all of the staff changes. Staff is
24 recommending that the Planning Commission version move forward.
25
26 Sutter stated that section 20.20.010 is the "Purpose" statement for the urban residential
27 section. The only changes are housekeeping changes, to eliminate obsolete language. Section
28 20.20.015 is applicability of urban residential.
29
30 Goodwin clarified that the highlights and strikeouts are changes from the codified
31 version. The "Applicability" section refers to the rest of the entire section, where there is the
32 language "short term planning areas." There are several areas where this has created a problem,
33 including the resort recreational subdivisions and the small towns. There are several of those
34 areas in the Columbia Valley, Mt. Baker rim, and in Point Roberts, which are all zoned UR4.
35 The restriction that makes density one unit per five acres outside of short term planning areas
36 (STPA) means that there is a down -zone of all of those areas. There are a couple of options to
37 fix. There is a copy of a section of Title 20 dealing with Urban Residential. The changes in the
38 staff's suggested changes are bolded text. In section 20.20.015, add the wording "Resort
39 Recreational subdivision" throughout. The main change would be on the last page, page five,
40 regarding density. This is an issue of what the County really wants and intends to do with
41 density in the small towns and resort recreational areas. The Comprehensive Plan policy 2R
42 clearly says that if the property is in an urban growth area outside of a short term planning area,
43 then it will be zoned one unit per five acres. The policy doesn't deal with resort recreational
44 subdivision in small towns that are also Urban Residential (UR).
45
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
Hoag questioned which areas are mainly affected. Goodwin responded that the main
areas are small towns, such as Acme and Point Roberts. It may have been Council's intent to
down -zone those areas. There are areas that have been a continuing concern, including areas of
Drayton Harbor and Birch Bay. Two areas of concern are the long term planning areas of urban
growth areas and resort recreational subdivisions in small towns. All of Point Roberts is down -
zoned. A proposal to change that is to designate the one unit per five acres only outside of the
STPA, small towns, and resort recreational subdivisions. There aren't any crossroads
commercial areas that are zoned residential. Make the designation one dwelling per two acres if
it is cluster subdivision.
Hoag questioned whether they need to separate areas where health, hazard, and critical
areas necessitate provision of sewers.
Sutter stated that if they have public facilities, then those are urban level services. She
questioned why they would be limited to one unit per five acres. Goodwin stated that it would
be one unit per five acres unless it is a cluster. If it is a cluster, then they need to change the
density. She intended to make the cluster one unit per two acres if it has water and sewer. The
minimum overall lot size is 6,000 square feet. If the committee liked the idea, she could write it
more clearly.
Hoag questioned whether gross density is one unit per two acres, and conventional is one
unit per five acres, if the landowner is only dividing the lot.
Sutter stated that doesn't make sense. Gross density matched the conventional
everywhere else. Gross density is zone density. A cluster allows a smaller lot size with the same
density. Goodwin stated that they need to figure out what they want, then write it.
Brenner stated that if someone is given a bonus, they aren't given the same density. They
are given one extra, with smaller lot sizes.
Goodwin stated that they don't want two -acre zoning urban sprawl in the County. They
might want smaller lots clustered with wide open spaces.
Sutter stated that the Drayton Harbor residents did not want to be down - zoned. She
questioned whether they would require five -acre minimum lot sizes in small town resort
recreational areas. That would include Sudden Valley. Goodwin responded that Sudden Valley
is already fully platted.
taking.
Brown stated that wasn't the intent in any of the small towns.
Sutter stated that the County does not have the money to pay people compensation for
Goodwin stated that the solution may be to rezone all those people instead of trying to fix
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 2
I the urban residential zoning. Change the zoning. That would be one option.
2
3 Hoag stated that everyone outside the short term planning areas and small town resort
4 recreational subdivision areas have to be one unit per five acres, to get away from the R2 sprawl.
5 Within those areas, Goodwin suggested allowing the one unit per two acres in clustering.
6
7 Goodwin stated that they ought to rezone. An emergency resolution was brought forward
8 at the last meeting, which suggested they rezone the small towns. Maybe they need to get rid of
9 the urban residential (UR) designation in the small town and rezone them to rural.
10
11 Brenner questioned why a small town couldn't have three or four units per acre.
12 Goodwin stated that they could. Brown stated that they should.
13
14 Goodwin stated that most of the small towns don't have water and sewer.
15
16 Sutter stated that inside small town or resort recreational areas, it doesn't make sense to
17 have five acres.
18
19 Anthony Raab, 2834 North Shore Road, Bellingham, stated that setbacks from wells and
20 boundary lines and health and safety standards should be more of a criteria within small towns to
21 determine size of the lots. Proper setbacks will determine the size of a lot.
22
23 Brenner questioned the smallest lot size that can have septic and well. Goodwin stated
24 that it is approximately an acre.
25
26 Brenner stated that anything under an acre needs public services. She would like to have
27 a minimum lot size for a lot that is without public services. Sutter stated that they have already
28 designated in UR zoning that all densities without public sewer and water is one unit per five
29 acres. Brenner stated that they could go smaller than that, to one acre, if it is in a small town.
30
31 Goodwin stated that a cluster without sewer and water already has a one -acre minimum.
32 They may want to allow four units per acre in the Columbia Valley and Point Roberts, if there is
33 water and sewer. She questioned whether that is what the Council intended for Point Roberts as
34 a resort recreational subdivision and Columbia Valley, knowing there is not a lot of other public
35 services. Most of Point Roberts is platted out to four units per acre. A lot of it is still in 50 —
36 100 acre lots.
37
38 Brenner questioned how the Point Roberts character plan envisions these areas.
39 Goodwin responded that the character plan preceded zoning, which made it four units per acre.
40 They all preceded growth management.
41
42 Gene Bouma, 7349 Old Guide Road, Ferndale, is doing a cluster subdivision on an 80
43 acre parcel zoned agriculture, which allows 16 five acre lots. However, with the agricultural
44 overlay, he is doing one -acre lots with shared wells and septic. It works perfectly. There are
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 3
I provisions for one -acre lots. If it works in the agricultural overlay, it may work in other areas.
