HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 28 19931 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 County -wide Planning Policies
3
4 January 28, 1993
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Sehome High School Cafetorium
7 by Marge Laidlaw, Chair.
8
9 Also present: Absent:
10 Barbara Brenner
11 Larry Harris
12 Ken Henderson
13 Bob Imhof
14 Dennis Vander Yacht (late)
15 Dan Warner
16
17 1. DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (AB92-
18 080)
19
20 Laidlaw announced that the record will be left open for written public comment until
21 noon, Monday, February 8, 1993.
22
23' Bob Woods, Budget Analyst, served as moderator for the meeting. Woods reviewed
;4 the background for this meeting and the format for this meeting. He also reviewed the dates
25 for the future work session (February 11), re -write deadline for staff of February 16, and
26 final Council vote by February 23.
27
28 Dan Taylor, Director of Planning and Development, reviewed the history of the
29 County -Wide Planning Policies (CWPP), their intents and the maps, and differentiated
30 between CWPP and Visioning.
31.
32 Vicki Mathison, Planning Department, introduced the Visioning process as envisioned
33 by the Planning Department, including intended public input. She called on the public to
34 volunteer participation in planning and developing the Visioning process and the Vision
35 itself.
36
37 Mathison then reviewed the "purple" handout. Page one was a compilation of the flip
38 charts generated at the Mt. Baker meeting. Those comments were organized, connected with
39 the policies they affect, taken back to the Oversight Committee, where recommenda -tions
40 for changes in the policies were made.
41
42 A. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: Mathison said that a large group of comments
43 requested broader representation of citizens and suggested ways of doing this. She
44 recognized the concerns about differences between rural and urban issues. Changes included
45 some specific references about the kinds of activities that could occur and also specified that
.6 when public processes were developed, both rural and urban interested needed to be
1 represented. Another concern, she said, was concern with public notice, especially when an
2 individual's property was involved or affected. Added to the Policies here were some
3 specifics on dealing with publicity and getting those affected involved in the decisions. A
4 third concern, she said, was that people wanted to see how their input affected what had
5 happened, so a statement related to that was included in the policies. She said that a
6 recommended change to fit requests for more adequate mapping and public use of that
7 mapping had been included. A request to put more out for public vote was not included as
8 a recommended change because of the expense involved.
9
10 Skip Richards, 214 N. Commercial: Criticized the idea that many recommendations
11 were turned down by the Oversight Committee because they were too specific. He suggested
12 that the CWPP requires that the comments from the Dec. 3 be accessed as a source of
13 specifics to implement the CWPP as we go through the comp plan, zoning, and development
14 regulations changes, etc. He stressed again the importance of formal notification to affected
15 property owners and of specific parcel -based mapping.
16
17 Chuck Stirling, 8316 Fawn Crescent, Birch Bay: Stressed the importance of using the
18 ballot box and of maintaining the Boundary Review Board intact, at least until the Growth
19 Management has matured and settled in.
20
21 Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Dr.: Criticized the accuracy of the maps. He said that
22 with the maps so inaccurate, it is difficult to perceive the changes and their effects. He says
23 that the mapping should be done now, not later. He suggested that on page 2, alternative
A 6, something should be added that information would be disseminated to the citizens at an
25 early enough date that they could make intelligent comments on things.
26
27 Schaara Chase, 599 Pleasant Bay Road: Wanted to clarify that there would be only
28 two categories, urban and rural. Mathison said that those decisions have not been made yet;
29 Visioning would help to do that.
30
31 Jason Reimer, Lynden: Suggested that Coalition for Land Use Education (CLUE)
32 as a broad -based group be considered for use for Visioning. Suggested that perhaps zoning
33 could be eliminated in the county, which would solve a lot of problems.
34
35 Roger Almskaar, 1400 Broadway: Suggested that an item be added to the last item,
36 bottom of page 2, that the groups work together to make these experiences more pleasant
37 and positive with an effort made to draw out what people really think, particularly stressing
38 areas of mutual agreement; ask some questions of participants. He will submit further
39 suggestions on a public /private partnership on the GIS system.
40
41 B. URBAN GROWTH AREA /DISTINCTIONS: Taylor said that this section pretty
42 well addresses the concerns that the public had, so no changes were proposed.
