HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 23 19971
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
September 23, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Kathy Sutter
Ctnff PraePnt-
Absent:
None
Tom Brown, Council member
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office
Ward Nelson, Council member
Steve Fox, Planning and Development Services, Land Use
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PERMANENT WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, TO COMPLY WITH THE
WASHINGTON STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB97 -226A)
Starkenburg suggested reviewing the ordinance and giving it to staff for presentation for
Council vote in two weeks. He stated that if time permits, comments would be allowed on a
limited basis and requested those wishing to speak do so succinctly. He wanted to give this work
to staff — including legal counsel —for review and re -write as needed. This will not be discussed
at tonight =s meeting. One of Starkenburg's concerns was the working realities of this proposed
ordinance.
The letter (on file) from Roland Middleton, Public Works, was discussed regarding his
concerns about the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Committee discussed striking the
ag land language on page 13, Section 16.16.285A, to delete Aon agricultural land -. Discussion
followed.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Manager, addressed Middleton's
letter. She called attention to the changed sections in the ordinance (16.16.285A, "Conservation
Program on Ag Lands"; 16.16.800.3, "Definitions" (ag activity); and Appendix D,
"Conservation Program on Ag Lands ").
Discussion followed on 16.16.800.3., definition of agricultural activities. Goodwin noted
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, 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
that by the Planning Commission's recommended language change, the intent of the definition has
been changed. A process would have to be completed for conversion. Michael Knapp, Planning
and Development Services Director, stated that the impact of changing needs to be addressed in a
SEPA process, which has not been done. Sutter wondered what impact this would have on those
attempting agriculture. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, responded that if wetlands
were converted for farm use, access would be lost to federally subsidized programs.
Those also speaking included:
Skip Richards, Citizen
Steve Fox, Planning and Development Services, Land Use
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Planner
Bob Andersen, Land Use Planner
Starkenburg was in favor of Middleton's suggestion despite the impact. Dawson
inquired about the costs of conversion. Knapp explained the process.
Sutter was concerned about the unintended consequences of this but was in favor of
moving this issue forward. Dawson was also in favor of moving forward. Starkenburg
requested staff review this issue for any other possible changes.
Starkenburg moved the discussion to the ordinance. He stated there were many items for
discussion for tonight's Council meeting and pointed out he met with staff to consider the
documents already submitted. Committee will agree or disagree based on staff's recommendations
and review the revised written document.
Ward Nelson, Council member, suggested committee review comments and vote on those
that should be brought forward to Council. That would, of course, not preclude a floor debate but
allow Council a clean copy from which to work.
Sutter was concerned about 16.16.100B, "Purpose ", page 1, regarding the difference
between critical and sensitive areas. She suggested the following language:
"By regulating development and alternations to these critical areas sensitive to human
a,... .
She also was concerned about #10 and #12, same page, but was satisfied with staff's
added language. Starkenburg stated that based on today's discussions, he concurred with those
changes, as did Dawson.
Nelson was concerned about #5, page 1, questioning the word "prevent ". After discussion,
it was agreed to insert "minimize ".
"Pr-eve t Minimize adverse impacts to the quality and quantity of water resources;... ".
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, 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
Starkenburg was concerned about 16.16.200B.1, "Administrative Provisions ", page 2,
regarding "conforms ". Discussion followed. The following language was suggested:
"...demonstrate that the proposal submitted eeafefms is generally consistent with the
purposes and... ".
Nelson questioned on page 5, H, whether this is exempt. Fox explained. Brown
requested "and channel maintenance" at the end of that sentence and asked if there are creeks not
governed by the Department of Fish & Wildlife. There was discussion. Staff will investigate.
Brown was also concerned about L, same page, regarding pesticides. Discussion
followed. Suggested language was:
"Pesticide application applied by .,,,,,.heat.,rs li . e by the in accordance with
Washington State Department of Agriculture regulations."
(Clerk's Note: Tape 1, side B)
Starkenburg questioned 16.16.225V4, page 6, regarding clearing /adverse impacts. Fox
responded regarding "significant adverse impacts" and "could occur ". There was further
discussion on this item; buffers (item 3); and zoning districts (item 1). Goodwin replied these
are functionality issues. Language was suggested:
"Clearing and re- vegetation of buffer areas for view purposes provided that sufficient
buffers are provided to protect the functions of the critical area."
Goodwin inquired about the process. Starkenburg replied a consensus was difficult to
give staff at today's meeting regarding suggested language. He requested staff work to meet the
intent. Starkenburg stated if, after review, committee needs to meet once more for further
review, the language will then be fine - tuned. He was hoping staff could work with today's
suggestions, thus allowing committee to move on without another meeting.
Discussion followed on criteria for site inspection regarding 16.16.235B3, page 7. Fox
responded.
On page 8, Starkenburg requested language change on F.1. to add "on -site design ":
"The purpose of the project, an examination of project on -site design alternatives, and
an...."
Section 16.16.245 was discussed next. Brown suggested adding "regulated" before
wetland; and mitigation guideline, Option 1 and Option 2. There was discussion. Starkenburg
requested staff work this paragraph.
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, 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
Committee recognized John Wong's (citizen) input regarding mitigation.