2
3 Sutter stated that the addition at the bottom of Goodwin's handout is confusing. If the
4 County goes with what is above, and if a landowner doesn't have public water, then one unit per
5 five is the allowed acres.
6
7 Goodwin stated that as long as a property owner is inside a short term planning area,
8 small town, or resort recreational subdivision, they are allowed a density of up to four units per
9 acre. Hoag stated that it would be one unit per five acres if they don't have public sewer or
10 water.
11
12 Sutter questioned whether it created a contradiction. It states that if there is UR -3 or UR-
13 4 zoning, with public sewer and water, then there are much higher densities. In another location
14 it states that if there is public sewer and water, the density is one unit per five acres. She
15 questioned which provision they fall under if zoned UR -3. Goodwin stated that the new one
16 would get rid of them. The idea was that the UR -3 and UR -4 zoning are applied to the short
17 term planning areas. If they are not in urban growth areas, there is some other cluster density. If
18 the committee's intent is four units per acre in the Columbia Valley, Mt. Baker Rim, Point
19 Roberts, and other areas, then they want to just leave out the bottom suggestion.
20
21 Sutter stated that UR -3 and UR -4 cover the areas inside short term planning areas. She
22 questioned what the new language applies to.
23
24 Goodwin stated that they would apply to the small towns, the resort recreational
25 subdivisions, and the long -term planning areas if there were critical areas or health hazards
26 where they need sewer. The only area not included is Drayton Harbor and other long -term
27 planning areas in Birch Bay, which have been down -zoned until services are available. Small
28 towns are zoned regular UR -4 if there is public water and sewer.
29
30 Bob Carmichael, 1700 D Street, Bellingham, stated that a reason for the addition is to try
31 and come up with something that will withstand Growth Hearings Board scrutiny, and at the
32 same time, not relegate the areas to one unit per five acres, which is a hardship. He represented
33 Water District #13. If the County went back to the Growth Hearings Board with UR -4 zoning in
34 a resort recreational area, and it is challenged, it wouldn't be accepted.
35
36 Sutter questioned how long the UR -3 and UR -4 zoning has been in place. Carmichael
37 responded that it was before GMA.
38
39 Sutter questioned whether the County's zoning change in those areas was a response to
40 the invalidation by the Hearings Board. Carmichael stated that the County has argued all along
41 that it was not in response. The County adopted the Comprehensive Plan and Development
42 Regulations to implement the plan independently, under independent authority. That was a
43 central argument in court.
44
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 4
I Sutter questioned whether the County would have changed the zoning if the Board hadn't
2 invalidated the urban growth areas. Carmichael stated that the County probably would not have
3 changed.
4
5 Sutter stated that the County did it in a response to a Hearings Board decision that was
6 outside their authority. Carmichael stated that, ironically, the County just finished arguing that
7 those things were not done in response to the Hearings Board decision, in order to preserve the
8 presumption of validity of the Comprehensive Plan. The court went along with that.
9
10 Goodwin stated that they need to decide what they want for Columbia Valley. Brenner
11 suggested a rezone from resort recreational to a zoning designation that it really is.
12
13 Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission passed a motion to docket Point Roberts
14 to consider it for an urban growth area in next year's comprehensive plan amendments. They put
15 on an emergency resolution to initiate the rezone of the small towns and cross roads. They have
16 not done anything with the resort recreation subdivisions. They could bring them forward to
17 rezone them, so the zoning is more appropriate for a resort recreational subdivision area with a
18 density lower than UR, but higher than rural.
19
20 Brenner stated that Birch Bay is beyond resort recreational. Goodwin stated that Birch
21 Bay is an urban growth area. Brenner questioned whether there are any areas that are really
22 resort recreational. Goodwin stated that all the areas toward the Mt. Baker rim, which are either
23 small towns or resort recreational.
24
25 Brenner questioned whether most of those areas would fit in small town rather than in
26 resort recreational. Goodwin stated that there are a few along the highway, such as the Glen at
27 Maple Falls. Glacier and Kendall are small towns. Cain Lakes is also a resort recreational
28 subdivision, not a town.
29
30 Brown stated that the Glen at Maple Falls area has been platted out.
31
32 Hoag questioned the impact if the proposed language created one dwelling per two acres
33 and allows the cluster. Goodwin stated that there are areas with large unplatted parcels. There
34 could be clustered recreational units, and the overall density would work. In other areas, such as
35 Point Roberts, installation of sewer wouldn't be cost effective. There are limiting factors.
36
37 Brenner stated that they may need to make designations place by place.
38
39 Sutter stated that it is more appropriate to rezone some areas, but it will take time.
40
41 Goodwin stated that they could put in the exception for small town resort recreational
42 subdivisions, which would give those areas the zoning that they have, and then concurrently
43 move forward to look at Columbia Valley and Point Roberts as urban growth areas. They would
44 receive the density only if they have sewer and water.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Hoag questioned whether all areas have sewer and water. Goodwin stated that some
areas have only water. Point Roberts doesn't have sewer, but they have a community drain field,
which would qualify as sewer.
Goodwin stated that they probably don't want additional development other than existing
plats in the areas without sewer.
Raab stated that there is a cutoff point between property with sewer and water and
without sewer and water. The densities jump dramatically. There is no flexibility to those areas
that may have one, not the other. There is a mid - ground not being taken into account.
Sutter stated that they have to take into account the requirement that there must be urban
levels of service to have urban densities. Goodwin stated that they should make those areas
rural.
Brenner questioned whether the Growth Board now allows small acreage zoning.
Goodwin stated that they are allowed in isolated areas with more intense rural development.
