HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council November 18 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
?5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
November 18, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane
in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
McShane announced that there was discussion with Chief Civil Deputy
Prosecutor Randall Watts regarding pending litigation (AB2003-018) and
discussion with the Administration regarding the 2004 Unrepresented
Salary Resolution (AB2003-368) in executive session during the Committee of
the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL TANCHUK, NORTHWEST
REGION PRESIDENT OF ALCOA PREMIER METALS (AB2003-017)
Michael Tanchuk, Alcoa Premier Metals Northwest Region President,
presented Executive Kremen with an endowment in the amount of $309,000 as
part of the process of giving back revenue as part of the power curtailment. He
thanked the people of Whatcom County who have been supportive through the
entire process. He thanked Executive Kremen for being supportive of the
machinists and steel workers. They hope to work with Bonneville Power to reduce
the rates even further.
McShane thanked Mr. Tanchuk.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, thanked Alcoa and Intalco for their
generosity and commitment to the community. They are all going to work together
to maintain the good corporate relationship with the community.
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 1
1
2 MINUTES CONSENT
3
4 Nelson moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through five.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 21, 2003
9
10 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2003
11
12 3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 7, 2003
13
14 4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 21, 2003
15
16 5. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003
17
18
19 OPEN SESSION
20
21 The following people spoke:
22
23 Larry Williams, 2719 Donovan Avenue, stated he has a complaint about
24 Geneva Hills on Lakeway. They are dumping stormwater into the creek. Sediment
25 went in to the creek a few weeks ago due to heavy rain. It's happening again.
26 There is no attendance to the detention pond. If the detention pond was attended
27 to, it would do a lot to reduce the sediment going into Lake Whatcom. He expected
28 to see a plume tomorrow at the mouth of the creek in the lake. He expects it's a
29 violation of regulations. King County attends to its soils at development sites in a
30 vastly different way than Whatcom County. The people in the construction industry
31 here are cowboys with little foresight. Work towards the standards in King, Pierce,
32 Snohomish, and Thurston counties.
33
34 McShane asked if there was anyone from the County or Department of
35 Ecology at the creek site today. Williams stated he called the Department of
36 Ecology.
37
38 Brenner asked if Mr. Williams contacted anyone from the County
39 administration. Williams stated he called only the Department of Ecology at 4:30
40 p.m.
41
42 Crawford stated the company doing the work out there are from Seattle.
43 Williams stated they know the standards in Seattle, and are not attending to them.
44 In King County, there is a September 15 deadline in the winterization plan.
45 Everything is tarped, rolled and compacted, and hydroseeded. There are errors
46 that happen. Whatcom County needs to follow the example of King County.
47 During the last rainy phase, he witnessed workers without the appropriate weather
48 and safety gear. They were spreading around handfuls of straw, which is absurd.
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 2
1
2 McShane stated he visited the site a few weeks ago during the rainstorm. It
3 was pretty bad. It was an accident waiting to happen. There were no site
4 preparations and plans. They hydroseeded in October, which was too late.
5
6 Brenner asked if the site was in violation of regulations.
7
8 McShane stated it absolutely was.
9
10 Brenner asked if the County should be doing something about it.
11
12 McShane stated the County was involved, but he didn't know what
13 transpired.
14
15
16 PUBLIC HEARING
17
18 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
19 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR 0.76 ACRES IN THE CROSSROADS
20 COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF HINOTE'S CORNER (AB2003-075F)
21
22 Elizabeth Olsen, Planner II, gave a staff report and described the history of
23 the issue, including the revised and amended ordinance which the Council asked
24 for. The Planning Commission recommendation was for .76 acres. The Planning
?5 Committee reduced it to about half that amount. The zoning line cuts through a
26 renovated chicken coop that is being used for storage. Another proposal was
27 brought forward by the Faber Brothers attorney.
28
29 McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
30
31 Tom Schreiber, 6879 Raspberry Drive, Everson, stated he speaks on behalf
32 of neighbors and local businesses. He asked the Council to reject the rezone
33 request. Rick Faber was quoted as saying he has five acres and will build an office
34 and warehouse at the intersection. This is the stated intention. General
35 commercial zoning does not allow this use. Only a light industrial impact zone
36 would allow such a use. He submitted photographs that show the parcel is already
37 being used as the construction company's construction yard, disregarding the
38 present zoning regulations. The request for a rezone of the entire five acres is
39 based on an old chicken coop. Faber Brothers re -sided the coop and says it's a
40 storage building in good repair.
