HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 27 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 27,1998
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Ward Nelson None
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REGULATORY CONSISTENCY WITH THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB97 -169F) (FROM 10/9)
Knapp mentioned that the adult entertainment emergency ordinance should be extended
for 6 months. That will be coming forward. They want to make sure it is a solid ordinance.
Sutter directed the work session to section 20.04.050. There is no change from the
Planning Commission.
Sutter directed the work session to section 20.20.015 regarding urban residential.
Number four adds the resort recreational subdivisions. That was discussed at an earlier work
session. They need to discuss item number eight, regarding boarding homes. They are
proposing to insert boarding homes.
Knapp stated that he would be speaking to the legislative committee on November 12
regarding the government operations committee. They are talking to six counties. As the
committee goes through the development regulations, if there are items that they want him to
discuss during the meeting, then they should let him know.
Hoag suggested bigger incentives for leaving land in agricultural zoning and bigger
penalties for taking it out.
Sutter suggested the committee members make a list and give it to Knapp.
Nelson suggested giving the suggestions to Sutter so she may coordinate the suggestions.
Sutter stated that they would schedule the discussion at the committee's November 10
meeting.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
Sutter stated the definition of boarding homes, which is based on the State's licensing of
boarding homes, RCW 18.20. It also references that definition as the requirements and standards
the County uses.
Hoag stated that a boarding home for handicapped people would not fall under
convalescent care. That clause, by reason of infirmity, would apply to the handicapped.
Sutter suggested a change or adding disability instead of infirmity.
Sutter moved to add the words "or disability" after infirmity.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter stated that on item #11, page 3 of the newest version of the Exhibit,
Comprehensive Plan should be capitalized.
Sutter also stated that item #14 should say "impact to on critical areas."
Sutter questioned item #15, regarding the Right to Farm. She questioned why Right to
Farm is in Urban Residential Mixed (URM) zoning, but not in Urban Residential (UR), which is
a lower density. Goodwin responded that it should be in UR. Section 20.20 is UR. It should be
in all of them.
Sutter questioned why Right To Farm is in a forestry designation.
Brenner stated that Council decided that the right to farm superceded everything.
Goodwin stated that it also provides for the interface of where a farm hits a forest.
Sutter stated that they should look at the appropriate division of forestry and agriculture.
Knapp stated that they should also look at the idea of the right for forestry use.
Sutter stated that those might come into conflict, the right to farm and the right to forest.
Hoag stated that they are generally compatible.
Brenner stated that the right to farm means you can do something that impacts the
neighbor. It doesn't give the neighbors the right to do something that would impact the farm.
Goodwin stated they would also have to amend chapter 14, the Right to Practice Forestry
and Right to Farm sections. That could be docketed for a 1999 review.
Sutter stated that she didn't want to put agriculture above forestry in forestry zones.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Brenner questioned whether there are working farms in forestry zones. Knapp stated that
there probably are.
Sutter directed the work session to page 11, item #29 regarding lot size. The gross
density is one dwelling unit per acre.
Goodwin responded that there is another section in the subdivision code that states if
there is not water and sewer at the property, then the minimum lot size is one acre. That is why
it is one acre.
Sutter stated a concern about one dwelling unit per acre in RR1 zoning being the gross
density, and conventional is 36,000 square feet. Above it states it is one acre. Goodwin stated
that with water and sewer, they don't need a full acre to put in a drain field and well. Each
individual lot can be as small as 36,000 square feet. They can extract roads, cul de sacs, and
open space.
Sutter stated that on page 26, item #52 states that resort commercial without sewer and
water designates 36,000 square feet for conventional. Goodwin stated that it used to be and
should be one acre.
Hoag stated that if they were trying to make it consistent, they need to change the next
item.
Brenner questioned whether resort commercial with either sewer or water would have
one dwelling per acre. Sutter stated if there is no public sewer and water, that is the density.