Jonni Lukens, Drayton Harbor Road, stated that people are willing to sell parts of their
acres to install sewer. They have had their UR -4 zoning for more than 50 years. The GMA has
overlaid that zoning and put a hardship on the people in the area. She asked the committee to
address their situation. They are surrounded by dense populations on all sides, yet are stuck in a
density of one unit per five acres. Goodwin stated that there are only two fixes for their
situation. One is to put them in a short term planning. Blaine, however, has taken them out of
the Blaine urban growth areas. They can be put in the Birch Bay urban growth areas, but Birch
Bay urban growth areas have already been found to be too large. They will have a difficult time
if it is challenged.
Knapp stated that they are also not adjacent. Goodwin stated that if they were put into
the Birch Bay urban growth area, it would be in the long -term urban growth boundary. The
County could make it a rural area and zone them R2 with a cluster provision. The other option is
to leave them in the Blaine urban growth area short term planning area.
Muriel Terry, Drayton Harbor, presented a packet of information to the committee. She
showed an area on the map that is all short term planning areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Terry continued to show various areas on the map. Many houses have been recently
built. Many families have lived in the areas for several years. She has talked to Planning and
Development Services. Goodwin stated that it is not contiguous with short term planning areas,
but it is bumping up to developed areas. The justification for making Birch Bay urban growth
boundaries large is to say there is phasing. They will develop and in -fill areas that already have
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 6
I services and are already developed. Then, they will expand. If they make the whole thing short
2 term, it would be overturned. She suggested keeping the area in the Blaine UGA and make it a
3 short term planning area. Residents don't want that.
4
5 Terry stated that they don't want to belong to Blaine because they should not have
6 annexed the Semiahmoo property. It was a heavily forested area and they cut down thousands of
7 trees. Semiahomoo did not go through the County to get permits. They instead went to Blaine.
8 When development went in, the residents became supersaturated with water. All the septic
9 systems failed. Driveways washed out. People can't walk on the land in the wintertime. It
10 wasn't that way before Semiahmoo developed.
11
12 Knapp stated that the County's dilemma is if they put it into the Birch Bay UGA, then the
13 city of Blaine would appeal. They took it out to get compliance with GMA. Their goal was to
14 come back later and put it in their UGA. They won't give up the area as their territory. They
15 told the County that they want to include the area into their UGA at a later time.
16
17 Goodwin stated that the only other thing to be done is to leave it outside a UGA and
18 make it a rural area, and put R2 cluster zoning in.
19
20 Brenner stated that if the Drayton Harbor area were to be included in the Blaine UGA,
21 then the County could negotiate their zoning to what they want it to be, and they would get their
22 sewer.
23
24 Goodwin stated that they could be in their short term planning area, but don't allow
25 annexation.
26
27 Lukens, Mrs. Terry's niece, stated that there are hard feelings that run deep and the
28 residents don't want to be a part of Blaine. However, the people would be willing to
29 compromise if they get what they need. If the area could be kept in the short term planning area
30 in Blaine, then it would solve the problem and they could stay zoned UR -4, and they could get
31 sewer in. She would convince the folks that this is a good idea.
32
33 Terry stated that the County needs to assure people that if they are in the Blaine short
34 term planning area, they are not obliged to be annexed into Blaine. They are going to take their
35 services from the Birch Bay Water District. They have indicated that they are willing to provide
36 services once the property owners petition for it.
37
38 Brenner stated that annexation could happen with a minority of the property owners
39 approving, if they have the majority of the value of the land. Terry responded that Trillium owns
40 a lot of property in their area.
41
42 Knapp stated that the dilemma is that if it becomes Blaine's short term planning area,
43 then taking service from Birch Bay will not work. Goodwin stated that the Blaine
44 Comprehensive Plan allows services to the area to be provided by Birch Bay.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 7
2 Goodwin stated that the County sets the UGA, not the cities. Knapp stated that the cities
3 could appeal.
4
5 Hoag questioned why the area was dropped out of the Blaine UGA.
6
7 Carmichael stated that this Hearings Board said the Blaine UGA is too big. Blaine got
8 scared and decided to not include the Drayton Harbor area rather than risk losing west
9 Semiahmoo and Cannery Hill. The County agreed. At the hearing before the Hearings Board,
10 Blaine stated that they would take the area out. The Hearings Board then approved the Blaine
11 UGA. Now that there is a court decision, which restored the Comprehensive Plan and the
12 invalidity has been lifted, technically the area is back in the UGA as a long -term planning area.
13 The County's option is to make it a short term planning area. That option is different from what
14 was presented to the board, but the County has discretion to change its mind.
15
16 Sutter questioned whether the area meets the criteria to become a short term planning
17 area. Terry stated that they have water, roads, power, and everything but sewer and upgraded
18 water. They have already petitioned for sewer and are willing to pay for it. They also don't
19 have police protection.
20
21 Brenner questioned whether the County can add a caveat to force the city of Blaine to
22 treat the people the way they wanted, if the County decided to put the area into Blaine short term
23 planning area. Carmichael stated that they are still in the County until annexed. It may be
24 difficult to justify inclusion in the short term planning area, however it is easier to justify putting
25 the area in Blaine than Birch Bay.
26
27 Sutter questioned whether there is something in the development regulations that would
28 affect the area. Goodwin stated that outside short term planning areas, development is one unit
29 per five acres. There is no latitude to allow any other density, unless the Comprehensive Plan is
30 changed. On page 2 -20 of the Comprehensive Plan, policy 2R states that, in an urban growth
31 area outside of a short term planning area, no residential development shall occur greater than
32 one unit per five acres. Council has no latitude to do anything other than this in the development
33 regulations.
