HomeMy WebLinkAboutres2022-027strikeFile ID: AB2022-261
File Created: 04/22/2022
Department: Planning and
Development Services
Department
Assigned to: Council
Agenda Date: 05/24/2022
Whatcom County
Agenda Bill Master Report
File Number: AB2022-261
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105
Bellingham, WA 98225-4038
(360)778-5010
Version: 1 Status: Approved
Entered by: CStrong@co.whatcom.wa.us
File Type: Resolution Requiring a Public Hearing
Primary Contact Email: cstrong@co.whatcom.wa.us
TITLE FOR AGENDA ITEM:
Final Action: 05/24/2022
Enactment #: RES 2022-027
Resolution amending Resolution No. 2021-056, making additional amendments to the 2020 Shoreline
Management Program Periodic Update documents to be considered by the Department of Ecology in
their final review and approval
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE:
Proposed Resolution to amend Resolution No. 2021-056, making additional amendments to the 2020
Shoreline Management Program Periodic Update documents, including Exhibit D (WCC Title 23,
Shoreline Management Program), Exhibit E (WCC Title 22, Land Use & Development), and Exhibit F
(WCC Chapter 16.16, Critical Areas)
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE FILE
Date: Acting Body:
Action:
Sent To:
05/10/2022 Council INTRODUCED FOR PUBLIC Council
HEARING
Aye: 7 Buchanan, Byrd, Donovan, Elenbaas, Frazey, Galloway, and Kershner
Nay: 0
Absent: 0
05/24/2022 Council APPROVED
Aye: 6 Buchanan, Byrd, Donovan, Frazey, Galloway, and Kershner
Nay: 0
Whatcom County Page 1 Printed on 512512022
Agenda Bill Master Report Continued (AB2022-261)
Absent: 0
Recused: 1 Eienbaas
Attachments: Staff report, Proposed resolution
Whatcom County Page 2 Printed on 512512022
PROPOSED BY: Planning & Development
INTRODUCTION DATE: 5/10/22
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-027
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-056, MAKING ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE 2020
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PERIODIC UPDATE DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THEIR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the County Council adopted Ordinance 2017-077 containing
amendments to Whatcom County's critical areas regulations (WCC Chapter 16.16) to ensure that the
regulations meet Growth Management Act requirements, including consistency with the Whatcom
County Comprehensive Plan, Best Available Science, and state agency guidance; and,
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2018, the Washington Farm Bureau, Whatcom County Farm Bureau,
Whatcom County Cattlemen's Association, and Whatcom Family Farmers initiated a Petition for Review
before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Case No. 18-2-0001) appealing
Ordinance 2017-077 and certain portions of the regulations; and,
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the County Council approved a settlement agreement with the
Petitioners, agreeing to consider certain amendments to WCC Chapter 16.16; and,
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the Whatcom County Council approved Resolution No. 2021-056,
which approved for Department of Ecology final review and approval amendments to the Whatcom
County Shoreline Management Program, including some to WCC Chapter 16.16, which is a part of the
Shoreline Management Program, though it was too late to include the amendments agreed to in the
settlement agreement; and,
WHEREAS, after Council's approval of Resolution No. 2021-056 staff found a few errors in these
documents and believes it more expedient to correct them and include the amendments agreed to in
the settlement agreement prior to the Department of Ecology's final approval rather than having to
initiate an additional SMP amendment process, which would only prolong codification of the
amendments.
WHEREAS, the Council's Prosecuting Attorney has determined that the amendments proposed
herein do not require review by the Planning Commission, as they are within the scope of what they had
already reviewed through the SMP Periodic Update; and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council held an additional duly noticed public hearing on May 24,
2022, to receive testimony on the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that:
Section 1. Review and Evaluation. The Council hereby finds that the review and evaluation required
by RCW 90.58.080(4) has occurred.
Section 2. Revisions. Whatcom County Code Title 23 and Chapter 16.16 (Exhibits D and F to
Resolution No. 2021-056) are hereby further amended as shown in Exhibit A of this resolution, which is
Page 1 of 13
attached and incorporated herein by this reference. The remaining portions of the County's Shoreline
Management Program Periodic Update shall remain as provided by Resolution No. 2021-056.
Section 3. Approval. The Council hereby approves the revisions shown in Exhibit A to the versions of
the referenced Shoreline Management Program documents approved by Resolution No. 2021-056 and
finds the amended Shoreline Management Program consistent with the requirements of RCW 90.58 and
WAC 173-26, as they apply to these amendments, with the understanding that in accordance with RCW
90.58.190(3), and if Ecology adopts the amendments, the Whatcom County Council intends to adopt
(and codify), by ordinance, the subject shoreline master program amendments.
Section 4. Submission to Department of Ecology. The Director of Planning and Development
Services is directed to re -submit the revised Shoreline Management Program documents to the
Department of Ecology for their review and approval prior to formal adoption. If/Once approved by the
Department of Ecology no further action is necessary for compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4) for the
periodic review update due on June 30, 2021.