41
42 There are four approval criteria for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He
43 would address three of the criteria. The first is that the amendment conform to the
44 Growth Management Act (GMA) and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
45 countywide planning policies. This amendment does not do that. It creates an
46 industrial park where none has been planned.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 3
1 The second criteria is a changed condition indicating the need for the
2 amendment. The only changed condition is one that Faber Brothers created when
3 it knowingly purchased the divided parcel and refurbished the chicken coop. The
4 County Council is being asked to make good on their speculative investment. This
5 would create a business advantage over law-abiding competitors who pay the
6 higher cost of locating in industrial zones.
7
8 The fourth criteria is that the amendment does not facilitate an illegal spot
9 zone, which this request is. Further, granting the amendment would open the door
10 for other property owners on this corner to request similar actions. The County
11 would be placed in a conflict of interest situation. It would have to either dole out
12 favors to some or grant all rezone requests on this corner.
13
14 Reject the application and apply the County regulations equally to all
15 businesses and residents.
16
17 Bruce Baker, 6834B Raspberry Drive, stated he lives across the field from
18 this proposal. He asked the Council to deny the rezone request. He submitted a
19 petition against the amendment (on file). He also submitted photographs of how
20 the applicant has been using their land for over a year in noncompliance with
21 proper zoning. When the Faber Brothers applied for the Quonset hut, they claimed
22 it as an accessory use incidental to the primary permitted use, which is rural, one
23 unit per two acres (R2A) zone. That allowed them a 5,040 square foot in addition
24 to the refurbished chicken house at 4,000 square feet. There is also a house on the
25 property. The neighbors asked how they can justify 9,000 square feet as an
26 incidental, accessory use. The evidence is clear that the house is incidental to the
27 use of these two buildings. A rezone would be an award for the abuse of Whatcom
28 County zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan. It also sets the side for a series
29 of rezone applications by other owners in the immediate neighborhood. The
30 company's present use and intended use bears no relationship to the general
31 commercial zoning that covers the front one-third of the property.
32
33 Lesa Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she represents Faber
34 Brothers. This request has come forward twice. This is a request to correct the
35 zoning of the building. The Faber Brothers came forward and asked for a
36 Comprehensive Plan amendment, and were told by the Council to come back the
37 following year because of the number of things on the schedule. Faber Brothers
38 came forward again in December 2002, and the Council allowed the request to
39 move forward through the process. Things that have been happening on site are
40 temporary until they can determine what the site can actually be used for.
41
42 They've heard comments that this is a spot zone. That is not the request.
43 The request is for a rezone to general commercial. Almost half the site is already
44 zoned general commercial. That is not a spot zone. This is not a request for an
45 industrial zone. The applicant understands that any use of the property needs to
46 conform with the zone.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 4
1 She submitted a packet of information (on file) that includes a map that
2 shows that all property owners immediately surrounding the site who have
3 submitted letters of support for a rezone of the entire site. The packet also
4 includes information on the four proposals presented. There was a question earlier
5 about when the access to the eastern portion of the building was created. That
6 access has been there since the building was built. The door was replaced from a
7 double -open door to an overhead door. She asked the Council to correct the issue
8 with the building, allow the property to be used in accordance with zoning
9 regulations, and adopt a zoning line that makes sense for the legitimate use of the
10 property.
11
12 Rick Faber, Faber Brothers, stated the existing building has split zoning,
13 which causes a problem with building uses. Also, when he purchased the property,
14 he did not realize the property provides water to the Grange Hall. The Health
15 Department shut the well down because it was an open casing well. They had to
16 put in a proper well for public use. There was no place to put it on the commercial
17 property, so they had to put it in the area zoned R2A. He had to also put in water
18 storage for fire prevention, which was also done in the area zoned R2A. The
19 infrastructure necessary for the commercial zone makes is sensible to expand the
20 commercial zoning to accommodate the use.
21
22 The commercial zone will benefit the company's operational and functional
23 use by allowing the proposed new office building. He would like to push the
24 building back slightly to better accommodate parking and landscaping.
?5
26 McShane asked where the original well was located. Faber stated it was in
27 the center of the area zoned commercial, by the road and near the house.
28
29 Brenner asked about comments that were quoted in the Business Pulse about
30 building a new office and warehouse at the location. Faber stated he had plans that
31 are shown on the sketch. The building will fit on the commercial zone. The
32 infrastructure for the commercial properties cannot be incorporated in the
33 commercial area. His business and the Grange Hall couldn't exist. There is no
34 public water available.