34
35 Hoag stated that the point would be to eventually change the short term planning areas.
36 At this point, they need to adopt the way they are, because it matches the Comprehensive Plan.
37 Goodwin stated that is what she believes; or the Comprehensive Plan needed to be changed.
38
39 Sutter questioned whether changing to a short term planning area was a Comprehensive
40 Plan amendment. Goodwin stated that it is a rezone.
41
42 Terry stated that the Health Department is after the people in the area to upgrade septic or
43 put in new ones. There are 10 people who have done this. Every time a new system is put in,
44 they can't afford a sewer. Those septic systems won't work, and they are not guaranteed. The
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 8
I County licensed septic designer could not guarantee they would work for longer than 2 years.
2 They cost $25,000. There is a necessity to get this done. Goodwin stated that Blaine passed the
3 Comprehensive Plan to take the area out of UGA. Their schedule is to get it to the County by
4 the end of this year for 1999 docket. The County Council would have to then decide whether to
5 make it rural, leave it in Blaine UGA, or take it out and put it in the Birch Bay UGA. In January,
6 they can deal with it, or they can initiate emergency amendment.
7
8 Brown questioned whether the area is in the Drayton Harbor watershed. He believed it
9 was a goal to get sewer into the Drayton Harbor area due to the emergency downgrade.
10
11 Dale Vander Giesen, 8645 Berthusen Road, Lynden, stated that his area is not serviced
12 by Birch Bay or Blaine, but by Water District #13.
13
14 Goodwin stated that if the County chooses to go to four units per acre in the resort
15 recreational subdivision outside of an urban growth area, and is challenged, then the designation
16 might not be upheld if it is outside of a short term planning area. She questioned whether the
17 density is rural or urban.
18
19 Hoag stated that it would only apply if they have public water and sewer. She questioned
20 why the County would not want to go to four units per acre if they have public sewer and water.
21 Carmichael stated that the only reason is that the GMA says they can't have urban growth
22 outside of a UGA. They are trying to find a solution where there would be one unit per two
23 acres, with clustering, which the Hearings Board may not even accept. Or, the County can make
24 them urban growth areas.
25
26 Goodwin stated that urban residential zoning should only apply in an urban growth area
27 anyway. If it is urban residential and it is not in an urban growth area, then the zoning ought to
28 be changed.
29
30 Goodwin questioned whether the County wanted to say that outside short term planning
31 areas, small towns, resort recreational subdivision is one unit per five acres, and allow four units
32 per acre in the small towns and resort recreational subdivisions. Sutter replied that would be
33 acceptable if they have public services.
34
35 Goodwin stated that they can docket Columbia Valley, Point Roberts, and Blaine -Birch
36 Bay for urban growth areas. They will bring forward a resolution to initiate a rezone of the rest
37 of the resort recreational subdivision areas.
c:
39 Brown questioned the affect on small towns. Goodwin stated that it lets them go up to
40 four units per acre if they have water and sewer. Otherwise, they stay at a density of one unit per
41 five acres, unless they are already platted.
42
43 Brown questioned the benefit of having designation as a small town if they can only have
44 one house per five acres. The idea was to allow them to be smaller and have some commercial
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
areas.
Goodwin stated that upcoming on the Planning Commission docket is a rezone of small
towns to a more appropriate zoning, which would be either small town commercial or rural
residential, two units per acre (RR2). They may not need the words "small town," but only the
words "resort recreational subdivision." That would mean down - zoning Acme in the meantime.
Sutter questioned how long it would take to designate the areas as UGAs. Goodwin
stated that it would take 6 -9 months. Trying to do anything in Point Roberts is time consuming.
Sutter stated that she would like to see small towns and resort recreational areas be
included if they have original zoning,. Include small towns and resort recreational as UR -3 and
UR -4 with services.
Goodwin stated that the only small town being addressed is Acme, which is mostly
platted out. All the rest are not UR -4. All the rest are resort commercial, tourist commercial, or
UR4.
Hoag stated that it doesn't matter what their designation is, only their density. Goodwin
stated that if an area is outside a short term planning area, their density is one unit per five acres,
regardless of their level of services. The only people that can go UR -4 are inside the short term
planning areas.
Hoag questioned whether the UR -3 or UR -4 would currently apply to an area that is in a
small town. Goodwin stated that they are not. Sutter explained that this is new language that
proposes to include them.
Sutter stated that small town and resort recreational areas are outside short term planning
areas.
Goodwin stated that if the change is made, and if they are in a small town, and if they
have water and sewer, then they could have the UR -3 or UR -4 designation.
Art Jackson, section 13, stated that he has been in the area for 30 years. They can't get
sewer without zoning, and they can't get zoning without sewer.
Sutter stated that in section 20.20.252 they will only add language about small towns and
resort recreational subdivisions.
Goodwin stated that, for clarification, amend language on page 4 of the development
regulations, section 20.20.252: "UR -3: In a short term planning area or small town resort
recreational subdivision with public sewer and water..."
The committee concurred.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 10
I Sutter stated that they need to back up to section 20.20.015. She questioned whether the
2 changes made would take care of the problem under this section, regarding applicability.
3 Goodwin responded that they would add the same changes, the wording "resort recreational
4 subdivision." It would also be added to section 20.20.150.
5
6 Sutter stated that it would be added wherever appropriate.
7
8 Goodwin questioned whether they would want neighborhood grocery stores also in resort
9 recreational subdivisions. She would make those changes.
10
11 Hoag questioned, on page 2, item #6, why they dropped the short term planning areas.
12 Goodwin stated that the cities said that if they want industrial development within their urban
13 growth areas, they want it in the areas they've designated for that. They don't want the County
14 to place industrial development in areas they've designated as residential. Light fabrication and
15 assembly was only allowed in eastern part of the County, where there are no UGAs.
16
17 Hoag questioned whether the County can come back to the development regulations and
18 change something that doesn't work. Goodwin stated that a zoning text change doesn't have to
19 show change in condition or an error. If there is a Comprehensive Plan change, they must show
20 a condition change or error. Development regulations are considered zoning text. They have to
21 be docketed or initiated as an emergency.