On page 9, "e ", Sutter suggested changing both "compensating" to "mitigating" in this
paragraph. Regarding BA.b, page 10, Nelson was concerned about "designated by the county"
and suggested "identified by the county ". Fox responded by suggesting language on B.4
regarding deleting "subbasin ". Discussion followed on this mitigation paragraph with Bob
Andersen, Land Use Planner, and Skip Richards, citizen, also commenting. Starkenburg
requested this be rewritten to be broadened. Discussion followed. Starkenburg noted for the
record that a letter (on file) was received from Janie Hoover, Department of Ecology (DOE),
requesting Council be not too specific in the type of methods needed, etc. He requested Fox
work with other staff on this language.
Goodwin inquired about mitigation ratio. Discussion followed with Fox also participating.
Sam Crawford, Planning Commission, commented why he was in attendance and pointed out
Appendix E, page 3, regarding mitigation ratios from the DOE. The appendix contradicts DOE's
letter. Andersen commented.
Goodwin asked if the DOE guidelines on mitigation should be adopted. She stated her
department's recommendation is to reference those guidelines. Committee concurred.
Sutter suggested deleting "compensatory" on page 10, D, "Compensatory Mitigation —
General Requirements ", and #4; page 11, #5; and E, "Cooperative Compensati = Mitigation
Projects, as well as in that same paragraph. Discussion followed about mitigation ratio.
Starkenburg directed staff examine this paragraph in light of the discussion. John Wong
commented. There was further discussion.
(Clerk's Note: Tape 2, side A)
Starkenburg stated committee was trying to make sure this ordinance will work so
everyone gains and asked how the County could be made a better place as a result.
Starkenburg suggested language on page 11, 16.16.255A1, be inserted:
"...to the subject property, including, but not limited to size, shape,... ".
Committee concurred.
Starkenburg suggested language on page 11, 16.16.255A 1, be inserted:
"...including, but not limited to size, shape, topography, physical conditions, location or
surroundings,... ".
Sutter was concerned on page 12, 16.16.265A and B, regarding 14 days being calendar or
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, 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
working days. Staff will insert "calendar ".
Starkenburg was concerned with "D ", same section, same page, and asked Gibson about
inserting language. Gibson suggested the following:
"...clearly erroneous or based upon error of law."
Andersen was concerned with the section on variance, page 12, 16.16.255.3, and stated
the variance standard appeared to be too rigid. Staff suggested inserting a date; Starkenburg
requested staff address this concern.
Sutter questioned whether $1,000 was significant deterrent as a penalty for violation of
this ordinance (page 13). Discussion followed. It was noted that a Stop Work Order and
violation of the ordinance are two different penalties. There was further discussion. Topics
discussed included who would be subject to fines for violation of the ordinance (paragraph A);
Stop Work Order process; fines for violation of the ordinance as well as violation of a Stop Work
Order; various suggested language regarding these issues; possible jail time; and whether there
would be an alternative mechanism to the Administrative process regarding fines.
Starkenburg directed committee to page 22 to discuss substantive issues. He requested
committee submit any questions regarding pages 14 to 21 to him for chair discussion with staff.
The results of any discussions would be returned to committee for final decisions.
Starkenburg inquired if committee were dealing with the same definition of wetlands
from the Growth Management Act (GMA) as is in this ordinance for consistency. There was no
discussion. Starkenburg requested everyone review this section for consistency.
Sutter requested a new paragraph on page 23, 16.16.610C, regarding non - regulated
wetlands:
"3. Non - regulated wetlands include all wetlands which do not perform critical
functions."
There was discussion. Richards proposed addressing specifically an exemption threshold
(staff and committee has suggested language). Starkenburg suggested staff and especially Sutter
review Richards' suggested language regarding her concern.
Sutter was concerned about the issue of clustering on page 24, 16.16.640B. Starkenburg
suggested "may" in place of "shall ":
"Land divisions may shaU be clustered...".
Almskaar was concerned about language in section 16.16.620, page 24, regarding
functional rating system and requested "minimum" be deleted. There was discussion.
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, 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
"...by the County shall address, at a .,- maim,,,.,,, the following functional attributes:... ".
There was discussion. Richards suggested the list should be limited to demonstrating the
natural functions where public harm could be shown if these functions were lost. Starkenburg
instructed staff review this item.
Almskaar was concerned about the definition of "isolated" wetlands. A short discussion
followed. Starkenburg noted definitions will be discussed later.
Fox discussed Section 16.16.640C, page 24, regarding riparian. Discussion followed. It
was suggested:
"Buffer areas shall be... ".
Sutter suggested deleting "riparian" also in paragraph B, same section.
Sutter was concerned about language regarding "intensity" on page 25, 16.16.650A.2,
and suggested changing it to "impact ". Discussion followed on why that entire A.2 was
necessary to be left in place. Starkenburg requested staff either drop this section or reword it, if
possible. Brown inquired why buffers were on every stream. There was discussion.
Nelson suggested deleting 16.16.650A.4, page 25, as he felt it was adequately covered
by number 3. Discussion followed. Starkenburg stated number 4 will stand.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member
Planning Minutes, 9/23/97, Page 6