43
44 POPULATION GROWTH, GROWTH AREAS, AND HOUSING COSTS: Taylor
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 2
1 said that here the Oversight Committee would use the OMF population numbers that the
2 State requires, then add fifty percent or more. They worked to clarify the language, but the
3 meaning was not changed any. They clarified that re- evaluation of the growth areas and
4 boundaries would be reviewed every five years with adjustments made as necessary. They
5 added one new policy, that each jurisdiction should develop an approach to calculating the
6 need for additional land area based on limitations imposed by individual critical areas
7 regulations. Zoning changes will be made in the future when the visioning is done, but not
8 now. On page 6, dealing with unincorporated growth areas, the word "node" was removed.
9 The clause stating that the unincorporated areas would not be able to expand was also
10 removed. They also committed to exploring the rural village notion during the Visioning
11 process. Policy 11 was mis- stated, so the wording was clarified. They did not feel that
12 Whatcom County was large enough for anymore wholly contained communities. Taylor
13 further clarified the membership of the Oversight Committee.
14
15 Monty McIntyre, 585 Pleasant Bay Rd.: Said he will be providing some language on
16 behalf of Friends of Chuckanut for consideration on sections 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the urban
17 growth area and urban vs. rural distinction section, also in parts 4 and 6 of the contiguous
18 section. Objected to the 50% greater than the OMF projected figure; stay with the OMF
19 figure. Suggested impact fees for Fire Departments.
20
21 Skip Richards: Regarding element 6, urged using a formula -like approach to
22 determining the amount of land area. Certainly the amount of land allocated to industry
23 should be tied to this. He said element 7 on page 7 still discourages PUD's, which causes
14 a problem with orderly growth. Taylor said that the land area of Whatcom County is limited;
25 the County is not large enough to need more PUD's. Richards argues that the market place
26 itself will discourage further small communities, so what is the need for a policy doing that?
27 Richards said that element 10 on page 5 is not specific enough in spelling out what the goals
28 are. He suggested appropriating the comments on the handout which would set some more
29 guidelines. He also questioned the adequacy of the dates set for adopting these. He feels
30 more time .is needed.
31
32 Jeff Menses: 988 W. Laurel, Ferndale: Speaking on behalf of the Drayton Harbor
33 Watershed Committee. He expressed concern that a lot of the comments made by the
34 Drayton Harbor Committee do not show up in the revised document. After going through
35 the documents and comparing them to those from other counties, the committee has
36 suggested some wording changes which he doesn't see reflected in the revised document. In
37 point 12, page 7, he would like to see "should" changed to "shall." He would like to add a
38 new point, number 16, "Adopt policies that encourage development that is compatible with
39 the natural constraints of slopes, soils, vegetation, drainage, water bodies, and flood areas,
40 aquifers, and wetlands."
41
42 Richard Gilda, 2727 Jenson Rd.: Asked why the Oversight Committee seems to be
43 composed of mostly government officials rather than citizens. Taylor responded that this
44 committee's specific task is inter - governmental coordination; the committee is dealing with
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 3
1 inter jurisdictional issues, not visioning, which will be a very public process. Gilda asked
2 about why the citizen committee is being limited to 13, rather than involving a broader
3 spectrum. Mathison responded that the group of 13 was to help Planning design the process,
4 not to be the ones who made the decisions; the idea is to get as many people as possible
5 involved in the process and decision making.
6
7 Richard Denke, representing Lee and Barbara Denke: Suggested that great care be
8 taken not to create a housing shortage in the name of containing urban sprawl, so draw the
9 urban boundaries expansively in order to account for all the development restrictions and
10 normal market processes. He objected to the policy of restricting utility services as a means
11 of bringing about development restrictions is, from a liability standpoint, very hazardous to
12 the county.
13
14 Terry Bornnemann, 903 Mason St.: On page 7 number 7, doesn't want the policy
15 changed which discourages self - contained communities. They can be discouraged, but not
16 prohibited. On page 7 number 12, agrees with "shall rather than "should" infill.
17
18 Roger Almskaar: Policy 6 on page 4, says he's not a pro - development person; he's
19 for moderate, balanced growth. He stressed that infilling cannot be enforced. Incentives
20 need to be given for encouraging infilling. The 50% figure should be based on a number of
21 things other than just population. The policy could be improved if it had a written rationale
22 for how the number is being arrived at. And beyond housing, think about industry and
23 business land uses. He suggested annual monitoring to report how the land is being used up
14 in terms of what's permitted, what's built, what's applied for. This policy is one of the most
25 important in the document; the price for a mistake is beyond what we would like to pay.
