Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 22 1992 6 pmWHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September Pr, 1992 Special Meeting The meeting was called to order at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1000 N. Forest St., 2nd floor, by Ken Henderson, Chairman. Also present: Absent: Larry Harris Dennis Vander Yacht 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WC ZONING MAP (AB92 -289) 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WCC, CHAPTERS 20.42, 20.43, 20.80.272, 20.80.273 AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 14.04 (AB92 -290) 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WC COMP LAND USE PLAN FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM, CHUCKANUT -LAKE SAMISH, LYNDEN - NOOKSACK VALLEY, FOOTHILLS, AND LUMMI ISLAND SUBAREA TO MAKE CONSISTENT WITH LANGUAGE ADOPTED FOR THE SOUTH FORK VALLEY SUBAREA...(AB92 -291) Gordon Scott, Planning Department, gave introductory remarks. The purpose is to separate two basically conflicting land uses -- residential development and commercial forest operations. For rural forestry, criteria included parcel being within a fire district, access on a public road, small parcel, already developed with a residence of some sort. For commercial forestry, criteria included ownership by a large industrial landowner, actively managed as intensive forest operation, generally outside fire districts or water districts. Growth Management requires that counties identify and protect their resource lands of long term commercial significance, including forest lands. He went on to explain the method used to determine the proposed zoning. The significant changes are that rural forestry requires no more than one dwelling per 20 acres while commercial forestry prohibits any development. The purpose is to protect forest land as natural resources for jobs and economy as commercial forestry land base just as agricultural land base is protected. Scott then detailed the meetings and public input and information process used in setting up the ordinances. He then explained the changes being made in the wording and the reasoning behind it. Henderson asked about pieces of property that didn't quite fit either zone; were nonconforming uses given? Scott said that generally they tried to make a solid decision; spot zoning and nonconforming uses are difficult, dangers, and really not appropriate. Planning Minutes, Forestry Rezone, 9122192, Page 1 Bob Olsen, 203 Cain Lake Road, Sedro Woolley: He represents the South Lake Whatcom Association (South Bay /Alger /Cain Lake). The association was formed to manage the growth taking place in the area- -water problems, sewer problems, population growth. They recommend that the Council adhere to the Planning Commission's original recommendation that the Trillium Property be kept in commercial forest land. -The land is not in a fire district, it is used currently as a commercial forest land, and it has a high forest product rating. Also, Lake Samish area is running out of water; Bellingham can't supply, and Skagit's is terribly expensive. There's another alternative, a well. This is relative to the forestry issue because of water problems in any potential development. Dan Meehan, 18321 40th Ave., Stanwood: He's a property owner in foothills area, section 22. Questions adequate notification to property owners in the area. He found out about the zoning changes through his neighbor. Disagrees that the property rights of large landowners should be different from those of small landowners. They should be the same. Small landowner should also be able to build a watchman's cabin or home. He's in the last stages of permitting for building a home - -his water and septic are approved and he's being taken into Fire District #17 - -and resents being put off until December for a decision whether or not his 40-acres qualify for rural forestry. Henderson and Meehan discussed the problems of using tax roles for notifying owners and the process property owners can use to change their zoning after these ordinances go into effect. Gary Hardan, 191 Cain Lake Road: He is also a representative of the South Bay /Alger Association. The association has over 100 members at this time. The association supports the zoning plan for the sub area as it is drawn right now. Reminded the Committee of the petition the association had turned in earlier supporting this. Read a letter into public record from one of their steering committee members. He had distributed copies to the committee members. Requests that Trillium's request for incorporation into Fire District #18 be denied. The association is concerned about urban sprawl, about water, about over use of the rural roads, about forestry and open space preservation. Steve Reimer, 161 Cain Lake Road: Also a member of the association and supports the things that Harden and Olsen have said. Commends Gordon Scott and the Planning Department for the work they have done. He questions the long -term definition of rural forestry and what it is about. What is its purpose? Asks that some criteria be set up for those who will now be designated commercial forestry decide they'd rather be rural forestry. How do they come in? Under what circumstances? Scott responded that the criteria will be the same as that used in the original designation. Henderson read the criteria from the background material forwarded to Council from Planning. Planning Minutes, Forestry Rezone, 9122192, Page 2 Vander Yacht asked clarification of Planning's position on the possibility that 20 acres might be a stepping stone for smaller parcels. Scott responded that actually the zoning locks in the current density, and as the pressures change, it is the elected officials who will have the authority to make whatever changes seem appropriate at that time. Rick Todall, 789 Old Samish Rd.: He owns property in Whatcom Glen, a rural forestry zone. Explained why he bought his 20 acres in the forestry zone. There are 9 owners of eleven 20 -acre parcels who have petitioned incorporation into a fire district. That's the only thing which keeps them from meeting all the criteria for rural forestry. The zoning for their area is conditional rural forestry. Wanted the Council to know that some people want to live back in quiet, hidden forest areas, and they should have this right. These are people who are environmentally aware, who care about maintaining the forest atmosphere. John Brewer, 4343 Park Rd., Sedro Woolley: Also owns a lot in Whatcom Glen. Would like to see the small land owners protected and have their rights