22
23 Goodwin stated that if they initiate everything as an emergency, they might want to
24 change the policy to make changes for one year.
25
26 Sutter directed the work session to page 3. There is an addition to section 20.20.151
27 regarding public community facilities.
28
29 Brown clarified that sometimes public facilities are located to provide service to the
30 roads and they aren't wanted in town. He questioned whether those locations are exempt. There
31 is a plan to locate one at Hwy 9 and Hwy 542. Their operation is almost an industrial use. It is
32 permanent.
33
34 Goodwin stated that the language allows demonstration that there is a need or it is the
35 most efficient place to locate the facility. It would be allowed. It is a conditional use anyway. If
36 they did get a permit, they would explain the need for the facility in the rural location. They are
37 mainly trying to prohibit school districts, libraries, and other types of facilities locating away
38 from population areas, where the land is cheaper.
39
40 Goodwin stated that resort commercial should probably also have public facilities, which
41 she already added. That is additional to the Planning Commission recommendations.
42
43 Goodwin stated that on section 20.20.154, they wanted a boarding home differentiated or
44 defined. They wanted a boarding home for elderly or disabled, as opposed to a boarding home
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
for college students or travelers.
Brenner stated that they don't want a hotel, however she wanted a boarding home for
more than the elderly, to include students.
Hoag questioned why Brenner wanted boarding homes in urban residential zones.
Boarding homes are for people who need care, but not critical care.
Goodwin stated that is multi - family housing, which is limited to four units per acre.
Sutter suggested the term "board and care home ". Goodwin will check the Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) to determine if there is a definition for that term.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
Sutter stated that section 20.20.155 should have the language, "resort recreational
subdivisions" included.
Sutter stated that section 20.20.160, confinement feeding operations and feedlots, is
repealed in its entirety.
Sutter stated that section 20.20.251 only deletes the word "subarea" from comprehensive
plan policies.
Sutter questioned the minimum mean depth of 0' for UR areas without public sewer and
water. Goodwin stated that it is the reserve area. There is no reserve area. She suggested
instead the language, "N /A" instead of the 0' designation. Goodwin stated that she would figure
out what it would be. They may add the words "small towns and resort recreational
subdivision."
Brown stated that they should strike "subarea" where appropriate on page 4 under the
UR -3 and UR -4 zoning districts. Goodwin concurred.
Hoag stated that they also need to remove the word "appropriate" before "subarea."
Raab asked for clarification on the two UR density districts. Sutter stated that the
difference is in the clustering.
Hoag stated that if property doesn't have public sewer or water, it has to be one -acre
cluster. If it has public sewer or water, it can be 15,000 square feet. The percentages of the
minimum reserve areas are also different.
Sutter stated that they receive a break under the clustering allowance. Goodwin stated
that in clustering, the lot size could be smaller because they don't have to fit a well in. They
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
don't get a density break until they have water and sewer and are inside a short term planning
area.
Goodwin stated that they should leave the word "appropriate" at the top of page five of
the development regulations. They could take out the whole thing because the whole idea of
referencing the specific subarea in the subarea plans deal with stormwater. They should leave in
the subarea. If there isn't adequate stormwater planning, no matter where they are located, then
they should not have four units per acre. They may not need to state "where identified in the
appropriate Comprehensive Plan policies." Only say it has to have public sewer, water, and
stormwater collection detention facilities."
Hoag would like to refer to a particular subarea to know it is covered. She would rather
have the detail that has already been worked out. The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that those are all of the changes she brought forward.
Sutter directed the work session to page five.
Hoag stated that she had a question on section 20.20.652 regarding the Right to Farm.
She questioned why they are now dealing with it. Goodwin stated that the language that is added
refers to the current Whatcom County Code (WCC) sections, which has been moved. It has been
moved to a central spot, instead of putting it in every section. It streamlined the document.
They would need to put the language side by side to compare and make sure no other changes
were made.
Brenner questioned whether the Right to Farm requirements list the use of best
management practices. Goodwin stated that they do.
Sutter directed the work session to page 6.
Bouma questioned the math on the UR densities with public sewer and water on the
maximum density and minimum lot size table on page 4. It only allows for 3.6 lots.
Sutter stated that if someone has five acres, they can only have one dwelling unit. That is
the gross density. On a 20 -acre parcel, one can cluster 4 on a smaller lot size. There can be four
15,000 square foot lots.
Brenner questioned the incentive for a property owner to do that. Goodwin stated that
they don't get a density bonus, but can avoid wetlands, critical areas, etc. They have to do it if
they're R5A and in an agricultural overlay area.
Sutter directed the work session back to page 6.
Goodwin stated that they are now in URM, Urban Residential Mix.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 13
2 Hoag questioned section 20.22.020(b) and the dropped language "and outside UGA."
3 Goodwin responded that it was considered redundant because a short term planning is also in an
4 urban growth area. It was meant to be outside of a short term planning area. All URM is inside
5 a UGA.
6
7 Raab stated that a lay person can work with a subarea plan. It should not be consistently
8 eliminated as a term of reference throughout the development regulations.
9
10 Goodwin stated that there is a plan to eliminate all of the subarea plans and merge them
11 into the Comprehensive Plan. All subarea plans are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
12 There isn't a large enough staff to update all the plans.
13
14 Raab stated that the important thing is to allow people to have input into their
15 neighborhoods. Sutter stated that the development regulations don't say they can't do some
16 planning, as long as they comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
17
18 Almskaar stated that the County should be cautious about dumping the subarea concept.
19 The plans have value.
20
21 Hoag stated that she believed that the Growth Management Act set up the
22 Comprehensive Plan as an umbrella, with the subarea plans underneath. Goodwin stated that
23 density is not established by subarea plans, but by the zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
24
25 Almskaar stated that there has been talk about doing a tourism study for the Foothills
26 area. They need to maintain that identity.
