Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Development January 22 1991WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMN91TEE January 22, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 2nd floor, 1000 N. Forest St. by Committee Chairperson Marge Laidlaw. Also Present: Don Hansey Absent: Emily Jackson 1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE OFFICERS (AB91 -001). HANSEY NOMINATED LAIDLAW AS CHAIRPERSON. Motion carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL INSTEAD OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY SECOND DWELLINGS FOR FAMILIES WITH SPECIAL MEDICAL NEEDS (AB91 -013) 73 -91 Planning Director Dan Taylor pointed out that this amendment was needed because of the wasted time obtaining current approval when all requests were approved. There seems to be little need for the three months; the staff could handle the requests when they came in. The 10 day required waiting period remains the same. This is the period for notifying the neighbors. The permit is temporary for a one year period; reapplication would be required for extensions. It continues with a covenant so that the property cannot be sold while the second building is on the property. HANSEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL. Motion carried. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SURFACE MILTING ACTIVITIES IN THE RURAL, AGRICULTURE, FOREST AND GENERAL PROTECTION ZONING DESIGNATIONS (AB90 -443) (KEPT IN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING (1/11/91)). 92 Technical corrections presented by Taylor. Chapter 20.83 would be amended, second sentence to read, 'The existing operations..." and then insert "with a state or county surface Planning & Development Minutes, 1/22/91, Page 1 mining permit but ..." It adds clarity, Hansey said. This would be considered a minor amendment. It would show up throughout at the appropriate places, wherever it says "the existing operations." HANSEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE AMENDMENT ON CHAPTER 20.83.150 TO INSERT THE WORDS AFTER "EXISTING OPERATIONS" AS INDICATED AND IN EACH OTHER PLACE WHERE APPROPRIATE. , Motion carried. Prosecutor Bob Carmichael verified that the Growth Management Act directs counties to develop regulations dealing with a number of areas, and one of those areas is mineral resources. While a county can't take away rights from state permit holders engaged in surface mining services, there is a certain amount of regulation that can be done at the county level, and concerning new permit holders, the county has a lot more to say. Any new permit that is being sought must comply with both state and local regulations for a state permit to be issued. The gist of the Act is that the state wants the counties to regulate their mineral resources at the local level, that is, the County has now been given some regulatory authority. Some discussion and clarification followed. Laidlaw said two more letters have been received supporting the planning commission recommendations. One is from a Mrs. Hoff and one from Darlene Del Boca Jane Orr, 559 E. Haskin Rd., present at this meeting, presented a third. Haney was concerned about defining the areas overlapping the State and which would involve any legal liabilities that would need to be considered. There's no need to pass something that the County would have to spent time in court on. For instance, there are the areas of water testing and monitoring of wells and some other things that have never been required before. He said maybe the mining regulations would be in violation of HB2929, or maybe the County could pass them and not be under legal liability. A citizen named Mrs. Evelyn Nolte said that some of the mines are mining under water, definitely against regulations, and definitely as important as anything else. There should be some type of regulation about this type of thing. Laidlaw pointed out to her that the Committee has several options. For instance, it could recommend to approve the document in its entirety and then look into these various other issues; it could deny the document in its entirety which would put things on hold; the Council could have its own hearing on the issue and decide from there; or the matter could be remanded back to the Planning Commission. She then asked Taylor what would happen if this were passed, then adjusted in the future based on further information or court cases. Taylor said that the area is still grey; he is not aware of any cases involving Growth Management because the Act is so new, so there is going to be a fair amount of guess work about the legal liabilities. He will look at it more thoroughly and give the Committee a definite answer. Council Member Dan Warner asked question regarding the relationship here to regulating top soil. Discussion and question continued among the members of the public, staff, and Committee. Planning & Development Minutes, 1/22/91, Page 2 Chet Lackey asked if there were some procedural issues that would have to be dealt with first, in which case would there be some interim regulations that might be integrated later or adjusted. Some discussion followed about the time frame of the public announcement and about the effect of the Growth Management Act. Council