26
27 Joe Burton, Greenville St.: Also objects to the 50% factor. This area is going to grow
28 whether we like it or not, so somehow we need to come up with a rational formula for
29 dealing with this growth. He asked if rural village concept was another name for nodes.
30 Mathison said that was a suggestion from one of the groups last time.
31
32 C. CONTIGUOUS ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT: Taylor said that although now
33 urban/rural areas seems to be arbitrarily designated, by the time the CWPP's are finished,
34 the designations won't be arbitrary. The Oversight Committee. spent a lot of time discussing
35 the issue of utilities vs. growth and ultimately left the final decision totally to Council.
36 Generally the cities will require annexation before development occurs except around
37 Bellingham where the utilities are already out there. It is the hope of the Committee that
38 addressing Chuckanut area won't be the problem that the urban fringe plan is because the
39 scale is smaller; Bellingham will probably take the big lead on that. Downzoning issue has
40 been eliminated. Taylor clarified which issues can be appealed to the Growth Board. They
41 clarified that urban development should meet urban standards and rural development
42 shouldn't have to.
43
44 Alfred Dale, 741 Chuckanut: Concerned that it is basically urban growth; what deals
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 4
1 with rural reality? Taylor clarified. Dale said the document seemed absolutely committed
2 against agriculture. Agriculture is a biological necessity and needs to have its place clarified.
3 Taylor clarified that "resource lands" includes agriculture.
4
5 Chuck Stirling: Page 9, recommends that county and state utility special districts
6 (PUD's or local water districts) be involved along with the citizen input. There are areas
7 which are neither rural nor urban and a place needs to be made for this in the CWPP.
8
9 Jayson Reimer: Asked about qualifications for being on Oversight Committee. Taylor
10 clarified. Reimer then asked about the basis for water shortage assumption. Taylor clarified
11 that the issue here is not shortage, but utility extension. Reimer agreed with Dale that food
12 could become a problem without agriculture. He also suggested that rural growth be tied
13 to septic approval and water rather than to public supply of utilities.
14
15 Skip Richards: Emphasized again performance based development standards. They
16 should be referred to in this section and specifically defined in the affordable housing
17 section. The new C -14, bottom of page 4, is good, but.it needs expansion to include not only
18 critical areas but also already developed areas, open space, public lands, easements, right
19 of ways, and land not available for sale (this doesn't mean specific parcels; it means a
20 formula determining land not on the market). Because of water problems, the existing water
21 purveyors should be supported in their attempt to maintain their current level of service.
22
23 Steve DeBolt: Number 2, page 9, annexation process and policy. Concerned that the
!4 urban growth areas will result in colonization for the people living in those urban growth
25 area. The property owners should have the ability to decide to opt out of the growth areas.
26 He also suggested that the Oversight Committee be expanded to include citizens.
27
28 Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail: Spent last two years working on the coordinated
29 water system plan.. Item 6 on page 8 has some problems. Alternate 1 presumes that piped
30 water is an urban service, which is not true in Whatcom County. Alternate 2 is the better
31 choice.
32
33 Robin Dexter, 3726 Broad St.: Pointed out that the State is planning comprehensive
34 water planning in the Nooksack Basin. The way water use is addressed in this county will
35 ultimately affect the way that land use practices is addressed.
36
37 Jean Gorton: Policy 6, page 8, supports alternative 2. She also pointed out how
38 Cordata Business Park is often held up as an example of ideal planning and cooperation
39 between the City and County. The smoothness of the transition from county to city would
40 not ever have happened under this policy; this matter should be addressed, possibly with an
41 amendment to alternative 2 which she will submit.
42
43 D. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Mathison said three series of comments related to
44 affordable house: (1) that the requirement to encourage affordable housing should be made
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 5
1 stronger; (2) some specific incentives should be offered to encourage affordable housing with
2 cost shared between the public and private sectors; and (3) define more clearly "affordable
3 housing." The language was changed to strengthen that requirement, but the word "shall" was
4 not used. Language was included so that providing affordable housing would allow reduction
5 or elimination of impact fees. "Affordable housing" is so different in each community that
6 each jurisdiction is being asked to go through the process of defining the term for itself.
7
8 Alfred Dale: Item 7, page 11, asked specifically how many "affordable" housing units
9 it takes to exempt a development; the wording implies that only 2 would do so. He suggests
10 that only those units that are "affordable" be exempt and that the CWPP so state.