27
28 Goodwin stated that they can still do subareas to the extent that there is time and money.
29 They are in the process of considering elimination of the subarea plans. In the next several
30 years, they need to update all dozen or so subarea plans, or eliminate them entirely. They are no
31 longer applicable in a lot of cases. They were superceded by the Comprehensive Plan or growth
32 management policies. Less than 1/3 of the policies of the subarea plans duplicate or conflict.
33 Those plans need an overhaul or they need to get rid of them.
34
35 Hoag asked to leave the references in with the door open to amendments. Goodwin
36 stated that is not a problem, and in several places they state they would be maintained as
37 development regulations to the extent they don't conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
38
39 Hoag stated that she believed that they would be absorbed as development regulations,
40 but if they conflict, they would understand that the Comprehensive Plan would supercede.
41
42 Goodwin stated that it was recommended by legal counsel that they strike out areas
43 where the development regulations refer to a subarea plan that isn't consistent with the
44 Comprehensive Plan. That creates a catch -22. Zoning is always more specific than the plan. If
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
the plan prevails, but the zoning references another document conflicts, then there is a problem.
Hoag stated that they need to look at it each time to see if there is a conflict.
Goodwin stated that a lot of the URM is in the long term planning area of Birch Bay.
They don't want the density governed by that. In this section, it should be left out. It is no
critical that it stays out. Subarea plan projects a lot of development outside of the subarea. The
Comprehensive Plan states that urban density will go in the cities.
Hoag stated that the subarea plans identify a need, and the Development Regulations
address how the County would supply that need.
Sutter stated that the need identified in the subarea could potentially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan. Goodwin stated that it could conflict because they were done before the
Comprehensive Plan.
Hoag and Brenner stated that they want to leave in "appropriate subarea."
Sutter moved the work session to page 7.
Brenner stated that the boarding room language would be figured out.
Sutter stated that there is a difference between a parochial school and religious training.
Goodwin stated that the parochial school has to be approved by the State Superintendent of
Public Education.
Brenner questioned why they would allow religious training institutions, but not
parochial schools. Hoag responded that religious training institutions are not schools. Goodwin
stated that schools are supposed to be centrally located.
Brenner questioned what happened to accessory dwellings. Goodwin stated that
accessory dwellings were already addressed. They will add all the current accessory dwelling
language to the entire document.
Hoag questioned the second item under 20.22.252 "URM: all densities outside Short
Term Planning Areas." this is inserted between the two other URM designations. She
questioned whether it is the one committee already covered. Goodwin responded that it is
similar, except they don't need to worry about it with the URM, because it is only in Birch Bay
and it is not a resort recreational subdivision.
Goodwin questioned whether the committee wanted to leave in or take out any of the
language, "appropriate subarea comprehensive plan" in the sections for URM -6, URM -12, and
URM -18 on page 8.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
in.
Brenner and Hoag stated that they wanted to take out the word "subarea."
Brenner stated that they took out "appropriate" on page four and it needs to be put back
Sutter directed the work session to page eight.
Bouma questioned whether they wanted to encourage cluster developments. Sutter
responded that they did, and they would be talking about it later.
Bouma stated that there is no bonus for clustering. Goodwin stated that they can't have a
density bonus outside UGAs.
Sutter stated that she wanted to save the cluster provisions for one specific discussion.
Brown stated that on page 8, item #21, subsection (b), there is language about full
community involvement, and he questioned whether everyone in the County has input. If so, the
local people won't have any say. If they include the entire County as the full community
involvement, then everyone has a say, not just the local people. That is not right.
Goodwin stated that the full community process would be a Comprehensive Plan public
hearing.
Sutter stated that the full community involvement is the public process. She suggested
substituting the language, "... All eeffm+anity invelvemen public process..."
Goodwin gave an example of someone who would circumvent the density of the zoning.
This language states that someone can't do that unless it is a part of an area -wide Comprehensive
Plan amendment with public involvement. They shouldn't be able to reward people for
circumventing the zoning.
Sutter directed the work session to page 9.
Hoag stated that "subarea" in item #24, section 20.32.010, should be dropped.
Brown stated that he subareas laid out clear criteria for zoning.
Brenner clarified that they were not dropping the subarea concept, only the word. It does
not eliminate the need for the subarea plans.
Hoag stated that the effect is that it refers the zoning policies to the Comprehensive Plan
instead of the subarea plans.
Sutter stated that they are not going to implement the subarea comprehensive plans, only
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
use them.
Goodwin stated that the reasoning is that the subarea plans are not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. They don't want density set by the subarea plans, now that they are no
longer valid.
Brenner stated for the record that they would be sensitive to the subarea plans.
Sutter directed the work session to page 10, Residential Rural (RR) zoning.
Hoag stated that section 20.22.052, item # 25, was repealed entirely. A phrase is now
being added.
Sutter stated that they would need to say that item #25 would need to be changed, "...is
hereby repealed its entir -et. amended."
Hoag questioned why the section is being added. Goodwin stated that they would like to
have single family attached dwelling, provided that there are no more than two units attached. It
would allow duplexes in residential rural.
Brenner questioned whether that included accessory dwellings.
Sutter stated that they are talking about attached units. Knapp clarified that accessory
units can be attached.
Goodwin stated that these are permitted uses. Accessory dwellings require an
administrative approval use. That would be allowed also. Permitted means one can build a
house. It is not considered a permitted use. It is an administrative approval process.
Brenner stated that the bottom of page 10 needed to be corrected. Goodwin stated that
she would put all the information in regarding the accessory dwelling units.
Sutter directed the work session to page 11.
Sutter questioned the difference between UR -3 and RR3. Both are three units per acre.
Goodwin stated that R3A is one unit per three acres. There is RR3 zoning at Governor's
Point and at the Glen at Maple Falls. Knapp stated that one is a rural designation and one is
urban, which have minor differences.