Section 5. Staff is authorized to work with Code Publishing to correct any scrivener's errors and
cross-references made ineffective by these amendments.
ADOPTED this 24th day of May , 2022.
��®yyt;Btb�trx,f�a�
WHAT(26M C J�I�T C uZtiJ,�IL
W �A�� IVI �Cb'U°�'w° ��H I I�GTO N
�r
��1'�'d
CO-
a
Al\
ry`
Dajna Brown�D'W����Sbn l Clerk
a
APPROVED `a's tt or
Is/Royce Buckingham (approved via E-mail5.20.22)/lL
Civil Deputy Prosecutor
/ Fr
G �,3
Todd Donovan, Council Chair
Page 2 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Note: For ease in distinguishing new proposed edits, non -marked text is what Council approved via
Resolution 2021-056. Only new proposed edits are shown in strikeout/underline.
Issue #'s refer to the issue numbers shown in the accompanying staff report.
Part 1. Amendments Agreed to per the Approved Settlement Agreement for Western
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 18-2-0001
Issues #1— 5
SMP Exhibit F — WCC Chapter 16.16 (Critical Areas)
Article 2. Administrative Provisions
16.16.235 Activities allowed with notification.
A. Activities Allowed with Notification.
9. Routine maintenance of ditches on agricultural lands; provided, that all of the following are met:
a. The maintenance is necessary to support ange+ngagricultural operations;
b. The maintenance activity does not expand the dimensions of the drainage channel beyond
the original, lawfully established dimensions;
c. The agricultural activities are conducted pursuant to an approved conservation farm plan
prepared pursuant to Article 8 of this chapter;
d. The farm operator obtains a hydraulic project approval (HPA), if required, from the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prior to the maintenance
activity; and
e. The farm operator provides a copy of the HPA to the technical administrator as part of the
written notification.
Article 6. Wetlands
16.16.620 Wetlands — General standards.
The following activities may be permitted in wetlands and/or wetland buffers as specified when all
reasonable measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on wetland functions and values as
documented through an alternatives analysis, the amount and degree of alteration are limited to the
minimum needed to accomplish the project purpose, and compensatory mitigation is provided for all
adverse impacts to wetlands that cannot be avoided:
E. Agricultural uses as follows:
1. Construction of an appurteHaHt structure that is associated with an pFiMaFy-agricultural use; or
the reconstruction, remodeling, or maintenance of such structures in wetland buffers, subject to
all of the following specific criteria:
a. The structure is located within an existing lot of record and is an ongoing agricultural use.
Page 3 of 13
b. There is no other feasible location with less impact to critical areas.
c. Clearing and grading activity and impervious surfaces are limited to the minimum necessary
to accommodate the proposed structure and, where possible, surfaces shall be made of
pervious materials.
2. Ongoing agricultural activities subject to the following:
a. The activities are conducted in accordance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and
WCC Title 17; or
b. The agricultural activity is in compliance with the conservation program on agricultural lands
(CPAL) as described in Article 8 of this chapter.
Article 8. Conservation Program on Agriculture Lands (CPAL)
16.16.800 Purpose.
A. The well-being of farms and ranches in Whatcom County depends in part on good quality soil,
water, air, and other natural resources. Agricultural operations that incorporate protection of the
environment, including critical areas and their buffers as defined by this chapter, are essential to
achieving this goal.
B. The purpose of the CPAL program is to allow farmers practicing ongoing agricultural activities that
may affect critical areas, their functions and values, and/or their buffers to do so either (1) in
accordance with the standard requirements of this chapter or (2) pursuant to a conservation farm
plan voluntarily prepared and approved pursuant to this article. If farmers and ranchers are willing
to enter into the CPAL program, and demonstrate no impacts to critical areas through the
assessment, then flexibility in these provisions may be extended to them. If not, then they must
observe the standard provisions of this chapter.
C. This program shall be subject to continued monitoring and adaptive management to ensure that it
meets the purpose and intent of this chapter.
16.16.820 Classification and applicability.
D. A conservation farm plan identifies the farming or ranching activities and the practice(s) necessary
to avoid their potential negative impacts (resource concerns). Practice selection depends upon the
types of livestock raised and crops grown. Based upon the type and intensity of the operation, some
generalizations can be made as to the resource concerns and remedies that apply.
E. Some operations present relatively low risks to critical areas because of their benign nature, timing,
frequency, or location. For these operations, the resource concerns and remedies are relatively easy
to identify and implement. These are described in more detail as Type 1 agricultural operations
subject to standardized conservation farm plans in WCC 16.16.830 and 16.16.840(A).
F. Where the potential negative impacts to critical areas are moderate or high, solutions are more
difficult to formulate and implement. In those circumstances, a more rigorous planning process is
required. In such cases, a formal written plan shall provide the desired environmental protection.
These types of operations are described as agricultural operations requiring custom conservation
farm plans in WCC 16.16.830 and 16.16.840(B) or (C).
