Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Council for June 18 1981WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Minutes June 18, 1981 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. with all members present for roll. Chairperson Van Zanten asked if there are . any additions or corrections to the minutes of June 4, 1981. McIntyre, who was absent part of that meeting questioned the passage of the Resolution declaring the intention of Whatcom County to withdraw from membership in the Whatcom County Health District. Hansey explained that the only purpose of the Resolution was to serve notice that Whatcom County may wish to withdraw from membership at the end of December. Notice of withdrawal must be served six months ahead of the withdrawal date. McIntyre alsc stated he wouldl a1voted in favor of the Resolu- tion of Whatcom County's intent not to accept the responsibility of "Prime Sponsorship" for the Comprehensive Employment Training Program. The minutes were accepted as presented. u14' A R T TAT ('_ Q Hearing was declared open on the Ordinance to reduce the speed limit on the Lake Louise Road. The Engineer's Department recommends adoption of the ordinance. No testimony was gjven and the hearing was closed. Johnson reported that the Public._W_a yQ committee recommends "do pass" of the ordinance. Johnson so moved for passage of the ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. Hearing was declared open on the petition to remove a restriction on Lot 1 of Britton Manor, filed by Jack Laird. The Chairperson read correspondence received from Floyd Baird into the record in favor of thelpetition. The restriction concerns vehicle access to the lot from Hillsdale Road. The Engineer's Department has no objection to the removal of the restriction. No testimony was given and.the hearing was -tne pezizion or riot. No report -was given. Roehl moved to grant the petition to remove the restriction. Motion passed unanimously. Minutes June 18, 1981 page two Hearing was declared open on the petition to alter lots 12 and 13 of Block 69 in the Plat of Bakerview Addition, filed by Albert Weivoda. Mr. Weivoda stated this would give him access to the back of his property where he now has a mobile home. The Chairperson stated correspondence was received from Leonard Anderson, who's property is adjacent to the property in question, with no objection to the request. Hearing was closed. Roehl stated the Planning Committee reviewed this for months and months. The Committee recommended approval subject to making a condition to change the narrow panhandle out to the Guide Meridian from 30 to 60 feet. The Subdivision regulations require it to be 60 feet in width rather than 30 feet. Weivoda objected to the 60 feet because he only needed 20 feet. The Engineer's Department had told him to move it up to 30 feet instead. 'Ile stated there is a proposed ordinance that states a minimum of only 30 feet is needed. Roehl stated the ordinance has not be passed. Weivoda asked that Council hold his request until the outcome of.that ordinance has been determined. Muenscher so moved to table the petition until the subdivision regulation is adopted. Motion passed unanimously. Hearing was declared open on the petition to alter Lots 1, 2, 3, 41 5, and 6 of Block 14 of the Plat of West Geneva on Lake Whatcom, filed by Charles Brewer and Lois Barrett. The petitioners were present. No testimony was given and the hearing was closed. Roehl moved for . passage to alter said lots and stated the Planning Committee recommended "do pass." The Engineer and Planning Departments recommended approval. Motion passed unanimously. Hearing was declared open on the petition to vacate Lot 7 of " Lummi Park on Lummi Island" as well as portions of a 15 foot alley and Snow :View Drive adjoining the lot, filed by H.L. and Eileen Kelley. The petitioners were present. Merlin Ecker of 2978 Plymouth Drive owns adjoining property to the lot and objects to the vacation of the 15 foot alley only. He stated he uses this alley for access to his property. He also stated the Lummi Point Water Association has a easement for a water line going down the platted alley and whether that is in the 15 feet to be vacated he did not know. Johnson questions where the easement had come from for the water line. Ecker said the property owners gave easements. Tut Asmundson spoke for the petitioners stating Minutes June 18, 1981 page three if the water line is there the Kelley's would grant an easement for the continuation of the line. Williard Hudson of Lummi Island does not object to the vacation of Snowview Drive. He stated he believes the road does not exist, due to the tide washing it out years ago. Dr. Leroy Freeman stated his views were the same as Hudson's. Hearing was closed. Roehl