The density is dependent on whether they have sewer or water. If they don't have either, it is
one dwelling unit per acre. If one or the other service is provided, then two dwelling units per
acre are allowed.
Almskaar questioned why clustering is not allowed in Rural Residential (RR) zones
unless public sewer or water is available. Goodwin stated that one couldn't fit a well and a drain
field on a parcel smaller than one acre.
Almskaar stated that the well or drain field could and should be allowed in the reserve
area.
Sutter stated that in RR3 zoning, which allows three units per acre, a landowner is only
allowed one unit per acre if they don't have sewer and water.
Goodwin stated that they are allowed the density if they have one service or the other.
Almskaar proposed a density similar to the rural zone, which allows 15,000 square feet.
It is almost impossible to get a water right for a new water system. If there is a short plat, it
ought to be feasible to do a cluster plat with individual wells. Goodwin stated that in agricultural
overlay areas, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet with public water.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Hoag questioned the number of houses in that scenario. Almskaar stated that a short plat
is only four lots.
Goodwin stated that R2A zoning with public water is 15,000 square feet. R5A doesn't
specify whether water service is required. Goodwin stated that the State Health Department
wouldn't approve if there is no water or a community drain field. They have to approve all
subdivisions.
Hoag stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is looking at exempt
wells in the context of the endangered species listing. The County does not have a problem with
creating subdivisions with exempt wells. It is a problem in other areas. Whatcom County does
not currently have a problem, and does not want to develop a problem.
Sutter moved to page 13. The committee put back the Lummi Island Subarea Plan as a
guiding policy.
Hoag questioned the change on page 15, section .159. Goodwin stated that it was
brought forward at the last meeting and staff added it.
Sutter skipped the agricultural overlay section and went on to item #46 on page 23, a
Planning Commission recommendation to strike the 600' road frontage requirement.
Goodwin stated that it is subject to misinterpretation.
Knapp stated that the only dilemma is the quantity of access points that can potentially
occur. The intent is to keep the number of access points low. There are no criteria. There is
potential for many access driveways.
Sutter questioned the proportions of 40 -acre parcels. Access points would be spread out.
Knapp stated that the dilemma of not having a distance between access points is that it
would create a traffic problem.
Goodwin suggested adding the word "...less area than 40 acres of and less than 600
feet..."
Hoag stated that if someone would break off a 40 acre lot, there should be access.
Goodwin stated that they're talking about exemptions from subdivision rules.
Almskaar stated that there is no law in the State that someone can't sell a landlocked
parcel. Knapp stated that selling a piece of property is different from creating a piece of
property. One can't create a landlocked parcel.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Sutter stated that if section 20.40.050.251 refers to exempt subdivision, then they may
need to refer to that.
Hoag stated that none of these should be created, unless it meets the following criteria.
Road frontage should be required, unless other criteria are met.
Brenner stated that she would like to see something in the County code that one cannot
condemn a neighbor's property.
Knapp stated that they want to get as much distance from an intersection as possible.
Sutter questioned whether 600 feet is appropriate for parcels less than 40 acres. Goodwin
stated that this is an agricultural overlay section.
Sutter stated that staff should clean up the language. Goodwin stated that the intent is for
a minimum of 40 acres.
Knapp stated that the language gives exceptions. It can create a smaller division that is
less than 40 acres if it meets the criteria.
Sutter stated that the Planning Commission suggested taking the road frontage conditions
out.
Goodwin stated that the intent was for the retired farm workers who want to create small
parcels.
Sutter stated that there are suggested changes that allow one parcel, no larger than one
acre. That is only one access point.
Goodwin stated that the 600' requirement doesn't apply to smaller parcels. If there is
less than 40 acres or less than 600', then they have to meet the criteria.
Brenner stated that the point is that the overall piece is 40 acres.
Sutter stated that the section needs to be reviewed. It is too confusing.
Sutter stated that on page 24, the agricultural protection overlay doesn't allow lots larger
than one acre, yet under the provision, they could create lots larger. They need to be consistent.