35
36 Mike Leland, 354 W. Badger Road, Lynden, stated all of the adjoining
37 property owners have been pleased to see Faber Brothers move forward with this.
38 The neighbors from the Raspberry Ridge area, which is two to six blocks away, are
39 against the project. The company just wants the line moved so they can do what
40 was originally intended in compliance with zoning standards. Moving the line all the
41 way back will prevent any residential development. No one will want to buy or live
42 in a residential area behind a property zoned general commercial. They aren't
43 preventing a residence from being there. They aren't trying to promote a piece of
44 land for a use that was never intended or is not compatible to other nearby uses.
45 They are just proposing to move the line back so the functionality of the building
46 can continue.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 5
1 Ron Faber, Faber Brothers, asked the Council to consider moving the zoning
2 line back and splitting the parcel with three acres of general commercial and two
3 acres of residential in the back. His business has grown from 30 to 60 employees.
4 They need parking and a functional place to do business.
5
6 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated the Planning Commission made a
7 good recommendation. Good work is hard to find in Whatcom County. This is a
8 local company that pays good wages and does good work and that wants a little
9 accommodation. They are trying to run the company through the ringer. The
10 County Council has the control over helping the economy move along.
11
12 Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
13
14 Caskey-Schreiber recused herself from the discussion and vote. This is in
15 her neighborhood. She's educated the citizens about the process. She cannot
16 make an objective decision.
17
18 Crawford moved to forward the Planning Commission recommendation to
19 the concurrency hearing.
20
21 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber left the room during the
22 discussion and vote.)
23
24 McShane stated he is against the motion. There has not been a changed
?5 condition on the property. A mistake was made. When the original zoning line was
26 drawn, it was presumed that the building would be torn down. The building is
27 worthwhile to keep. The Planning Committee recommendation is to address that
28 mistake. Going beyond that gives more away than should be.
29
30 Brenner stated she is in favor of the building being entirely in the commercial
31 zone, but she doesn't see the need for the whole access area to have use of the
32 building. The compromise is to have the building and access to both sides in the
33 commercial zone, but it doesn't need to go any further than that. Don't set the
34 precedence that people can buy a property and hope to have the zoning changed.
35 The problem is solved by putting the rest of the building and enough land to access
36 the building into the general commercial zone.
37
38 Roy stated she agreed that splitting the building is not a good idea. She was
39 struck by photos showing non -conforming uses happening on the property right
40 now. She has concerns about the area looking like it is being used for light
41 industrial. A staff report from March says that the general commercial zone does
42 allow construction contractors business offices or storage and equipment yards as a
43 permitted, accessory, administrative, or conditional use. Only the light impact
44 industrial zone allows this use. Olsen stated that the business office would be
45 acceptable, but the property can't be used as an equipment storage yard. An
46 equipment storage yard would be allowed in a light industrial zone.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 6
1 Crawford stated they are not supposed to blend the applicant, including
2 personalities and intentions, with the County code, which is specific about what can
3 be done. However, they've brought it up. The Council has been given photos
4 showing storage of building materials. It sounds like they can't have storage of
5 construction trucks and building materials. Those could have been due to the
6 construction of buildings onsite. He asked what the applicant's intention is, if the
7 applicant is aware that the County code forbids that activity, and if the applicant is
8 prepared to develop a site that is completely separate from anything other than an
9 office building.
10
11 McShane stated that's not relevant to the decision before the Council. He
12 would allow a brief answer.
13
14 Kroontje stated the applicant is aware of what the general commercial zone
15 allows. The applicant has the staff report. The applicant has no intention of using
16 the property for anything that is not consistent with the code. The applicant has
17 been in limbo for three years while this issue is being resolved, and has not been
18 able to make a permanent plan. That accounts for the temporary activity
19 happening onsite.
20
21 Brenner asked if there is anything in the code about the temporary storage
22 of construction equipment.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
?5
26 Olsen stated the question is whether the site can be used for storage of
27 items that come and go. Her only response is whether or not the activity is done
28 regularly enough that it is a consistent situation of being out of compliance.
29
30 Fleetwood asked if the Planning Committee recommendation would create a
31 no man's land, or a portion of property that would have no beneficial economic use.
32 Olsen stated they could put a house in the back that could be rented out to an
33 employee, for example.
34
35 Brenner stated someone could build a nice residential home in the back.
36 She's not persuaded that the back part can't be built upon and generate financial
37 gain.
38
39 Motion failed 3-3 with Crawford, Fleetwood, and Nelson in favor.
40
41 McShane moved to approve the Planning Committee's recommended option
42 and forward it to the concurrency hearing.