stated the Planning Committee recommended approval. He stated there was some confusion regarding RCW 36.87.130,.which states that a road which abuts or runs along salt water cannot be vacated. The prosecuting Attorney had reviewed and gave an okay to go ahead with the vacation in this case. Roehl also stated the Engineer's Department had valued the road at $3.23 per foot times 2,454 feet for a total of $7,913.50. He stated there is no road, it's probably under water. Roehl moved to table a decision on the petition until the next meeting so the Planning committee could clarify the value of the road. 3.4otion passed unanimously. Hearing was declared open on the petition for the vacation of a portion of-Edwards Drive, Point Roberts, filed by Egidio and Jolanda Trasolini. Petitioner was not present. Sid Wallace, representing the Point Roberts Re.kistered,Voters Association, read correspondence into the record from the Association. He requested the Council to deny the vacation of Edwards Drive so it could be connected to APA Road as required. John Miller explained why the road should be kept open. Ernie Loreen, Whatcom County Fire District #5, opposed the road closure. He stated the need for access of emergency vehicles. John Beinz submitted documents and stated there are court proceedings going on to determine whether or not Mr. Trasolini actually owns the property or not. Carl Jackson had discussed the vacation with Mr. Pat Dougherty, who is presently in charge of the Point Roberts Yacht Basin. He stated Mr. Dougherty said the vacation did not matter one way or the other to him. He said he was aware of the requirements to connect APA Road with Edwards Drive and he also stated the parkin; for people to use to go to the beach was inadequate. The Chairperson entered correspondence into the record from Virginia Blaire, President of the Freeman Beach Home Owners Association, opposing the vacation. Hearing was closed. Reohl stated the Planning Committee recommended denial of the request Minutes June 18, 1981 page four as recommended by the Planning and Engineer's Departments. Roehl moved to deny the petition. Johnson questioned why the Commissioners in 1973 never took any action on the vacation of Edwards Drive. McIntyre stated the Commissioner's had questioned traffic circulation. Roehl's motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE ITEMS The Executive withdrew his item from the agenda. FINAL CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS The ordinance in the matter of a franchise for Satellite Scanners, Inc. to install, operate and maintain Cable T.V. along certain roads in Whatcom County, Washington was before the Council for final consideration. A public hearing was held regarding this request on June 4. The Chair at the June 4 meeting had raised some concerns about the draft of the ordinance and asked that certain items be clarified. The Chair stated pages 11 through 15 have been revised. Hansey moved to accept pages 11 through 15. Motion passed unanimously. A typographical error in Section I, paragraph B, the word "Resolution" was changed to "Ordinance.'. Hansey moved for the adoption of the ordinance with the substitute pages. McIntyre stated the existing cablevision franchise should be given equal treatment and should be allowed to continue and compete with this new franchise. Van Zanten stated that Delta Cablevision's franchise does not expire until 1993. Delta's franchise ordinance is very similar to this proposed one. Motion on the ordinance passed unanimously. The second item under final. consideration is the Ordinance authorizing a supplemental budget for the 1981 Federal Shared Revenue Budget (Personnel Analyst position). Hansey moved for the adoption of the ordinance. Hansey stated Finance reviewed this and passed it to full Council without recommendation. Van Zanten was concerned with using Federal Shared Revenue Funds. Harold Raymond, Personnel Director explained the situation, that he needed help in the Personnel Office. He could not handle all the duties by himself. Roehl agreed that one Minutes June 18, 1981 page five person could not handle the whole Personnel Office. Johnson spoke against hiring in the County. McIntyre said the County cannot continue spending at the rate they are. Muenscher said the County needs to look at the ratio of work load in that Department. Hansey moved to amend the ordinance on line 15 and throughout the ordinance as needed to strike the words "Federal Shared Revenue" and insert the words "Current Expense.'" McIntyre said Federal Shared Revenue funds should be used for a one time only funding. Amendment passed by a majority vote. Motion on the ordinance as amended passed by a 4 -3 vote. (Hawley, McIntyre, Johnson) The ordinance authorizing a supplemental budget