Almskaar stated that the proposed change is good. What often happens is that someone
qualifies for the exemption, and is then approved. Then, if they want to sell someone their house
on less than 5 acres, they have to do a short plat. Doing that burns up more farmland.
Hoag stated that if someone is retiring from farming, then they may want five acres to do
small hobby farming. They should not be restricted to one acre, yet the regulations also need to
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
preserve as much agricultural open space as possible.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Goodwin stated that every five years, a landowner could break off another five acres.
Almskaar stated that would not happen every five years, it has to be every generation.
Sutter read section (8)(b) on page 24. Goodwin stated that is for the purpose of
financing.
Brenner stated that they stipulated it would be a one -time division on the piece of
property.
Hoag stated that they could also restrict it not just to financing, but to dividing the
property also.
Sutter proposed striking the last sentence on page 25, item #49 regarding neighborhood
commercial districts. Goodwin stated there are some neighborhood commercial districts that are
not in small towns.
Sutter stated that they are striking the entire resort overlay section on page 27.
Goodwin stated that the resort overlay zone used to apply to all of the urban residential
areas that are outside of urban growth areas, such as Point Roberts and the Columbia Valley. It
used to say that one can't subdivide. If it is an approved plat, then the minimum lot size is the
lot of record, otherwise it is the underlying zone. In the Columbia Valley, the existing size is the
minimum lot size, other wise it is one per five. During the last meeting, they said they are still
four units per acre if it is in a resort recreational subdivision and they have water and sewer. The
regulations don't want to restrict the lot size as the lot of record, because no one could subdivide,
which is contrary to the four units per acre designation. She was concerned with four units per
acre zoning outside of urban growth areas. This will probably work because they are well -
defined areas and prevent further subdivisions.
Brenner stated that it would be okay to max out at four per acres within just those areas.
Hoag stated that Point Roberts is different. She questioned whether it would allow four
units per acre in Point Roberts. Goodwin stated that it would if there is public water and sewer.
Hoag read wording regarding a long -term study of the communities and questioned
whether a study was ever done. If a study was done, then that demonstrates a viable community,
which would be acceptable to show to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Goodwin stated that the two need to be consistent. It is not consistent with the section
that says it can go to four per acre if already subdivided, but one can't further subdivide. There
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
aren't too many areas this affects. One area is the Glen at Maple Falls. Zoning is RR3, but lots
are actually approximately one acre. The water association doesn't have excess capacity. This
is appropriate for that area.
Sutter questioned whether it would be appropriate to have the provision just for the Glen.
Goodwin stated that they could, or they could rezone the Glen to RR1 to match the use. It could
be docketed for next year. The water association has a limited capacity. There were
representatives that brought that issue to the Planning Commission previously.
Hoag stated that she was not interested in fighting the Hearings Board on unimportant
issues.
Brenner questioned whether there would be a problem for people in the Glen if zoning is
changed to RR Goodwin stated that it was once on the docket. RR had been invalidated.
That item was dropped when Superior Court upheld the County. All they need to do is initiate a
rezone or contact people to see if they still have the concern.
Sutter stated that they need to see if it is an issue for the residents.
Sutter suggested a change in the language on page 28, item #56, "...used to preserve
protect a critical area..."
Sutter stated that they would strike sections 20.72.250(1) and (2). Goodwin stated that
the question is whether to allow further subdivisions in Point Roberts. When down -zoned to UR
being one per five, then it would be consistent. If they allow four units per acre, then this would
be inconsistent.
Sutter stated that on page 30, section 20.74.070 regarding Cherry Point, they would add
section (e).
Nelson questioned whether that is within the planning blocks. Sutter stated they are.
They are discussing minimum lot size. It didn't mention lots of record.
Sutter stated that item #58 changes the section numbers.