11
12 Skip Richards: Proposed that performance based development standards be included
13 in this section. He also pointed out that "affordable housing" be defined to make a clear
14 distinction between "affordable housing" which means housing priced as low as possible
15 given market condition and "subsidized housing." Asked if "affordable housing" refers to
16 inclusionary zoning? Mathison clarified that as it stands right now, each jurisdiction would
17 make that decision for itself, so it isn't specified in the CWPP as it stands right now.
18
19 Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive: Page 10, where it says all jurisdictions "should"
20 provide a range of housing, that "should" needs to be changed to "shall." Discussed the
21 amount of mid -range housing available in the past and currently, demonstrating a tight
22 housing market.
23
'4 Roy Giles, 5385 Shields Rd.: Pointed out that one of the fundamentals of "affordable"
25 housing enables people to live and work at the same place, something that seems to be
26 strongly discouraged under the CWPP.
27
28 Mike Ross, 4759 Bay Rd.: Complimented Council on the amount of public input it
29 has allowed. Suggested dropping the "shall' vs. "should" business.
30
31 Darryl McClellan, 119 N. Commercial: Agreed that a clarification is needed between
32 "affordable" and "subsidized" housing. Increased bureaucracy and regulation tends to
33 increase the cost of housing. So does the cost of land, which is a finite commodity. He
34 suggested that increased densities be allowed, which would bring down the cost of affordable
35 housing and of subsidized housing.
36
37 E. OPEN SPACE AND GREEN BELT CORRIDORS: Because this section wasn't
38 very popular at the Mt. Baker meeting, Mathison spent some time answering some of the
39 questions that had come up. She referred to page 19 and the new section on property rights.
40 She reviewed the concerns .expressed. Besides the section on private property rights, a
41 provision is included on page 12, number 2, about open space systems including lands that
42 have natural features, habitat lands, etc. Otherwise no specific changes were recommended
43 to this section.
44
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 6
1 Jayson Reimer: Pointed out that when it comes to private property, there's a
2 difference between what's legal and what's right.
3
4 Lee Denke, 615 N. Forest St., Mt. Vernon: The idea of mandating green space is a
5 mistake of planners. These public green belt spaces create a tremendous law enforcement
6 problem. Often they become refuse dumping grounds. Their creation takes property off the
7 tax rolls. An alternatives: When people want trails, don't give them trails; give them space
8 on existing highways and roads they can use for bicycles.
9
10 Sue Lorenz, 511 Wilson: Would much rather walk in the woods than alongside the
11 road. She is particularly in favor of number 2, page 12.
12
13 Skip Richards: Pointed out that on the top of page 12 the CWPP states that green
14 space to be used by citizens should have a fiscal plan to pay for its maintenance. He
15 suggested that included in this area should be some of the things Denke referred to,
16 including such things as compensation for impacts like littering, damage, trespass, etc.,
17 especially to adjacent property owners. Any capital facilities planning should also include
18 specifics for dealing with open space maintenance.
19
20 F. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Taylor said there is in the CWPP ( #4 and #6
21 in this section) a stated relationship between the policies for housing and economic
22 development. He stated that the goal of the CWPP is . to strike a balance between
23 environment and economic development. He said further that the suggestions made at the
?4 Mt. Baker meeting were all valid and Planning felt they should be included, so they will be
25 carried forward and incorporated. The additional item in resource base reflects some of the
26 interest in agriculture.
27
28 Bill Henshaw: Concerned that nothing has been done on the economic plan
29 throughout the entire Growth Management process. He said that that should be at the
30 forefront of everything. Everything else is redundant if there is no economic policy for
31 encouraging economic growth, and these things need to be very specific.
32
33 Will Burton: Agreed with Henshaw that the Over -all Economic Development Plan
34 (OEDP) is outdated. He said that an economic plan is tied to affordable housing and all
35 other elements; the cart is before the horse again. He compared the cost of living index with
36 the affordability of living here and the wage scale in the county. The economic plan should
37 not wait.
38
39 Monty McIntyre: Disappointed with the most recent version of OEDP. The OEDP
40 should not be relied on, but definitely economic development policies should be a key
41 element of the CWPP.