43
44 Roy stated she supports the motion. It solves the problem of the zoning line
45 going through the building, it provides access to the building, it provides a buffer to
46 the surrounding requirements, and it meets all the requirements.
47
48 Motion carried 6-0 with Caskey-Schreiber abstaining.
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 7
1
2 2. ORDINANCE CONTINUING AN INTERIM ZONING MAP FOR THE LAKE
3 WHATCOM WATERSHED (AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 2003-031)
4 (AB2003-181B)
5
6 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Caskey-Schreiber returned to the meeting.)
7
8 McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
9
10 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association Executive Director, stated he is
11 opposed to the ordinance. It will have an impact on property owners, consumers,
12 and taxpayers in the community. The proposed loss of over 3,000 building lots in
13 the Lake Whatcom watershed will significantly decrease the amount of available
14 buildable land with no companion proposal to replace the lost lots. That will
15 increase housing costs to consumers.
16
17 Whatcom County must accommodate reasonable growth and development,
18 according to the Growth Management Act (GMA). If it does not, the County will be
19 out of compliance with the State and risk the loss of the County's share of funding
20 for essential services, such as roads and schools.
21
22 The proposed ordinance speaks to concerns about stormwater runoff and
23 land use pollutants. They are continually sold on the notion that downzoning is the
24 answer to protecting the drinking water resource. However, the indisputable fact is
.5 that houses that haven't been built yet are not polluting the lake. Meanwhile, there
26 is still no proposal to create the necessary treatment infrastructure around the lake
27 that would result in protecting the drinking water resource.
28
29 This ordinance proposes legal consequences to County taxpayers. The
30 United States Supreme Court protects individual property owners and will consider
31 the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the
32 regulation interferes with investment -backed expectations, and the character of the
33 government action. The Washington State Constitution offers even greater
34 protection to the citizens than does the federal. The continued restriction on
35 building threatens consumers opportunities to build homes and the viability and
36 future of the local building community, which generates in excess of ten percent of
37 the covered wages paid in Whatcom County every year. These are wages well
38 above the average earned by employees in other sectors of the economy. Killing
39 the local building industry will also disrupt the huge multiplier effect it generates,
40 supporting solid family wage jobs in over a dozen support, supply, and professional
41 categories, which also generates considerable tax revenue for Whatcom County.
42
43 Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated this is a very modest
44 proposal. It doesn't eliminate 3,000 homes, as Mr. Quehrn said. The staff report
45 says there are only 1,700 homes, which is an overestimation of the number of
46 homes that will be eliminated.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 8
1 He's attended all the Planning Commission hearings. There was a lot of
2 scientific evidence presented that supports the downzone. He asked the Council to
3 approve the ordinance. He thanked the Council for its actions so far.
4
5 Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
6
7 Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance.
8
9 Motion carried 5-2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
10
11 3. ORDINANCE CONTINUING THE TEMPORARY EXEMPTION
12 PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21, LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS (AS
13 ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 2003-033) (AB2003-175A)
14
15 McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
16
17 Patrick Alesse, Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the person who gives the
18 gift ultimately does not do the giving. Other people do the giving. It's more like a
19 taking. Taxpayers have to pay for the infrastructure that goes to the gifted parcel.
20
21 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they should make it work in a
22 reasonable manner. Throwing it out entirely is not good.
23
24 Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
?5
26 Roy moved to adopt the ordinance.
27
28 Brenner stated she is against the motion. She disagrees that gifting of
29 property requires more subsidizing than if the property was sold. If they have
30 problems with areas being subsidized by other areas, then development standards
31 and other things are to solve those problems. It's a travesty when people can't gift
32 property to their kids. The homes have to be built to the same standards as homes
33 that have been sold or platted. The difference is who does the work. She's
34 concerned that it's easy for government to assume that people don't know anything
35 and government should do it all. They claim they're concerned about people who
36 will end up with an unbuildable lot. She's very sympathetic to people who have
37 ended up with unbuildable lots, but people are supposed to do their homework.
38 Gifting land is historic, and keeps families together. The misuse could have been
39 rectified by including the clause that it couldn't be sold for five years. Planning staff
40 stated that was the only problem with gift exemptions. The Council had a choice to
41 resolve the problem, but the majority of the Council chose to get rid of the gifting
42 process temporarily. It's been six months, and people still can't gift their land.
