Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning August 12 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee August 12, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Marlene Dawson Kathy Sutter Absent: None Staff Present: Tom Brown, Council member Ward Nelson, Council member Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services, Land Use Division COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PERMANENT WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, TO COMPLY WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB97 -226A) (THIS ITEM ALSO SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING) Starkenburg explained this item was in committee prior to a hearing in order to obtain a staff report on the status of their work relating to the Planning Commission and also for discussion regarding the administration of the environmental chapter in this ordinance. Jeff Griffin, Planning and Development Services, reported that his office had the Planning Commission minutes. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated she had all but two of the minutes, which were available. Starkenburg instructed her to write a memo to Council stating the minutes are available, as there was no need to copy them unnecessarily. Griffin stated the Planning Commission's recommendation was unanimous. There were seven meetings; two public hearings were held on this one issue. Griffin pointed out there was much editing and reorganizing from the previous version of Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 1 the document. The Growth Management Hearings Board's (GMHB) last ruling of last year stated the previous ordinance contained much language dealing with developing solutions to certain areas of deficiency. A solution was requested by the GMHB to be in the ordinance. A number of points were addressed by the Board: • insufficient scientific support for the stream buffers (in the current draft, there is sufficient scientific support); • lacking administrative criteria regarding rivers and streams (in the current draft, language has been changed to correct this) • too much activity allowed within buffer areas (the Planning Commission has tightened this up) • invalidated wetland section regarding Category 4 and waived Category 3 (the previous ordinance did not regulate these wetlands) • administrative ambiguity with the language regarding the development of the functional rating system (this has been addressed in the current draft) • shellfish protection concerns • non - Growth Management Act (GMA) statutes providing additional protection for clarification Dawson questioned the scientific support for buffers. Gibson pointed out if there is basis in the official record to support the Finding, that is all that is required. The notion of the record is a dynamic one. Gibson further explained that the scientific evidence will produce different figures because the scientific studies are testing for different things. A broad range and the political challenge is to balance those in order to arrive at a figure that does justice to what needs to be protected. Regarding this subject, Griffin replied the Planning Commission examined the literature reviews and focused on the issue of flexibility in the ordinance and how function is applied to the system to a particular site. Starkenburg stated the reason for all this discussion was that this part continues to have workable issues in the real world. Committee began with an incentive program with the intent of regulatory action which involved Council members and others; then the discussion focused on an incentive program vs regulatory action; this has now gone full circle. He then inquired what the basis was for the administrator to determine which way to flex. The next issue of concern is who was going to make that decision. Griffin continued by pointing out some of the main sections of the ordinance that were changed, mostly in response to the GMHB and others to increase consistency with recent revisions to the GMA. He pointed out there is a provision (RCW 36.70.172, a new law) regarding scientific study requirements for protection, as well as anadromous fishery enhancement and protection, which was previously not contained in the GMA. The document regarding clarified requirements was edited and reorganized. A new section was added regarding frequently flooded areas. Griffin also spoke briefly to the sections on mitigation requirements for wetlands, rivers and streams"; variances; and stop work order. Sutter inquired about appeals Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 2 to the stop work order. Roland Middleton, Land Use Division, replied stop work orders are considered a final order, and these would be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Ward Nelson, Council member, inquired about penalties. Starkenburg noted he wanted to introduce the issues in case there would be any collective concerns after the hearings. Middleton noted that fines and penalties were being reviewed on all sections of land use regarding clearing Title 20 and zoning issues. Griffin moved the discussion to the Ag Conservation District and administrative procedures, which were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the Conservation District Board. The activities in an aquifer recharge area was added to the critical areas to the conservation program. Starkenburg then requested Henry Bierlink give committee an overview of the situation. Henry Bierlink, Ag Conservation District, stated his district developed the program. The last part of the contract is to assist in getting the program in place. The next step for the district would be to decide whether it will administer the program. Currently, the district is only helping to approve some of those plans. The implementation stage is about to begin. Starkenburg inquired of discussion in the ag community regarding how to approach that working relationship. Bierlink replied there was an Ag Advisory Committee. Griffin distributed a handout regarding comments provided by the SEPA official (on file). Sutter inquired about the definition of hobby farm. Griffin stated it was defined in the context of any farming activity on less than 20 acres plus a couple other conditions. Sutter then wanted to know if that caused any problems with the ag protection overlay. Gibson replied there was no inconsistency with the ag protection overlay. He