Sutter stated that UR -3 is in a UGA.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
Hoag questioned the word "subarea" on page 11, item #27, section 20.32.251. Goodwin
stated that it is a policy question as to whether or not to leave the word in. She questioned
whether the committee wanted to tie the regulation to a subarea plan that is no longer used.
Hoag stated that this particular reference should be eliminated, and they should look at
each subarea reference individually.
Knapp stated that Skagit County has a broader range of densities in the rural areas. They
have a one per two or two and a half in a rural zone.
Raab stated that Skagit County allowed one unit per 2 1/2 acres zoning within the hamlets.
Knapp stated that the court has wanted to donate land to the Whatcom Land Trust. The
problem is that it is a 10 -acre piece. Dividing it lowers it to less than one unit per five acres. It
is the key access point to a corridor of open space. They are in a quandary of how to do a lot line
adjustment.
Brown questioned whether it could be used as public purpose.
Knapp stated that they need to run it through now. The Land Trust will bring language
forward.
Goodwin stated that they would need to docket it as an emergency.
Brenner suggested an exemption for public purpose.
Sutter stated that on page 11, right above item #28, they don't have what is referred to in
the last portion of the last sentence referring to WCC 20.32.252. She was for leaving it in,
because she wanted to discuss having a "density bonus" for clustering.
Goodwin stated that the density cluster bonus in WCC 20.32.252 is gone.
Hoag stated that it was repealed. The entire last sentence needed to be dropped. The
committee concurred.
Sutter directed the work session to page 12.
Hoag stated that they should drop "subarea" and leave "appropriate" in the language in
section 20.32.253, item #29. The committee concurred.
Sutter directed the work session to page 13, item #30, section 20.32.254.
Hoag stated that they should drop "subarea" and leave "appropriate" in the language in
section 20.32.254, item #30. The committee concurred.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
Brown stated that in section 20.32.320(b), they should change the wording, "...and the
full ,.,.n,w.uniy , 4<.elvemen public process..." The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that, on page 14, item #33, they should leave both references to the
Lummi Island Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The committee concurred.
Sutter stated that the language in section 20.34.320(3)(b), item #34, should be changed,
"...and the public process..." The committee concurred.
Sutter directed the work session to page 15, item #36, section 20.36.010.
Hoag stated that the reference to "subarea" should remain. It discussed places that have
been identified as environmentally fragile areas, character, etc. The committee concurred.
Goodwin stated that when they leave in the references to the subareas, they are
committed to keeping the subarea plans.
Raab stated that there should be a proviso at the beginning of the entire thing that states
the subarea plans are subservient to the overall Comprehensive Plan. Hoag stated that there is.
Sutter directed the work session to item #37, section 20.36.050.
Hoag stated that section 20.36.050 was fine. There is a section 20.36.059 that was
regarding surface mining subject to the Washington State Surface Mining Act. The Council had
been adopting language, "...subject to the requirements of WCC 20.73 and all other applicable
regulations." That is not included.
Sutter stated that there not have been any changes to that section. It was not dropped out
from a previous version.
Goodwin stated that she believed it was not adopted as a permanent regulation in the
development code as the most recent codified version. It has been fixed.
Hoag stated that someone needed to determine whether or not it has been dropped.
Raab questioned page 16, section 20.36.158 regarding Aircraft Land Areas. He stated
that the provision eliminates the possibility of a neighbor parking his airplane on the landing
area. The aircraft is not controlled by the same landowner. He suggested they take a look at that
provision and extend it to a limited number of aircraft or adjacent landowners.
Knapp stated that they would need to be careful because they don't want to make a
commercial airport.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, 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
Sutter suggested granting an easement.
Brenner stated that if someone has a private airstrip, then they should be allowed to allow
anyone they want to take off and land. Goodwin stated that they could, but others couldn't be
"based" there.
Sutter stated that there is latitude. Because there is language about a tenant, a landowner
could charge a low amount of rent.
Brenner stated that "based" is not appropriate. Goodwin questioned whether these were
Development Regulations issues or code scrub issues that should go on the docket for the regular
rezone process.
Raab stated that he would write up the language and submit it to the docket.
Brown questioned the permitted uses for sports fields on page 16, section 20.36.050.
Knapp stated that the conditional use process is to give neighbors a chance to voice
concerns. The community needs the ability to look at it and see if there will be impacts to the
neighborhood. Goodwin stated that a conditional use permit (CUP) could have noise
restrictions.
Brown questioned the lack of storage buildings in the Foothills area and whether they
could be a conditional use. They are not currently a permitted use. Goodwin stated that they are
allowed in neighborhood commercial and resort commercial areas.
Knapp stated that they don't want those existing all over the place.
Brown stated that they don't want people driving 40 miles to get to them either.
Knapp stated that they should occur in commercial areas.
Goodwin stated that they are not provided for in the rural areas.
Brown stated that someone who owns property and doesn't live on it cannot build a
storage unit.
Goodwin stated that the issue is on the Planning Commission docket for proposed zoning
changes for this year. The problem is that if a landowner says it is a storage shed, and there is no
house with windows, plumbing, ingress or egress, and someone moves into it, then that creates a
situation of people living in substandard housing with no fire safety or sanitation.
Brown stated that they are also depriving a legitimate person the ability to store a tractor
or whatever they are using.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 20
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
Goodwin stated that it is being discussed. They have to think of a way to allow them
without allowing abuse of them and substandard housing.
Brown suggested a review every so many years.
Sutter directed the work session to page 16 regarding conditional uses in rural areas.
Goodwin stated that they already changed the wording on the minimum lot size on public
facilities.
Sutter questioned whether surface mining activities are allowed inside short term
planning areas. Goodwin responded that she would bring forward all the new language that they
adopted. She believed that had been changed. She questioned the amount of rural land in the
short term planning areas.
