HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 6 1993WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
July 6, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1000 N.
Forest St., 2nd floor, by Dan Warner, Chair.
Also present: Absent:
Larry Harris (late)
Barbara Brenner
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR
VISIONING (AB93 -254)
Topics discussed: Background; Visioning committee meeting tonight.
Persons speaking: Warner; Vickie Matheson, Planning Dept.; Brenner.
BRENNER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DUE PASS.
The motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ALLOW THE COMMERCIAL
EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL KNOLLS AND RIDGES
AND ACCESSORY SORTING OF MATERIALS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB93 -214)
Topics discussed: Proposed changes and additions; suggested preamble; new item
10; new number 12 regarding flooding; obtaining flood permit if in flood plain; definition
for '!reclamation"; definition of "progressive rehabilitation"; Exhibit B; changes in
performance bonds; accessory sorting; enhancement vs. productivity; section preamble
suitability and location; making preamble a condition to section 6.1; section 1.6.5
definition explicitly stated.
Persons speaking: Warner; Brenner; Jeff Griffin, Planning Dept.; Dan Taylor,
Planning Dept.; Bob Woods, Budget Analyst.
Leonora Cole, Soil Conservation Service: Said that "enhancement" should be
defined because reclamation would make the land as productive, but not necessarily
more productive.
Bob Vanweerdhuizen: Would like to see increased safety added.
Phyllis Kronenburg: Expressed considerable concern about enforcement. She said
that she wants to make sure that this is not an entre into zoning changes.
This item will be presented to the full Council for further discussion and possible
adoption.
3. DECISION ON MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION OF JOSEPH M. SCHECKTER FOR "CHERRY POINT
INDUSTRIAL PARK" (AB93 -252)
Topics discussed: Background; beach access; suitability of site (deep water next to
the shore in a commercial area); potential addition of SEPA conditions; environmental
concerns; Gulf Road; this plan vs. one still in the works; reservations about pier
development at this site; Puget Sound pilots' reservations to safety of docking in this
location and their request for tidal current studies.
Persons speaking: Warner; Brenner; Taylor; Roland Middleton, SEPA
coordinator; Harris.
Madelyn Kass, Attorney for the proponent: Pointed,out that plans will proceed
according to the Environmental Impact Statement. Middleton said that that does not
necessarily apply to the pier.
David M. Schmalz, Pres. of Audubon Society: Three issues have not been
adequately addressed. The first is the legal status of the Cherry Point Management Unit
of the Shoreline Plan. Five federal agencies oppose this management unit. The whole
project stands under threat of legal action. The second is the conditioning of the permit
to make the Hearing Examiner's decision and the goals and policies of the project
compatible. The third point is reconciling the County's staff recommendation to deny
and the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve. He and Committee members discussed
the 1987 challenge to the Cherry Point Management Unit and a potential future
challenge now that a specific plan is been put forth.
Madelyn Kass: This is not the appropriate forum for challenging the Cherry Point
Management Unit. She pointed out that the legality cannot be determined until there is
a challenge which may not materialize. She commented on the differences between the
staff's recommendation and the Hearing Examiner's decision. She requested that this
particular project be looked at on the basis of its own merits rather than waiting for
other projects with which to compare it.
Mark Lee, Attorney with Langabeer, Tull, Cullier, & Childress: Said he would like
to clarify that there is another proposal that was made about the same time as this
application which is currently undergoing an EIS. He said that there had been
negotiations between the two groups; the applicant chose not to work with Lee's group.
Joseph Scheckter, one of the proponents: Clarified the reasons why the two
Planning Minutes, 716193, Page 2
groups could not work together. For instance, the second group wants to deal with coal
which this group finds incompatible with handling food stuffs; the second group's land is
largely wetlands which are not useable.
Madelyn Kass: Asked for clarification of tidal current studies requirements. From
whom should the approvals come? She explained the proponents' interpretation of the
wording of the document. Kass, Harris, and Brenner discussed the use of the various
groups for approval of the dock.
Larry Webber, Project Engineer for CPI: Discussed the input from the various
groups required for their approval. He reported on the work and studies that have been
done.
Lora Strobel, Ferndale: She said she feels that it is important to go ahead. The
land is zoned for this use and the proponent is asking for not more than what the land is
zoned for.
HARRIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT A HEARING BE
HELD.
BRENNER MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE HELD AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE
Harris accepted it as a friendly amendment.
Bill Chambers, Anvil Corporation: Asked about the purpose of a public hearing.
Warner said that there has been a public hearing and in the office is a thick file
full of information.
Harris pointed out that this is the third project proposed for this area; the other
two were extremely contentious. One went all the way to the governor. Bill Chambers
responded that this proposal requires no conditional use permits or other unusual work
like the two former projects required.
Mary Wilson: Presented signed petitions requesting a public hearing.
Martin Keeley: Addressed the competition between the two pier requests. With
all the other international factors involved, the County, he said, should take a close look
at the economic issues involved. He also questioned the adequacy of the water supply for
the project.
Harris listed several reasons why he believed a public hearing should be held and
is important.
Planning Minutes, 716193, Page 3
The motion carried 2 to 1 with Warner opposed.
Cliff Freeman, Anvil Corporation: Offered to answer any questions that the
Committee might have.
BRENNER MOVED A RECONSIDERATION OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION.
The motion carried 2 to 1 with Harris opposed.
The Committee discussed holding a Council public hearing versus a public
meeting in committee.
Because there was nothing forthcoming on the motion, the original motion was
left the way it was with a recommendation to Council to hold a hearing.
Tom Anderson clarified that there is more than enough water in the location to
service the facility.
4. DISCUSSION WITH THE AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE REGARDING CLARIFICATION AND POSSIBLE
STRENGTHENING OF THE RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE (AB93-
261)
Henry Bierlink pointed out some of the problems that the farmers still face, even
though the right to farm ordinance has been passed. Warner suggested that Bierlink
prepare amendments to the ordinance and present them to the committee. Bierlink
agreed to do this.
Carl Batchelor, Planning Dept.: Explained the problems with the nuisance
provisions and the law suits that are still coming.
5. OTHER ITEMS
TCI Cable (AB93 -267): Warner brought up the conditional use permits
requirement that TCI found to be such a surprise.
WARNER MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE STRINGING OF CABLE WIRES ON
EXISTING POLES IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned.
Planning Minutes, 716193, Page 4
ATTEST:
�Z,� ti
Nancy C n, Assistant Clerk
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Daniel M. Warner, Chair
Planning Minutes, 716193, Page 5