for the 1981 Federal Shared Revenue Fund (NACO dues) was before the Council for final consideration. Hansey moved for final passage of the ordinance.. The Chair asked if Hansey would accept the substitute ordinance which changed the revenue source from Federal Shared Revenue Fund to the Current Expense Fund. Hansey moved to accept the substitute ordinance. for consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Motion was defeated by a 3 -4 vote. (Hawley, Van Zanten, McIntyre, Roehl) The fourth item up for final consideration was the resolution in the matter of a financial commitment to the 1982 Whatcom County Council of Governments budget. Muenscher moved for the final adoption of the Resolution. Muenscher stated he would like to see.the Council of Governments expanded. McIntyre said the Council should not make a certain dollar figure commitment. Hansey moved to amend the Resolution on line 18 after the word "operation" strike the period and insert the following: "provided all other governmental participants who's share to finance Whatcom County Council of Governments is $11,000.00 or more, budget funds for their full share of contribution." Amendment passes by a majority vote. Motion on the Resolution as amended-passed by a 6 -1 vote (McIntyre). Minutes June 18, 1981 page six OTHER BUSINESS The decision on an appeal filed by Gerald Noe, Wiztronics, Inc., %d of a Heraing Examiner decision A.A. 1181 was before the Council. Prior to handling the consideration of the Administrative Appeal a poll for conflict of interest or any appearance of fairness problems was taken by Van Zanten with no conflicts reported. Roehl moved to uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner, based on reviewing the record and discussions with the Prosecuting Attorney's office. Roehl's motion to uphold the Hearing Examiner was defeated by a majority vote. Hansey moved to reverse the decision of th� Hring Examiner and to grant the appeal finding an error of law.VAansey's motion to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and to grant the appeal passed by a majority vote. OPEN SESSION The following persons spoke regarding a rezone in the area of the Kellog and Horton Roads on the Guide Meridian: Gary Orr Henry Feenstra Pacific Concrete Resident Leonard Anderson Al Weivoda Resident Resident John Richardson Ray Blumon Resident Resident Betty Visbeek Robert Frost Resident Resident Roehl stated there was a conflict between Planning and Zoning. Johnson suggested the Council hold its own zoning hearing. The Chair suggested a continuation of the discussion be placed on the next Council agenda. The Chair will see this is done. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Hansey moved to add the ordinance authorizing a supplemental. budget for the 1981 Prosecuting Attorney's Budget as item four on the agenda. Motion passed. Roehl introduced the Ordinance restricting the speed limit on Church Road. The ordinance was referred to the Public Safety Committee. Roehl introduced the Ordinance regarding the matter of placing Minutes June 18, 1981 page seven stop signs on Fir Tree Way. The ordinance was referred to the Public Safety Committee. Roehl introduced the Ordinance in the matter of closing Island View Drive. The ordinance was referred to the Public Works Committee. Hansey introduced the Ordinance authorizing a supplemental budget for the 1981 Prosecuting Attorney's Budget and referred it to the Finance Committee. Muenscher introduced the Resolution regarding the matter of adoption of Whatcom County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the resolution will be reviewed by the Council as a whole after public hearing on it. COMMITTEE REPORTS Johnson reported from the Public Safety Committee that the Engineer's report has not yet been received regarding the Axton Road. Muenscher stated he was contacted by a Mr. Iiytower, a worker for the Amex Coal Corporation, who is offering his services to come before the Council and explain what the coal activities of the corporation are and what they are doing in the County. The Chair will check with the Prosecuting Attorney on the procedure for this. Meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. .. s Phone 676 -6717 384 -1403 SCAN 644-6717 COUNTY COUNCIL Shirley Van Zanten 311 Grand Avenue Don Hansey Bellingham, Washington 98225 Larry McIntyre C.J. Johnson R.W. "Bob" Muenscher 1 J.V. "Jim" Hawley, Jr. Will Roehl WIZTRONICS (NOE) APPEAL -- Council June 1981 The zoning administrator erred in ruling that the location of this business is not a permitted use for the following reasons: First, the comprehensive plan adopted in 1970 was a very broad, general guide- line for future development of the county as indicated by such terminology as: * Plan is "general in nature