defined a hobby farm as an activity that involves no more than five animal units and two acres or less of tilled cropland. If an owner has more than these requirements, he must go through the Conservation District. Brown was concerned with the language in the document. Discussion followed on the interpretation of an exemption of a requirement regarding a hobby farm. If an owner is following best management plan practices (BMP), according to Gibson, there is no need to submit a plan to the Conservation District. Griffin stated the BMP are ongoing. Starkenburg clarified that the Planning Commission responded to the GMHB by trying to find areas that needed to be improved to meet the Board's approval. Middleton commented on the amendments put forth by the Planning Commission regarding ag activity exemptions, the Commission opened it up completely. Any agricultural activity is exempt from the critical areas. He pointed out several minor changes made in the ag sections. In order to expand ag activities, the ordinance (GMA) must be complied with regarding mitigation, etc. He stated he had two options, one of which was to issue a mitigated DNS requiring those changes. After attempting to expedite the process, he decided never to issue an MDNS for a Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 3 legislative action and give Council the option to decide if this is how Council wishes to proceed and open up the process to allow expansion into wetlands without any review. If so, an EIS addressing this issue can be done. Otherwise, the simple changes would be taken care of and the original DNS would stand. Griffin noted it was confusing, and the intent is unclear and can be argued different ways.. He pointed out deletions on various pages that would clarify the confusion. Griffin continued with changes: non - regulated wetlands; (Clerk's Note: Tape 1, side B) wetland area functional rating; fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; shellfish habitat conservation areas; stormwater discharge; and onsite septic system maintenance agreement with the County. Griffin stated this Critical Areas Ordinance is consistent with the Comp Plan. The Development Regulations will flow from this to be consistent with the Comp Plan. Brown inquired about the changes in the stream policy. Griffin stated the GMHB found the previous stream buffers inadequate. Nelson questioned the incentive program process, which is all optional. Discussion followed with health issues regarding wetlands. Starkenburg clarified the administrative process of the Comp Plan: review the Comp Plan to ensure consistency of the regulatory action with the CAO; if not, staff will return it to committee. The Comp Plan will be the first layer, and the CAO will be viewed as a regulatory work to those goals and policies under the environmental chapter. Knapp pointed out there may be other chapters. Goodwin requested clarification regarding detail for the staff report at tonight's meeting. Starkenburg requested Council member input for intention on whether this issue should return to committee for further discussion and fine tuning. If so, the information for tonight would be limited. Nelson asked if the record could be kept open after the public hearing. Gibson replied in the affirmative. Then Nelson stated background information was needed. Starkenburg stated the need for this issue to proceed. Personally, he wanted to deal with matters that continue to be glaring or give background information to those particular issues that staff has parameters by which they function. His hope was that much committee time would not be necessary and that the Planning Commission would have worked out most of the issues. He was concerned that they worked from the perspective of the GMHB. Starkenburg and Nelson met with Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) and DOE and were assured that if the Council wanted to go the incentive direction, that could be done provided follow through was done; otherwise, regulatory was the other option. Committee elected to go with the incentive program, which was more work. Staff needs ample tools and the direction for that incentive program. He felt there were a few missing pieces, which may not change the document. He again requested input from Council members. Brown stated this document did not reflect public Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 4 testimony and would not support it. The people would not be satisfied; only the GMHB. Dawson stated she wanted to return it to committee, as did Sutter. Starkenburg then directed Goodwin to give an overview at tonight's meeting that need not be in depth, as it will return to committee. Goodwin inquired about what was needed as part of the record for tonight's public hearing. Gibson noted that the Planning Commission's work is relevant to this. If staff has interacted with the Planning Commission and provided extensive literature review and data, all that is necessary is to note that all that has been developed in the Planning Commission process, which should be incorporated by reference. She then inquired about the urban fringe and the amount of detail regarding the presentation. Starkenburg noted Carl Batchelor updated committee at the last meeting and requested the same type of report. Sutter requested clarification on what was being adopted; Goodwin clarified. Nelson stated there was much material in this proposed ordinance and requested the record be kept open, as there are some substantial changes. As committee chair, Starkenburg hoped Council would not be bogged down on the two subjects at tonight's meeting and that a way would be found to bring forward concerns quickly. Griffin had maps for the record. Starkenburg requested he reference them at tonight's meeting so Council would be aware of what they are. Committee will probably review them at the next meeting. Nelson asked if the Appendices and the CAO would be available for tonight. Goodwin replied Council Office has a copy. Starkenburg directed discussion to commission land use study. Knapp updated committee on the activities of the study commission, both past and present. No conclusions have been reached thus far. He reported the commission was supportive of Whatcom County concerns. Nelson stated he was not optimistic. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 5 Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 8/12/97, Page 6