42
43 Roger Almskaar: Said that policy 6 on page 12 should be re- worded because the
44 meaning as is is unclear. Agrees that a glossary of terms would be appropriate and should
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 7
1 include quality of life, adequate housing, living wage employment, and health care, not just
2 open space and parks; the definitions should be operational. He said that he would support
3 the concept of analyzing industrial land base; use of the GIS could be incorporated here,
4 too. Some of the problems we're facing are a shortage of feasible, available land; a hodge
5 podge of infrastructure; and a very slow and very uncertain permit process. This section
6 should contain a commitment to better quality information on the land base and a better
7 permit process.
8
9 Jayson Reimer: Said there are too many bureaucratic hoops and rules and regulations
10 involved in building a home, which phases out the little guy.
11
12 G. TRANSPORTATION, H. PUBLIC FACILITIES, I. IMPACT FEES: Mathison
13 said that no changes were made to the transportation policies as stated. The comments dealt
14 with providing bike paths or trails, improving existing roads, and following current plans.
15 Under public facilities, the requests were that considerable public notice should be given
16 about where they are to be sited and that landfills and hazardous sites be specifically
17 identified. Again, she said, no changes were recommended for this part. Nor were changes
18 recommended for impact fees. She said that the Growth Management Act doesn't allow the
19 County to charge impact fees for volunteer fire departments.
20
21 Jayson Reimer: Asked what, in the worst case scenario, happens if we disobey
22 Growth Management Act? What can the State do to us? Taylor responded that the State
23 will withhold the tax revenues from the State. Woods said that the amount just to the
N County is $90 to $100 million a year from the State. Reimer suggested that the entire county
25 population, then, should withhold their taxes from the State.
26
27 Lee Denke: Suggested that one of the paths be built alongside the Whatcom
28 Connector when it is built. He suggested the Council and the planners read Death and Life
29 of Great American Cities, which details a mixing of usages or zonings. He pointed out that
30 Southern California is one of the most planned areas in the U.S., which demonstrates some
31 of the weaknesses of planning dedicated to separation of usages. Denke suggested using
32 Mike McCormmick at Dept. of Community Development as a resource.
33
34 Dick Gilda: Pointed out that impact fees are one of the many things which causes
35 the cost of housing to go up. Taylor acknowledged that the impact fees would raise the cost,
36 as would concurrency, which means that the infrastructure has to be in place right away.
37 Gilda asked what the estimated impact fees would amount to. Taylor said that had not been
38 dealt with yet. Henderson responded that the school districts figures that the cost to the
39 school district was about $1,000 for each new kid that came in; at 1.2 kids per house, the
40 districts are looking at asking for $1,200 per new house in impact fees.
41
42 Skip Richards: In addition to addressing the siting of public facilities, it would be a
43 good idea to consider the impacts of closing them, especially land fills. He also suggested
44 that land owners should be held harmless for random dumping that goes on if the landowner
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 8
1 is not doing it himself. He suggested providing a service for the clean up of stuff like that.
2
3 K. WATER QUALITY: Taylor said that this was added late in the process. It was
4 added somewhat reluctantly and is not a required area. Most of the comments did not lead
5 to any specific changes needed. The suggestion that the Forest Service should be added did
6 lead to the addition of federal and state agencies and private utilities. In references to
7 protecting aquifers, the word aquifer was scratched and "water resource protection areas"
8 was substituted. An additional policy states that jurisdictions will get involved in water
9 development plans for use of surface water or ground water. Taylor reiterated that "should"
10 was used for matters of policies rather than "shall."
11
12 Jayson Reimer: Asked about the effort and money spent on Kamm Creek watershed
13 with no improvements. Now more money has been granted to this project. He asked if any
14 success in water programs was being realized.
15
16 Mike Ross: Reminded Council that State seems determined to eliminate small water
17 associations through stricter and stricter water quality impositions. He suggested that the
18 County have a policy to assist these small associations with State requirements.
19
20 Skip Richards: Echoes Ross's statements. He said he likes the changes on top of pg.
21 18, element 2, the changing of aquifer recharge protection areas to water resource
22 protection areas; the plan still needs to have some operational definitions.
23
24 Roy Giles: Pg. 17, under water quality, some addition needs to be made which
25 includes small water districts; the small water purveyors need to be supported and that
26 support needs to be made clear in the CWPP.
27
28 Vern Johnson, Lummi. Nation: Feels that not only water quality but water quantity
29 should be addressed. He claims that the Lummi Nation is out of water and is looking
30 forward to the February 19 meeting between the State and the local governments on water.