and somewhat flexible as to detail" * "....plan provides guidelines for future development. It does not impose any rules or controls whatever." * "....policy planning can be progressively extended in detail and subject matter and refined in local application." * "The plan will serve as a beginning framework for detailed Physical design . It is plain that the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners intended to establish broad guidelines with considerable-flexibility in adopting this early comprehensive plan. The language is very permissive in nature. Two years later, 1972,and later amended in 1979, the County Commissioners adopted a zoning text to implement the initial comprehensive plan. This was more specific and detailed as to the permitted and specific uses which could be applied. In this case, the area of "General Use District" spelled out specifically that commercial uses such as this applicant is requesting are permitted provided they meet the general guidelines of "business policies" in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the total question is whether the applicant complies with the "business policy" section. For these reasons, I believe the Zoning Administrator committed an error of law in his contruction of the zoning regulations as they apply to the "business policies." 1. The plan map, which was developed nine years before the more specific zoning ordinance amendment, does not mandate the existance of three or more commercial establishments, it only states that where there were three or more adjacent businesses at that time it demonstrated that area was viable for business development. That opening paragraph ends with the permissive statement that "this distinction is not intended to be restrictive as the following policies indicate." The mandatory zoning text states the location shall be in accordance with the (permissive) policies of the comprehensive plan. In this case the applicant does :W -2- comply with the comprehensive plan in accordance with the zoning mandate and carries out legislative intent. 2. The traffic question can be accomodated by designing the project to meet the offstreet parking and loading requirements and ingress and egress provisions. The addition of this business on this highway would only affect total traffic infinitesimally. 3. Business policy # 2. Location and development of new business in this case will "minimize conflict with adjacent uses and assist consolidation of business districts." The entire area from inside Bellingham City Limits to beyond the applicant's area is rapidly becoming commercial and will soon likely be entirely commercial. There are numerous businesses in the immediate area (gas station, dairy retail store, beauty salon, manufacturing, mobile home operation, etc.) and in addition several houses have meen removed awaiting impending commercial development. 2.(a) of this section states that "business locations that adjoin existing businesses on the same side of the street should be encouraged." This does not say you cannot locate business in an appropriate location for a business -- it says the county should encourage businesses to locate adjacent to other businesses. If the Commissioners had wanted to mandate this requirement they would have said any new business shall be located adjactent to existing businesses. They did not state that but said it should be "encouraged." The examiner erred in stating adjacency was required to comply with 2.(a.). 1 2.(b) Thin would certainly not be an "indiscriminant" location considering the present and developing character of the area. The examiner erred in determining this was an "in6scriminant location." 4. Business policy #3 states "Location of new businesses so as to provide maximum public convenience and minimum inconvenience." This project would provide convenience considering the other business location in the immediate area and there..-is no charge of inconvenience to the public. The location certainly meets the requirement to locate new business on "arterial road and highway locations." 5. The interpretation that vacant lots in the area are "residential" is subject to question and interpretation. These lots were made vacant for the purpose of development into commercial use by testimony of the owners. To beg the question that those lots are "residential" is being blind to the reality of the area. The Examiner erred in insisting these nearby lots are "residential" and-not recognizing the commercial nature of the area. Therefore, under provisions of Whatcom County Ordinance 770.840 "GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL" the Council hereby reverses the instant case of the Hearing Examiner as "Based on an error of law, and, or, is clearly erroneous on the entire record."