preserved for future growth. Questions about how existing 20 acre lots can be put into commercial forestry which requires 40 acre minimum size. Feels that it's a form of a taking when a piece is purchased with zoning that allows a dwelling, then downzoned so that it can't be used. Agrees that a "cap" should be put on lot division, but those who purchased under certain conditions should be protected. Scott pointed out that smaller parcels which have already been separated will remain that size. The size limitations is for the creation of new parcels. The only thing that limits the land owner are the land uses in a particular zone. If it's commercial forestry, you're prohibited from a residence. Roger Almskaar, 1400 Broadway, Land Use Consultant representing Trillium Corporation: In the section of the agenda bill under rural forestry with a through g headings, he thinks that b which puts the tax status into a tax deferred status rather than into the more commercial timber status is pretty arbitrary. Further, there should not be any reliance on whether or not a property is owned by a "non industrial" ownership or a "corporate" ownership. The main criteria should be what is on the land itself, what's next door to it, etc., not who owns it. The Trillium pieces have excellent access, are either in a fire district or right next door to property in a fire district. Questions the rationality of thought behind "environmental constraints." It says, in essence, that if a property is not in a critical area, then it should not be rural forestry. Commercial forestry is supposed to be a more intensive use in the long run. The reverse of that would make more sense. Last item, g, this doesn't look to the future enough, but seems to be based on the status quo. Nothing looks at the use of land immediately adjacent or within a quarter mile. With all the property involved in this rezoning, Trillium has a disagreement with Planning only on three parcels. One is the Lake Whatcom watershed, South Bay area. The second is in the Welcome /Canyon Creek Road area. The third is in the Mt. Baker Highway area near Glacier Springs subdivision. Using maps, Almskaar detailed Trillium's Planning Minutes, Forestry Rezone, 9122192, Page 3 position on the rezone of these three areas. Asked that the Council take a close look at these three parcels before making their decision. He left the maps for the files. Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva: Concerned about some parcels to be zoned rural forestry that are in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Reminded the Committee that the Health Dept. prohibits development on slopes greater than 15% which are situated in the watershed. These are areas that have to have a septic system to develop. Also, as long ago as 1962 it was shown that these slopes drained into Lake Whatcom. She used maps to detail the soils and slopes in the area and to show their relationship to Lake Whatcom. The steepness of the slopes and the soil types preclude these parcels being zoned rural forestry; they should be commercial forestry and never developed. She left the maps for the record. Lyle E. Harris, 1115 13th St.: He owns 65 acres on Camp 2 Rd. which he purchased 15 years ago as the first non - forest company of people who simply want to live in the wilderness. He heard about the proposed rezone through one of his neighbors; property owners need to be informed. There is room in Whatcom County for a lifestyle that is not based on living in a city or with your immediate neighbors. People who live like this enjoy the outdoors and value their areas; they will make the special efforts needed to maintain both their way of life and their land. A difference exists between large corporation landowners and small individual landowners- -the large corporations have the funds to appeal any decisions of the Council; small ones don't. The small ones invest themselves as individuals. Almskaar asked the committee to remember that a 15% slope is not much of a slope. It would be 1 1/2 feet in ten feet length. He said that the Health Dept. does allow septics in slopes greater than 15 %. Wells rebutted by reading the Health Dept.'s statement that septics would be prohibited on slopes greater than 15% within the Lake Whatcom watershed and greater than 30% outside the watershed. Almskaar indicated that he would research this. He also pointed out that this land is not steep slopes, it is rolling land. Suggested that the Health Dept. should work this out; their standards are pretty rigorous. Pointed out that Mr. Harris's land is probably outside the rural forestry proposed area. Olsen said that the major concern everyone had was to control growth, and if an area is maintained that is environmentally sound where the resources are protected, then everyone can go forward on a controlled pattern. Those who currently have 20 acres, even if they aren't in a fire zone, should be allowed to develop. Henderson pointed out that the intent of this action is to protect resources. This zoning is designed to protect forestry and forest lands so that it isn't developed. The Planning Minutes, Forestry Rezone, 9122192, Page 4 ultimate goal is to protect the land. Harris suggested that the Committee have a work session_ at a later time to work through the details before making a recommendation to Council. The date will be set later. The record is being left open so other comments may be received before the Committee meeting October 6. The subject will come up before the Council on the 6th of October. Harden added some comments about land being contiguous; the topography makes a greater difference than what is shown on the map. First hand knowledge would be important, and perhaps "spot zoning" should be considered on an individual basis. Almskaar responded that this is a downzoning of property, not a request for a rezone or an upzone. The County is proposing a downzone of scope and significance and Trillium is requesting that this not happen. _ Because there was no further testimony, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: Nancy C^ Assistant Clerk PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Ken Henderson, Chairperson Planning Minutes, Forestry Rezone, 9122192, Page 5 Forestry Iss!n hearing, 9/17/(2 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SIGN -UP SHEETS A �,t .� ,vl i4 !- \lc.�.� Q- rn.•LQ•L� � _b'Ul-t,�4�� NAME - -- PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ADDRESS - -- Street Address, City COMMENTS 'v C G % t 0� �' , �6v: N l� �u n � 2 E Z rJ �X dS . (ICJ -ej_�' /0 2-C) x4g,.,.,_ o