Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Development March 27 1990( i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 27, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 1 p.m. by Committee Chairperson Marge Laidlaw in the Council Conference Room. ALso present: Absent: Emily Jackson None. Don Hansey (arrived late) 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, MODIFYING SECTION 20.80.220 REGARDING REVERSAL OF SETBACKS IN THE SHORELINE AREA (AB90 -99) This corrects a problem with an earlier change, Planning Director Dan Taylor said. Attorney Jack Swanson requested this. Reversal of setbacks to shoreline areas is quite often a problem. Taylor said, particularly in the Lake Whatcom and Birch Bay areas. There was some discussion among Laidlaw, Swanson and Taylor. JACKSON MOVED THAT THE ORDINANCE BE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. Motion carried. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN FRINGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHANGING A 2.3 ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HANNEGAN ROAD AND EAST BAKERVIEW FROM GENERAL MANUFACTURING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (AB90- 100) Deals with the southwest quadrant of Bakerview and Hannegan. Taylor spoke in favor of the change, noting that the property owner must sign a concomitant agreement before the Council could take action on this item; he expected the signing to be accomplished by the evening meeting. There was discussion. Hansey arrived at the meeting. A representative for the applicant said the agreement would be signed. He did not identify himself. Laidlaw asked about the traffic concerns, and Taylor responded. JACKSON MOVED THAT THE ZONE CHANGE BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. Motion carried. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO CLEARING OF FOREST LAND FOR A NON - FORESTRY USE (AB90 -101) Applies to forestry and forested use. with the exemption of one -acre parcels. Planning & Development, 3/27/90, Page 2 The aim of the ordinance is to close a gap between forest practices permits and development permits, Taylor said, adding that it also makes SEPA regulations more clear by addressing the clearing practices at the outset. In several cases this gap has caused a problem, like when a clearing contractor with no regulations is working on the same piece of property at the same time as the logger. If you have low density zoning, you can get the clearing permit without a development permit in hand. In greater density zones, you must have a development plan right up front so the County can see what the project is and arrange for logging and clearing as appropriate. This is mostly a concern for steep land, Taylor said. Later there may still be a need for more revisions to the development standards. Laidlaw clarified that if the Council wants to make more modifications to this ordinance, it would need its own hearing on the ordinance. Jackson said the Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee asked if the need for a clearing permit should take place whenever mechanized equipment is used. Taylor said the mechanized equipment clause was dropped by the Planning Commission, leaving it up to the property owner and Buildings and Codes to work it out. Jackson and Taylor agreed that the ordinance was only a first step, and that more modification will come at a later time. Taylor called this ordinance "a front end control," noting that after people buy the land to build a home, they could remove the buffers. The buffers are to prevent erosion during the initial clearing, Taylor said. Jackson commented. Joel Douglas, 600 Lynden Road, said he has misgivings about ordinances that result from complaints by citizens because they lead to overkill. He talked about the loss of freedom in terms of development of private property. Talked about the cost impacts of this ordinance on housing and land availability. Thinks the ordinance should have an EIS and a public SEPA review. Jackson noted that the ordinance had SEPA review, a process that always is public. Douglas said a more public SEPA review is needed, and threatened a lawsuit, saying the ordinance is unenforceable. Tyler said the 15 day comment period on the SEPA review had passed, and that was the time such opinions should have been expressed. Said he feels the clearing ordinance is necessary and based on the great amount of development countywide. Clearing projects can have significant impact on drainage and the County is having some sites federally investigated. There have been some serious penalties imposed under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The County doesn't intend to deny anyone the privilege of developing, it just wants to make sure it is done responsibly. There is a price -tag to this ordinance, he said: Additional staff involvement for enforcement. Public Works is just now