Sutter stated that item #59 is to strike language regarding the agricultural impact
easement and only applies to the agricultural overlay section. The committee moved the
agricultural impact easement section into the agricultural protection overlay section.
Regarding section 20.85, Sutter stated that they don't want planned unit developments
(PUD) in the agricultural district. Agricultural districts aren't in short term planning areas.
Goodwin stated that there are instances when a PUD would be in an urban growth area and in an
agricultural zone, such as on the edge of Lynden. An agricultural zone within an urban growth
area would be a higher density at some point.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Sutter stated that she believed that until someone came forward with a master plan, the
underlying zoning would apply. Knapp responded that the dilemma is that it is easier to develop
residential. If they truly want it to be residential, then it should be thought of as a provisional
UGA. Residential density will develop sooner.
Sutter questioned whether there is other language that states that they will develop at the
underlying zoning until a master plan is developed. Goodwin stated that they still could, but not
through a residential PUD.
Goodwin stated that they need to do research on item #61. This is a major permit project
process. A PUD process may be more appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan is vague. It states
that the Custer PUD rezone would be processed. She will look into it.
Sutter suggested change in language on item #62, "... to help pr-eserve protect critical
areas and preserve open space..."
Sutter moved to section 20.89 regarding density transfers. They are dropping subsection
.023 regarding the definition of environmentally sensitive areas. They aren't called that
anymore.
Sutter moved to the last page.
Nelson questioned the difference between a master plan and PUD. Goodwin stated that
the master plan is undefined.
Knapp stated that it was criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
Nelson stated that there was conversation with the Custer people regarding the process.
They may have felt that the master plan has a different process than a PUD.
Goodwin stated that it is scheduled on the Planning Commission work schedule for 1998.
They would invite citizens and landowners to get a definition on the process.
Nelson stated that on a PUD, there must be a proposed project. Custer didn't have a
proposed project, only a concept for development. People asked how to do a State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review without knowing what the project is.
Goodwin stated that they could define a master plan in the Code. They need to have an
idea to assess impacts.
Knapp stated that it needs to be programmatic.
Sutter stated that items #61 and #66 conflict.
Goodwin stated that the major project permit process is to send it to the Hearing
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Examiner. The other may not be necessary. They are looking at creating a new provision for
master plans. She suggested holding off on item #61 to determine the most current thinking.
Sutter moved to the agricultural protection overlay.
Tom Murley, State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), questioned why Right To
Farm is in Title 20 and not the Right To Forest or the Right To Mine. The Planning Commission
stated that they need to get the Right To Forest in the forefront and make sure people buying
homes near the forest land know that forestry activities are happening.
Brenner stated that the Right to Farm ordinance unintentionally was included in every
zoning area. The Right to Forestry is only in a forestry zone.
Murley stated that the right to forestry should be in other zones.
Sutter stated that the Right to Farm has been codified in Title 20. Right to Forestry has
not been codified.
Brenner stated that the Right to Farm ordinance is in every zone.
Sutter stated that it is a legitimate question that the Right to Forestry is not in the forestry
section of Title 20.
Knapp stated that it could be in Title 20.
Sutter stated that it should be in Title 20, in the rural and commercial forestry zones,
sections 20.42 and 20.43.
Murley stated that when a land exchange happens next to a forested area, it needs to be
made clear of the Right to Forestry issue. It doesn't matter what the zoning area is.
Nelson stated that rural zoning should include Right to Farm, Right to Forest, and Right o
Mineral Resources.
Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission is docketed to look at rural forestry
interface in the next six months. That might be the best time to deal with it.
Murley stated that if someone buys land within 1/2 mile of a forested area, then they can't
complain about the forestlands. It is specific to the right to do forestry within the forestry zones,
but the impact is on any zone in the area.
Hoag stated the right to forestry is in the forestry zone.