Member Dan Warner asked about time lines. Taylor said the County has until September, 1991, to do critical areas and natural resources.: The County probably won't make the deadline on critical areas; it may make it on natural resources which includes ag forestry and mineral resources. Laidlaw pointed out that. the delay was because critical areas was so broad, dealing with wetlands and several other things. This is a piece of that area. Planning Commission Member Dave Ernst pointed out that land resources were a major concern and that public hearings had already been held on this matter and on its relative importance to the County. Also considered was the value of the land resources compared to the value of the mining resources. This was taken into consideration at a number of levels. Haney pointed out that many of these issues have come up, and there's still more work to come. He suggested that, in his opinion, a hearing needed to be held, and if the Committee didn't want a hearing, they could send it back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that they review it and make it a part of their whole resources project. It would save staff time and put things under one umbrella. Laidlaw said this would probably be pleasing for those who didn't want additional regulation, but would probably be upsetting for people who want something soon. A citizen named Darlene Del Boca, pointed out that there probably isn't time to deal with all this now, and she very seriously hoped the Committee would consider a moratorium on gravel pit mining. She doesn't think the County can afford to allow any more permits at this time. Mrs. Hoff wanted to know if there were any more hearings planned, and if so, what was being sought. Laidlaw responded that there was no mandate for Council to have hearings, but Council likes to have their own hearings to see if new information has come out. Mining officials had pointed out to Council that six or eight workshops had been held since the last hearing and that the final document had not had a hearing. What's at issue here is whether or not there should be a final hearing, and if so, should it be at the Council level or at the Planning Commission level. Del Boca wanted to know how many Planning Commission members had changed since this whole thing began. Haney said that there were three new members out of nine. Del Boca pointed out that not all of the members had shown up, but Hansey said that the six "old" members had shown up regularly, and that they were also the ones most active in this issue. Larry Harris, Planning Commissioner, explained a bit about the process used by the Planning Commission and various sources of information on gravel mining such as DOE, PSWQA, and that this information is not new and was available throughout the Commission process. Jeff Griffin, Planning staff, clarified that the Planning Agency report of November 27, 1990, showed changes from the original document. Taylor spoke about the large number of non - conforming pits with five sizeable ones Planning & Development Minutes, 1/22/91, Page 3 apparently illegal. He pointed out other options such as a moratorium, or to pass this ordinance as an interim and let Planning Commission consider controversial parts in six to eight months along with the Critical Areas ordinance. HANSEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND PASS TO COUNCIL. Motion passed. 4. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE BETWEEN WISER LAKE AND THE BARTLETT ROAD ON GUIDE MERIDIAN, PENDING STUDY OF APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL CONTROLS (PROPOSED BY JONATHAN SITIGNN OF LANGABERR, TULL & CULU ER) (ORD91 -010) 7 -0 Jon Sitkin was present to represent neighbors and had the necessary paper work to extend emergency moratorium and implement regular moratorium as agreed to weeks ago. MOTION TO RECOMMEND PASS TO COUNCIL. Motion passed. 5. DISCUSSION ONLY; ADDED AT REQUEST OF PLANNING STAFF. Tim Hostetler, Land Use Planner for Lummis; Ann from County Health Department; Craig Maple and Dan Taylor, Planning Department; and Bob Carmichael, Prosecutor's Office, explained some of the complexities of water issue_ s on the Reservation, especially where the State is involved. On August 23, 1990, Lummi Council passed a resolution. They have been working with County staff to interpret Sec. 53 of GMA, and other issues including the possibility of a moratorium on residential permits until State Department of Health and others work out clear role with Commis. Questions came up regarding whether or not this type of moratorium would have farther reaching effects by applying county wide. Other questions and discussion continued on water rights, water purveyors, permits, State Department of Health design approvals. Committee asked for more information and clarification on these items. Mr. Hostetler was very appreciative of the opportunity to discuss these issues without formality. No action was taken or intended by the committee at this time. Planning & Development Minutes, 1/22/91, Page 4 The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m. ATTESTED: Ramona Reeves, County Clerk nc PLANNING AND DEVELOPNI NT COMMITTEE � r Marge dlaw, Chairperson Planning & Development Minutes, 1/22/91, Page 5