getting an estimate together. Taylor agreed that the ordinance hits Engineering and Buildings and Codes the hardest. Jackson asked about the restriction on clearing in winter months; Tyler discussed this provision with her, as well as with Water District 10 Manager Bonnie Strode. In years past, Tyler said, the County never had to worry about people working during wintry, rainy times; now they're working year around. Jackson and Planner Terry Galvin commented further. Galvin noted that the County now will have the flexibility to stop some operations. Strode commented on the Coronado development. Elaine McRory said she wanted to know what areas are covered by the ordinance; it was clarified that the whole county is covered. There was further discussion among McRory, Galvin, Jackson, Tyler, Taylor, Hansey and Laidlaw, including some discussion of penalties. Taylor said not many people had testified at the Planning Commission's hearing on this matter. Planning & Development, 3/27/90, Page 3 Steve Brisbane, local developer, said he is concerned that the development standards did not go through a rigorous public process and did not go through the proper channels. Laidlaw said she had contacted Art Castle of the Building Industry Association several times, as well as other people with the Board of Realtors because she was looking for input. "I can't force people to go to meetings," she said, noting that it didn't seem entirely fair to indicate the process had not allowed people to participate. Brisbane continued to speak. Laidlaw and Galvin responded. Brisbane indicated that the County couldn't hope to substitute this ordinance for development standards for wetlands and landscaping, which it lacks. Taylor noted that wetlands are temporarily preserved under this ordinance to prevent erosion and flooding; they are not intended to act as wetlands preservation or landscaping regulations. Brisbane continued to discuss the matter extensively. Swanson said the development community didn't really understand what this ordinance is about and that the Council should have a public hearing. Brisbane again spoke. Jeff Bode, 205 W Holly, said people ought to bear in mind that the County's intent is to improve and refine this ordinance over time. As for public participation concerns, Bode said he was present at numerous of the hearings and workshops, and he could recall seeing Jean Gorton of the Trillium Cofp. in attendance, in particular. The ordinance has been in full view for months. He continued to comment, and Jackson commented as well. Fred Miller, 3329 N. Shore Road, said he supports the ordinance, and actually would like to see it "tightened up a bit." The current state of the art in negotiations for conversions have left the County with some disasters. Neighbors had to call the Sheriff to stop clearing during all hours of the night at one location, because the clearing company knew that once the damage is done it's too late. He continued to comment. He urged that "waffle words" should be removed as follows: -Page 81, B3; the words "when necessary' should not be included. Showed pictures of the Eagleridge development, where all trees were removed. -Page 81, item B4 add "and maintained" -Page 82, item C6 add and schedule -Page 83, E3 "... in its discretion deems proper." (define what terms are) -Page 83, E5 "may" should not be there; should be WILL, and not up to six years, should be six years, period. There was some discussion. Taylor said a lot of the discussion taking place at this meeting should have taken place at the Planning Commission public hearing. He asked Committee members if the Council wants its own public hearing; there was no response. He addressed the speakers in the audience, saying that in the future he hoped they would respect and utilize the Planning Commission process. Tyler commented. There was discussion by Jackson and Laidlaw about possibly making revisions to the ordinance; it was. decided that Miller's comments, Brisbane's comments and written comments by Robert Moore would be sent to the Planning Commission for consideration with any further modifications to the ordinance. Laidlaw suggested that some housekeeping changes (included as an attachment to these minutes) should be made at this level. There was discussion. JACKSON MOVED RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, WITH LAIDLAW S AMENDMENTS. Planning & Development, 3/27/90, Page 4 Motion carried. Some discussion ensued. 