43
44 Nelson stated he agreed with Councilmember Brenner. The intent was to
45 provide a mechanism for seniors who have made investments in the community
46 have the ability to give their land to their children without going through the
47 platting process, which is very expensive. If there is a problem with the process,
48 then make modifications. He doesn't like interim ordinances that prevent people
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 9
1 from using their property. It's inappropriate. It's just another mechanism to
2 downzone. The intent in the past has been to work with people. It seems the
3 intent now is to prevent people from using their land.
4
5 Fleetwood stated he supported this in the past, but conditioned his support
6 on the belief that this would come back through the planning process. He asked
7 when that might occur.
8
9 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated staff is working on it. It's
10 going through the Technical Advisory Committee. There's a vacancy on the
11 Technical Advisory Committee, and other members have been absent lately.
12 Progress hasn't been made for the last couple of meetings. Once there is another
13 member or two on the committee, they can start meeting again and finish their
14 work. She doesn't think it will take longer than six months, but it may be two or
15 three months.
16
17 McShane stated one condition of the review is to look at road frontage and
18 road improvement costs to short -platting. Avoiding those costs is one of the
19 motivators for people to go around the gift exemption intent. Goodwin stated staff
20 is working on it.
21
22 Brenner asked how often the Technical Advisory Committee meets. Goodwin
23 stated they are supposed to meet monthly.
24
?5 Brenner stated it doesn't seem fair that the Council is preventing people to
26 do something when it would take a small tweak to prevent the real problem that
27 was happening. Let them come forward with revisions to the gift exemption. In
28 the meantime, the Council can amend it so the gift exemption can't be sold within
29 five years. That would resolve all the misuse problems they heard about from staff.
30 Instead, they're relying on a committee that isn't meeting. That's not a fair way to
31 affect peoples' lives.
32
33 McShane stated that rule had been in place for many years. When the
34 Council changed the land division regulations, it was amended to drop the five year
35 restriction. Before that, one individual came forward and created 180 gift
36 exempted lots. It was a process that was being used because of some of the
37 burdensome nature of the platting process. The intent is to have a fair process so
38 there is a reasonable plan for dividing property that is more affordable and goes
39 through the proper site review process. It will make platting a more attractive
40 process and still allow gifting that is more in conformance with the original intent.
41
42 Brenner stated she assumes most people who use the gift exemptions are
43 doing it for legitimate reasons. She doesn't want to punish those people. Staff
44 said that was the main problem. There are ways to inform people that they're
45 getting an undeveloped lot that doesn't have any improvements. Keeping this in
46 limbo doesn't seem fair.
47
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 10
1 McShane stated it would be better to have it in limbo until they can resolve
2 the problems.
3
4 Fleetwood stated the two issues for this ordinance initially were to avoid the
5 abuse of the gift exemption process and to get around the subdivision procedures.
6 He asked if those two issues are taken care of by a provision that says the gifted
7 lots can't be sold for five years unless the person goes through the subdivision
8 procedure.
9
10 McShane stated those two issues wouldn't be taken care of. There is no
11 review of a gift plat. They just draw a line on a map and its done. There's no
12 review of wetlands, available water, or even access. If this were to fail tonight,
13 they would not continue the gift exemption moratorium, they will have people
14 make another run on gift exemptions again, which would circumvent the short -plat
15 process.
16
17 Caskey-Schreiber stated this skirts the direction they are going with the rural
18 areas. When people do a gift exemption, they have to shift enormous cost to meet
19 the standards necessary for that kind of density onto other people. The legitimate
20 way should be refined so it's easier and less expensive.
21
22 McShane stated another issue is there is no impact fee for roads. They
23 dropped the exemption so they can work out an impact fee for development. They
24 were only getting money for road improvements through the platting process. Gift
25 exemptions were avoiding paying those fees.
26
27 Brenner stated a gifted property has to go through the same reviews as a
28 platted property. It's just a matter of when the review happens and who does it. If
29 parents gift a lot, the person has to develop the lot at the same standards as a
30 platted lot. There is not a difference in standards. When developed, the lot will go
31 through all those reviews. The people who are hurt by this are not developers.
32 They just want to give their children some property. Someone along the way will
33 develop it. When that happens, it will be developed at the same standard as
34 platted lots.
35
36 Caskey-Schreiber stated that in reality, a person could still will the property
37 to the children, who would have to go through the subdividing process. She asked
38 Hal Hart for comment. This was done at the request of the Planning Department
39 staff.
40
41 McShane stated one person is trying to subdivide her land and was
42 complaining about the cost of the improvements she would have to provide for
43 short -platting. She pointed out that gift exempted lots next door don't have to pay
44 impact fees. The only way of getting road money is when people plat.