Sutter stated that it needs to be placed in the appropriate places within Title 20 so people
are aware that there is forestry going on and they can't complain within a distance of 1/2 mile.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
Sutter moved to the agricultural overlay protection areas on page 21. They worked on
the exemptions from the provisions of the agriculture protection overlay. They were provided
with two options. One is to leave as it is, and only change the Land Evaluation Site Assessment
(LESA) classification to 1 -3. The other option regarded soils. LESA stated that other factors
were included in determining LESA classification, including average parcel size, road access,
public utilities, proximity to urban growth areas, intensity of nearby land uses, and irrigation.
They developed a draft assessment list. She reworked it to make it more applicable to the
agricultural protection overlay zone.
Nelson questioned who would do the checklist. Sutter stated that he applicant would be
responsible for filling out the checklist, then they would submit it to the County. It gives weight
to factors based on how they contribute to the viability of the agriculture. It is rated on a point
scale.
Knapp stated that their dilemma is the huge amount of the workload associated and
potential disagreement between applicants on different points. It adds additional uncertainty to
the process.
Sutter stated that an applicant couldn't argue the parcel size,
Nelson questioned the average parcel size. Goodwin suggested they remove the word
"average." It is just the parcel size.
Sutter stated that road access is defined. Goodwin stated that "near" is subjective.
Sutter stated that utilities would have to be available at the time. Knapp stated that
getting an applicant to tell you it is available is an issue.
Sutter stated that they have to prove availability anyway.
Hoag questioned the points assigned.
Sutter stated that proximity to urban growth areas should be defined. Options are
adjacent or contiguous. Intensity of nearby land uses could be defined. Drained or irrigated can
be defined.
Almskaar stated that there is an issue of how well land is drained. Knapp stated that
proper drainage is very contentious.
Sutter stated that they need to think of the purpose, which is agricultural land. If it has
been drained for the purpose of agricultural land, then it has value.
Almskaar questioned what would happen if drainage doesn't work.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Knapp stated that he wanted to avoid arguments in the permitting process.
Sutter stated that the problem is that the system now does not work.
Knapp stated that they don't want to make it difficult to evaluate.
Sutter stated that if there are other criteria about whether it contributes to viable
agricultural land, then include them in the checklist.
Knapp stated that it lengthens the time frame for an applicant.
Sutter stated that a checklist would not be subjective and would not lengthen the amount
of time.
Hoag stated that weighted factors might be worth pursuing. Sutter stated that the current
numbers are arbitrary numbers for the purpose of demonstration.
Hoag stated that good farms could have very good production, yet have a low number
assigned by the checklist.
Sutter stated that if a parcel has 50% or more of any combination of LESA soils 1 -3, then
100 points are assigned.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Goodwin stated that staff is doing test rating systems. Most of the areas in the
agricultural overlay areas are qualified.
Knapp stated that every time a checklist is added, it adds time for staff review.
Sutter stated that they already have to make the determinations that require more
intensive research.
Hoag questioned whether land that has not been used for farming qualifies as good land if
staff uses the checklist.
Sutter stated that it would then qualify as viable agricultural land.
Goodwin stated that it would be exempted if it was not farmed and in agricultural open
space. If a parcel is scores less than 150, then it is exempt.
Nelson stated that it should be non - exempt.
Sutter stated that it should not be exempt unless the criteria are met.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
Almskaar stated that the LESA program and the idea of the open space tax preference are
arbitrary. People in the County have their land in open space agriculture to keep property taxes
low. The LESA program was intended as a tool to evaluate changes, such as rezones. They are
using it for a different purpose now. It gets complicated. He suggested taking this and creating a
workable system. It is not easy to do this type of thing. It is too arbitrary and subjective. They
should come up with an easy checklist.
Sutter asked what is arbitrary and subjective.
Almskaar suggested taking LESA out of the ordinance to work on separately.
Sutter stated that just evaluating property only on soil type removes the subjectivity. The
LESA system is supposed to judge soil type on many types of criteria. However, the way it had
been adopted in the ordinance, they are only using the soil type.