Sutter suggested a statement that surface mining activities are allowed only outside the
short term planning areas.
Hoag questioned whether any of those areas have mineral resource lands within them.
Goodwin stated that she would look into it. Goodwin stated that Breckenridge Hill is
rural, in an urban growth area, a short term planning area, and is adjacent to a mineral resource
land (MRL). So is a good portion of Everson.
Hoag questioned whether the list was conditional uses or outright permitted uses.
Goodwin stated that they area conditional uses.
Goodwin stated that if they were going to change that any further, they should have a
public hearing and contact all the people in the area and the gravel- mining people. The Council
just spent a year going through the surface mining rules.
Sutter stated that they were only talking about short term planning areas. They should
take a look at the short term planning areas, find out where they have designated MRLs and
actual active mining in those areas, and decide whether they want to allow those mines to
continue operating after the current activity is finished.
Goodwin questioned whether they were planning to have another public hearing on the
development regulations. Sutter stated that they might have to.
Sutter directed the work session to page 17.
Hoag stated that section 20.36.163 contains the language "subarea."
Sutter questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan specifies where they are going to
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 21
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
have solid waste sites. Only the subarea plans make those specifications.
Goodwin stated that the subarea plans are so outdated that no body knows any longer
what is in them.
Sutter stated that it is not in the Comprehensive Plan.
The committee concurred to include "subarea."
Brown stated that the Foothills plan does identify some of those areas.
Goodwin suggested leaving them in, and making a commitment to update them
occasionally.
Brown stated that there is a commitment within the subarea plans that they would be
updated every x number of years.
Sutter questioned the advisability of inclusion of section 20.36.170 in a short term
planning area.
Goodwin suggested adding the language to section 20.36.170, ".170 Confinement
feeding operations and feedlots outside of urban growth areas." The rest of the rural area is
subject to the agricultural overlay zone.
The committee concurred.
Brenner suggested limiting the Right to Farm Act to the agricultural zoning. Goodwin
responded that this is a conditional use in the rural areas.
Sutter directed the work session to page 18.
Sutter stated that section 20.36.173 should not be in short term planning areas. She
questioned whether there were any of those within the UGA. Goodwin stated that there are not.
Hoag stated that is one that had been changed. Goodwin stated that some of that had not
been codified at the time.
Hoag stated that in a previous committee, they removed "temporary," "related to a
specific project," and "project does not imply that bid projects have been awarded." Language
that was included was "when within an MRL special district."
Goodwin stated that it is correct in the Whatcom County Code.
Hoag questioned whether they need to concern themselves with whether it is in a short
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 22
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
term planning area. Goodwin stated that there aren't any MRLs in the UGAs.
Hoag questioned how the language would be changed if they didn't like it. Goodwin
stated that they could change it, within some latitude. The purpose of the development
regulations is to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Knapp stated that they just have to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The language in the Whatcom County Code states, ".173 Rock crushing and asphalt and
concrete batch plants, when within an MRL special district."
Hoag stated that the previous language was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
policies. It limited the asphalt and concrete batch plants to being temporary. The new language
only limits them to within an MRL. Those are the things that are very load and about which
people complain.
Brown stated that they are a conditional use.
Sutter stated that asphalt batch plants are allowed as a conditional use in the rural zoning.
She questioned whether they are ever permanent. Goodwin stated that they are.
Sutter stated that the proposal was to not allow permanent asphalt batch plants in the
rural zone. She questioned where they would be allowed.
Goodwin stated that they would only be allowed in the rural forestry.
Brown stated that rural forestry is too far away.
Hoag stated that she is talking from the standpoint of a neighbor complaint.
Sutter stated that is why it is a conditional use.
Goodwin stated that they need to look at the location of all of the MRLs. If MRLs are all
in the rural zones, then they are excluding on -site rock site crushing in all the MRLs where the
mining is located.
Sutter stated that putting it only in rural forestry would make it very expensive.
Knapp stated that Ace Rock had hired a noise consultant. The building industry and road
construction is very dependent upon having an adequate supply of materials.
Hoag stated that the language didn't remove it, it just made it temporary rather than
permanent. At the time the language change was considered, there were only three asphalt
plants in Whatcom County. They were all temporary. As soon as the language change allowed
them as a conditional use everywhere, the County ends up with more offenders. It doesn't make
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 23
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
anything more expensive, just temporary.
Brown stated that if they are temporary, then they have to move after one year. They
were not temporary. Those were permanent plants. If the County required they be temporary,
then they would have to go somewhere else.
move.
do that.
Sutter stated that they would have to go through the conditional use process again just to
Hoag stated that they were related to a specific project. Sutter stated that they could still
Hoag stated that the good thing about it is that it was limited to the specific project.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B)
Sutter stated that making them temporary doesn't make sense for their business.
Sutter questioned whether the County would require all conditional use permits (CUP),
such as a solid waste disposal facility or any cottage industry, to be temporary because they
might cause a problem. Conditions are put on them when the permit is issued. People in the
area are notified to address their concerns during the hearing process.
Hoag questioned whether surface mining is an allowed use in an MRL zone and doesn't
require a conditional use permit.
Goodwin stated that if they are in an MRL and a rural zone, they still have to get a
conditional use permit. In an MRL, no matter what they do, the noise can't constitute a public
nuisance. It has to meet state noise standards
Hoag stated that when the MRL zones were set up, there weren't hearings specific to an
MRL.
Sutter stated that the MRL overlay does not mean they are permitted mining. A surface
mine still would have to go through the process to get the permit, which includes notifying the
neighbors. They still have to be permitted. Goodwin stated that there is an exception for the
existing sites. The Lummi Island use is an existing use. Rock crusher activity was done before
Scenic Estates was developed.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 24
2 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
3
4 ATTEST:
5
6
7
9 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
10
11
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Committee Special Work Session, 10/9/98, Page 25