31
32 Jeff Menses, Drayton Harbor Watershed Management Committee: Asked that the
33 Drayton Harbor Committee be added to number 4 on page 18 or else don't identify any
34 specific committees. Suggested adding a 6th point stating "All jurisdictions shall maximize
35 reduction of water pollutants from storm water runoff and combined with sewer overflows
36 by implementing best management practices when available."
37
38 Jayson Reimer: Complimented the Council on their listening to and working with the
39 suggestions of the public.
40
41 L. FISCAL IMPACTS: The policy has not been changed in this area, Taylor said, and
42 they aren't promising a whole lot of changes, but they'll do what they can.
43
44 Bill Henshaw: Repeated that starting with a financial plan is totally necessary; it
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 9
1 defies all reason that the CWPP is being done without one, except that you're doing it with
2 taxpayers' money. It is critical that we get a fiscal plan in order to meld the capital facilities
3 planning in with all the other things in the CWPP.
4
5 Roger Almskaar: Suggested that Mathison's comments on the GIS be added in as a
6 policy to move toward obtaining the information we need to do a good economic analysis.
7
8 M. OTHER: Mathison said that this is the category where the comments didn't seem
9 to fit elsewhere. She said that one of the issues that people don't feel has been explored
10 fully are the issues dealing with rural living. Another set of comments dealt with property
11 rights. What Planning did was lift the words right out of the Growth Management Act that
12 deal with property rights and put them in as a County policy.
13
14 Alfred Dale: Worried because no numbers have been assigned to population growth.
15 He suggested that some attention be given to high rise housing and the integration of
16 buildings /use.
17
18 Skip Richards: Proposed that the Attorney General's memo on takings be adopted
19 by reference. This was part of the 1991 amendments to Growth Management Act,
20 RCW36.70A.370. He also suggested adding some more terms to the glossary as the glossary
21 right now is pretty well limited to terms from Growth Management. He suggested, for
22 example, that in "water resource protection areas," the word areas needs to be defined.
23 Some others are "quality of life," "character of community," "growth efficiency," etc. He will
24 provide a list of terms which need to be defined in order to be operational. The "No Net
25 Loss Goals" need to be incorporated as well, even though the Oversight Committee said
26 those goals would be hard to achieve. This may be true, but no effort will be made to
27 achieve them if they are not explicitly articulated in the CWPP and established as goals.
28
29 Unidentified speaker: Sees a management of growing out, not growing up. He said
30 that the most efficient use of land is that it grows up rather than grows out. He said he
31 would like to see the urban growth areas tied into the cities for growth policy determination
32 regarding zoning and growth, with the density policies advocating growing up.
33
34 Joe Burton: Emphasized again that economic development is a key for affordable
35 housing, for quality of life or lifestyle. He. said that there is no way these can be separated.
36 He also asked for another public hearing once this further material has been reviewed by
37 the Oversight Committee.
38
39 Earl Quinn: Asked why the County got into the forestry practices business.
40
41 Richard Gilda ( ?): Suggested that lowering some of the standards and cutting some
42 of the regulations would help create affordable housing, for example, the driveway
43 requirements. He asked why there was no comment on page 20 where Foothills areas and
44 others asked for representation on the Oversight Committee. Mathison said that was
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 10
1 because the Oversight Committee felt it was a decision which should be made by the
2 Council of Governments or by the County Council. He also said that allowing in -home
3 businesses should be included. He also said that the process for obtaining permits should
4 be simplified. He expressed concern about the Critical Areas Ordinance's Administrator and
5 the increasing requirements.
6
7 Lee Denke: Suggested adding or benefit to the end of the phrase dealing with private
8 property rights which states "...not be taken for use." He also suggested that the Council
9 consider a County -level process or set of standards created for determining if, how, and
10 when development standards or restrictions should be relaxed or changed or variances
11 granted in response to circumstances which, in a Federal Court, might constitute a taking
12 or a due process violation.
13
14 Someone unidentified: Said that a section was needed on overall environmental
15 protection and a section on rural forestry and agriculture land use.
16
17 Laidlaw reminded the audience that the written record would be kept open until
18 noon on February 8 and that the first work session would be held February 11th. The
19 suggested CWPP schedule from the Planning Department will be discussed at the regular
20 2/9 meeting. The meeting was adjourned.
21
22 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
23 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
24
25 l-
26
27
La (041L
28 Nan ohm, Assistant Clerk )MLarkggeA=L:1at1aw, Chair
Council Minutes, 1128193, Page 11