Hoag stated that the way it is written, they begin with LESA 1 -3. They've already built
in other criteria.
Sutter stated that LESA did not take into consideration, when the soils were categorized,
any other criteria except soil type. They are not using a complete LESA system.
John Gillies, Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS), confirmed that the site
evaluation is strictly on soil.
Hoag questioned why they use the LESA soils groupings instead of Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) soil groupings.
Gillies stated that they are the same. They are using the same mapping and soil
surveying. They are taking all good agricultural soils and reviewing the top 25 %. They are
dealing with making tough choices.
Hoag questioned the advantage of using LESA instead of the SCS, if the only thing that
is used is the soil sample. Goodwin responded that there is no advantage
Gillies stated that if they don't do site assessment, then there's no real advantage.
Hoag stated that the disadvantage of using LESA is that it implies that the other criteria
are used.
Gillies stated that there needs to be a lot of work if it is going to be a useful tool. There
wasn't due process in evaluating the factors.
Goodwin stated that they needed a way to split non - agriculture land from the agricultural
overlay zone. At some point it was picked up as a process.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
Hoag questioned whether there was an advantage. Goodwin stated that they could go
back to NRCS prime and work on LESA.
Sutter stated that it doesn't matter what the soil type is, if other factors don't exist. They
need to evaluate each property on some criteria other than just soils. That is not all it takes to
make good agricultural land.
Almskaar stated that one item allows an owner to hire a soil expert. The definition of
farm is so broad that it could include anything. It needs to be refined. He suggested they adopt
the ordinance for the time being, take LESA out of the section, and then work on it.
Hoag stated that if they drop LESA, then they are left with SCS category I prime.
Gillies stated that is too narrow. They are then limited to the other way. Only the select
soils would then be suitable for agriculture.
Almskaar stated that the map in the Comprehensive Plans shows approximately half of
the low end as prime farmland. That is a lot of land.
Sutter questioned what the categories should be.
Nelson questioned whether they decided that LESA 1 -3 were the soils to protect. Retain
those as a mechanism to preserve the majority. Then they could either accept or not include the
fourth category, or go with a designation level after review. Leave in LESA 1 -3 only on soils
and independently review other criteria. Leave it as is while they get a process for citizens to do
the LESA review.
Nelson so moved to leave it as is, go with option one with the understanding to revisit the
entire section and develop a process. They are left with SCS category 1 prime and LESA 1 -3.
Sutter stated that they would work on the checklist in January.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked for clarification on (2) on page 23. Goodwin stated that if one owns a one -
acre parcel and also the adjacent 19 acres, then they could keep the one acre.
Hoag questioned whether that could be construed to say that a 20 -acre tract, created for
the purpose of serving a single - family residence, is not subject to the provisions.
Sutter stated that they are talking about R5 or R10 zoning. A 20 -acre tract or lot is not
created in that zoning for a single - family residence.
Hoag stated that a 20 -acre lot in R5 or R10 is consistent with the underlying zoning.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
Goodwin suggested changes to section 20.38.080(2), "...Comprehensive Plan shall He
be subject to the " of th s seetio" shall be considered a legal lot of record."
Sutter stated that the intent is trying to protect lots of record that were created according
to the zoning.
Hoag stated that a small landowner with one acre would be subject to agricultural
overlay, because that requires a 20 -acre minimum. The only things they are trying to exempt are
the things they don't want to exempt.
Goodwin stated that she would research this issue.
Sutter questioned section 20.80.740(A)(1)(b). The language should be, "...designated as
agriculture or agricultural protection overlay on the map..."
Goodwin stated that they split out the Right to Farm section.
Sutter stated that they still need the Right to Farm in the agricultural overlay section. The
way it reads currently, one doesn't have to do disclosure in the agricultural protection overlay
zone.
Goodwin stated that she didn't make that change, because they would first have to
modify section 14.02.040.
Sutter stated that they need to modify the other section also. They want to require
disclosure in the agricultural protection overlay zone.