5. DISCUSSION OF TOM YANKE OPEN SPACE APPLICATION DISPUTE Laidlaw moved this item up on the agenda. Yanke and Assessor Keith Willnauer were present. Laidlaw reviewed the issues (indicated on the agenda bill). Jackson said she would like to see the penalties and compensating taxes waived, since he never tried to misrepresent his property. Hansey asked that Willnauer and Yanke tell their versions of the story. Willnauer explained the Department of Revenue letter received earlier in the day (on file). An RCW not relating to open space does allow the Council to give an administrative refund if it feels the situation merits such a refund. Laidlaw asked if the Council could waive the taxes, the penalty, the interest or just one of those? Willnauer said the Council can refund a portion of taxes, that portion equating to the County's share, and not any of the taxes that would have been distributed to the state and the junior taxing districts; nor can the Council refund the interest. Jackson asked about next appeal level; Willnauer said Yanke could appeal to the Board of Equalization, but wasn't sure what action the B.O.E. could take. There was some discussion. Jackson suggested that more information from legal counsel would be appropriate. Willnauer agreed, and offered the services of his staff in evaluating future concerns. At present, Willnauer's recommendation for Mr.Yanke's situation is for the County to respond within its entire capacity because an error has not been made. There could be three to four others with similar concerns. There was discussion of the amount owed by Mr. Yanke. Haney pointed out that because the County can only go back to retrieve seven years' worth of taxes, and Mr. Yanke has received a tax benefit for 13 years, there were six additional years for which he got tax benefit. He said the benefit Yanke received during that time would be worth double to him now, and this total would offset the balance due significantly. It is possible that even if Mr. Yanke's waiver is turned down, dollar -wise he would be in the same position as had he been rejected 13 years ago, Hansey said. Willnauer agreed. There was discussion. Laidlaw said she would ask the Prosecutor to come to the April 10 meeting, or possibly the April 24 meeting. Discussion continued. Mr. Yanke submitted booklets of information. There was some discussion. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANNUAL INTEGRATED ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHICH MINIMIZES THE USE OF HERBICIDES AND PROHIBITS THE USE OF HERBICIDES IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY (AB90 -70) This item is on the agenda for discussion purposes only, Laidlaw said. Laidlaw said that different drafts of the ordinance are circulating but unless there was new information the Committee may not be aware of, she would like to postpone discussion. Art Hole, of Lummi Island, said he would like to see the drafts that are being circulated. He said he was under the impression that at this meeting franchise holders Planning & Development, 3/27/90, Page 5 would be responding to the ordinance. There was discussion. This was not resolved. John Goodfellow and Tim Wilson of Puget Power were present. Goodfellow also asked to see the drafts that were circulating, noting that he has not seen any of the new information. Laidlaw apologized, noting that the agenda stretched for longer than had been anticipated. There was more discussion. Laidlaw said this matter would be on the agenda again in a few weeks. 6. OTHER BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Ramona Reeves, Council Clerk Margar M. Laidlaw, Member VOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE LIST PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Name: Terry Galvin and Dan Taylor Joel Douglas Fred Miller Keith Willnauer Ray Tryznka Robert Moore Jack Swanson Bob Knight Larry Harris Marlen Hansen J.J. Bode' Wendy Hand John Tyler March 279 1990 Organization /Address: County Planning Department 600 Lynden Road Friends of Lake Whatcom 3229 North Shore Road County Assessor Puget Power Citizen Attorney Contel, P.O. Box 579 Mount Vernon Planning Commission Public Works Lake Whatcom Watershed Defense Coalition R Public Works TO: Whatcom County Council DATE: 3/27/90 FROM: Marge�LaId /law, Chair P &D SUBJ: Committee Recc. on Clearing Ordinance (AB 101 -90) MOTION: To adopt amendments to the Whatcom County Development Standards relating to Clearing of Forest Land for a Non - forestry use. No major amendments can be without another public hearing, however after committee discussion, some "housekeeping" amendments are recommended as follows: Motion to amend without substantial changes to text: That a definition sheet be included dealing with terms such as conversion, non - forestry use, land clearing, and other similar terms to those in the Development Standards. That in each place where the text reads "...a clearing permit..." that it should clarify with the word "land" reading "....a land clearing permit... ". This appears throughout the text in various sections. Correct the number of the WAC in section 3.101, B.1. from 22 -16 -020 to 222 -16 -020. Reference to the appropriate section number should be cited in: In section 3.101 - C.2 the appropriate section reference number is 3.301. In section 3.101 - C.3 the appropriate section reference number is 3.001.