45
46 Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that is correct.
47 They were looking at road frontage improvement as the key way of extracting that
48 money from someone when they want to develop. That seemed to infuriate the
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 11
1 community who wants to short -plat. Doing a gift exemption was a way around the
2 initial payment to the County.
3
4 People would have the gift exemption in place, and the property was being
5 developed. There were four separate parcels with uncoordinated access and other
6 problems. The County does not get the control on access points it would have
7 gotten had it gone through the plat process. The County is not able to review
8 critical areas all at once, but for each lot that is gift exempted. There were multiple
9 returns to the same piece of property.
10
11 Fleetwood asked if staff has a recommendation on this ordinance. Goodwin
12 stated staff recommends continuing the interim and giving staff time to work with
13 the Technical Advisory Committee on a final ordinance.
14
15 Caskey-Schreiber stated that if they can streamline multiple access points, it
16 will improve traffic patterns around the county. The more access onto a main road,
17 the more traffic problems and risk there is.
18
19 Brenner stated they are putting the onus on the property owners, not the
20 County. There are computers and easy ways to access information. They should
21 be able to look at an entire area, no matter how many owners there are. That's
22 something the County should do rather than punish the people who want to use the
23 gift exemption for legitimate reasons.
24
?5 McShane asked who would pay for doing those activities.
26
27 Brenner stated the property owners need to pay for the costs.
28
29 McShane stated they currently don't have the ability to fund those activities.
30
31 Motion carried 4-3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed.
32
33 4. ORDINANCE CONTINUING A MORATORIUM ON APPLICATIONS FOR
34 CONDITIONAL AND/OR LAND USE PERMITS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER
35 TRANSMISSION LINES OF 115,000 VOLTS OR LESS, DESIGNED TO
36 CARRY 100 MEGAWATTS OR GREATER LOADS, EXCEPT IN THOSE
37 DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL (AS ADOPTED BY
38 ORDINANCE 2003-034) (AB2003-196A)
39
40 McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
41
42 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he is opposed to the ordinance. It is
43 bad policy and indicates poor planning. A committee worked for several years to
44 come up with a strategy to locate power lines and utilities. This has costs to the
45 County generally. If Puget Sound Energy needs to improve its distribution system,
46 it can't make improvements. The costs are borne by the ratepayers. This is not
47 efficient. Plan for the future.
48
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 12
1 Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
2
3 Roy moved to adopt the ordinance. She asked if they are about ready to
4 get this moving along.
5
6 Caskey-Schreiber stated they did introduce a permanent ordinance, but it
7 had to be treated as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It will come before the
8 Planning Commission by the end of this year or next year.
9
10 Roy asked if there is a proposal from the committee that is working its way
11 through the system.
12
13 Caskey-Schreiber stated there is.
14
15 Brenner stated the Puget Sound Energy representative said this is a good
16 time to work on this issue because Puget Sound Energy doesn't have any projects
17 in the works right now.
18
19 Caskey-Schreiber stated there is one line from Sumas Energy that operates
20 at this voltage. It doesn't hamper Puget Sound Energy in any way.
21
22 Crawford stated Puget Sound Energy has serious concerns about this
23 moratorium and is not in favor of it. The representative has said he is hopeful that
24 there is a positive outcome, but Puget Sound Energy doesn't want moratoriums on
?5 power line construction.
26
27 Motion carried 5-2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
28
29
30 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
31
32 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER
33 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHAPTER 2),
34 WHICH INCLUDES RURAL LANDS (AB2003-07SE)
35
36 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
37 the committee is working on amendments. This item is held in committee until
38 January, unless they have a special meeting.
39
40
41 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
42
43 Fleetwood moved to accept the Introduction Item.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 13
1 1. CITIZEN REQUEST FOR HEARING BEFORE THE WHATCOM COUNTY
2 COUNCIL ON A DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION FOR
3 MISSION ROAD (AB2003-369)
4
5
6 OTHER BUSINESS
7
8 There was no other business.
9
10
11 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
12
13 McShane stated there is a request for councilmembers to attend a juvenile
14 justice seminar in December. He may be able to go.
15
16
17
18 ADJOURN
19
20 The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
21
22--
23
24 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
.5
26 These minutes were approved by Council on December 9 , 2003.
27
28 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
29 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
30
31
32
33
34 Dana Brown -Davis, Council C erk Dan McShane, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council, 11/18/2003, Page 14