Goodwin stated that she believed section 20.38 requires disclosure.
Sutter stated that is an impact easement. It doesn't require that it be reported, as the
Right to Farm does.
Goodwin stated that she would look into modifying section 14.02.040. An easement runs
with the land.
Sutter stated that it isn't as extensive as the Right to Farm ordinance.
Goodwin stated that it wouldn't involve someone next door if they wanted to have a
cluster parcel.
Sutter stated that if it applies to agriculture, then it should also apply to the agricultural
overlay. They are trying to protect agricultural practices in Whatcom County. It doesn't matter
if they are zoned agriculture or agricultural protection overlay. The purpose is to protect
agriculture. It needs to be protected in both areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
Hoag stated that she was uncertain whether the level of protection was the same.
Sutter stated that, when they are required by the State to protect agricultural land, they
are considering it valuable land to protect as agriculture. They should afford it the same
protection no matter where it is in the County. They are not doing that.
Hoag stated that it should be protected, however, the type of zoning that it is in does
make a difference. When in a rural zone and other residents have rights that are to be protected,
there is more of a balancing act. When there is an agricultural impact easement, she is inclined
to protect sufficiently. However, protection doesn't necessarily have to equal what is in the
agricultural zone.
Gillies stated that most of the impacts are noise, sprinkler systems, and other nighttime
activities.
Hoag stated that some nighttime activities are necessary for agriculture. Certain
agriculture activities done in a rural zone that are done in the middle of the night are
questionable when they don't have to be done at that time. It is not something that is necessary
to do the farming operation. They want to make sure the farming operation is protected. In the
agriculture zone, it is mostly unrestricted. In the rural zone, more consideration must be given to
impacts to ensure uses aren't allowed that aren't necessary.
Sutter stated that the section requires disclosure. It is not unreasonable to ask that
someone in an agricultural overlay zone make that kind of disclosure when they sell a piece of
property. They should be required to disclose the possibility of agricultural practices.
Hoag stated that is a lot of disclosure in the rural zone.
Almskaar stated that if they require the notice, then they could get rid of the agricultural
impact easement.
Nelson stated that they should keep it as agriculture in agricultural overlay.
Goodwin stated that they would also need an amendment to section 14.02 to add the
words, "...or agricultural overlay."
Sutter stated that there are four places it would need to be included. The easement should
then be deleted.
Hoag questioned whether it was sufficient the way it was proposed to go forward, in that
the parcel would not include more than 50% SCS category 1 prime or LESA class 1 -3
agriculture soils.
Gillies stated that it is close to what they have now. He liked the proposed revised list of
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, 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
45
the LESA soils better than the original list. Some of the group four soils were moved up. There
are not many in group three.
OTHER ITEMS
Goodwin gave committee members a list of thirty zoning issues scheduled for the next
Planning Commission. (AB98 -397) A lot of the items are code scrub issues that have been on
the docket since 1991. Some of the items are new issues. The Planning Commission asked for
input on prioritizing Lake Whatcom issues. There is a proposal to down -zone the lake and
install moratorium on forestry conversions.
Sutter stated that they would go over the list and make a recommendation as a Council.
Goodwin stated that another issue is Central Road. It was brought up as a site - specific
Comprehensive Plan issue. She questioned whether it was the Council's intent that the County
would initiate a rezone of the area. There has never been an application made.
Knapp stated that if Council initiates it, conversion of that many units may trigger an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for which the County would be responsible.
Goodwin stated that input is requested just for the next meeting. They are asking
whether all the items should be on the docket.
Sutter stated that she wanted this review scheduled for the next Planning Committee
meeting. The Development Regulations would be held in committee and an emergency version
would be brought forward to the next Council meeting. Sutter stated that she hoped to see a
draft checklist by Valentine's Day.
Knapp responded that it depends on the other items the Council prioritized on the
Planning Commission docket.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, Page 16
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Committee, 10/27/98, Page 17