G. Any agricultural activity that an assessment by the Conservation District or a Conservation District -
approved third party determines has no adverse impacts to critical areas, based on number/type of
animals, type of soils, productivity of the pasture, among other factors, or already -implemented
Page 4 of 13
best management practices, shall not be required to have a farm plan and shall be deemed to be in
compliance with the provisions of CPAL and this Chapter.
G-H. Agricultural activities that qualify for coverage include:
1. Type 1 Operations.
a. To qualify as a Type 1 operation, a farm shall not exceed one animal unit per one acre of
grazable pasture. These operations present a low potential risk to critical area degradation
including ground/surface water contamination because the animals kept generate fewer
nutrients than can be used by the crops grown there.
b. Critical areas on Type 1 operations are protected against the potential negative impacts of
agricultural activities through the implementation of an approved standard conservation
farm plan prepared in accordance with WCC 16.16.830 and 16.16.840(A).
c. Those operators qualifying for a Type 1 (standard) conservation farm plan may elect to do a
Type 2 (custom) conservation farm plan if they want to use "Prescribed Grazing" (NRCS
Practice 528A) to manage vegetative filter strips installed alongside critical areas.
2. Type 2 Operations.
a. Type 2 operations are farms that include, but are not limited to, those that exceed one
animal unit per one acre of grazable pasture; farms that have orchards, vineyards, small -
fruit field or row crops; and drainage improvement districts. These operations present a
potential moderate risk to critical area degradation, including ground or surface water
contamination, because the nutrients applied from manure or commercial fertilizers may
exceed that which can be easily used by the crops grown there without careful planning and
management. The agricultural activities are also likely to be much more intense than Type 1
operations, posing greater potential risks to other critical areas.
b. Critical areas on Type 2 operations are protected against the potential negative impacts of
agricultural activities through the implementation of an approved custom conservation farm
plan prepared in accordance with WCC 16.16.830 and 16.16.840(B).
3. Type 3 Operations.
a. Type 3 operations include dairies and animal feeding operations/concentrated animal
feeding operations (AFO/CAFOs). These operations are already regulated by state and
federal governments (see Chapter 90.64 RCW et seq.; 40 CFR 122.23 and 40 CFR Part 412).
b. Critical areas are protected against the potential negative impacts of Type 3 agricultural
activities through the implementation of an approved custom conservation farm plan
prepared in accordance with WCC 16.16.830 and 16.16.840(C).
16.16.870 Limited public disclosure.
B. Conservation farm plans will not be subject to public disclosure unless required by law or a court of
competent jurisdiction;
C. Provided, that the County will collect summary information related to the general location of a
farming enterprise, the nature of the farming activity, and the specific best management practices
to be implemented during the conservation farm plan review process. The summary information
shall be provided by the farm operator or his/her designee and shall be used to document the basis
for the county's approval of the plan.
Page 5 of 13
€D.Upon request, the County may provide a sample conservation farm plan, exclusive of site- or
property -specific information, to give general guidance on the development of a conservation farm
plan.
Part 2. Correcting errors found in the Shoreline Management Program Periodic Update
documents
SMP Exhibit F — WCC Chapter 16.16 (Critical Areas)
Article 2. Administrative Provisions
Issue #6: Clarifying the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) rules. (SMP Exhibit F, WCC Chapter 16.16)
In reviewing the approved code for implementation staff realized we had included as one of the criteria
for the Hearing Examiner to approve Reasonable Use Exceptions "11. The applicant has requested and
been denied a variance under the provisions of WCC 16.16.273 (Variances)." Unfortunately we have
realized that having such a criterion would necessitate an applicant having to apply for and be denied a
variance, even when it's evident that the variance criteria couldn't be met. This would cause an
applicant to spend time and money. —and staff to process a variance request —needlessly.
Thus staff is proposing to amend this section to delete finding #11 while making it clear (in subsections A
and B) that RUES apply when critical areas themselves —and not just their buffers' —need be impacted in
order to avoid a taking. Additionally in subsection (old 12) new 11,staff proposes to delete on -site septic
systems as being included in the maximum impact area to be consistent with the language of
23.40.170(B)(3), in which Council deleted septic systems from being included.
16.16.270 Reasonable Use Exceptions.
A. If the application of this Chapter would result in denial of all reasonable and economically viable use
of a property, and if such reasonable and economically viable use of the property cannot be
obtained by consideration of a variance r,..-.-„ant to WCC 1 c , c 2:73 (V.,rianGes) then a landowner
may seek a reasonable use exception fr the Stand-ard-S of this rr,-,,,teF, Reasonable use exceptions
are intended as a last resort when impacts to critical areas themselves (not just their buffers) cannot
be avoided
awhile allowing the applicant a reasonable and economically viable use of his or her property. T#e
Feasonable use exception shall follow the variance and public netificatien preeedures of WCX Title
22 (Land Use @Rd n.,,,.,1.,.,m ent)
B. Requests for reasonable use exceptions shall be a Type III project permit application and shall follow
the permitting procedures for variances found inkSee WCC Title 22; JLand Use & Development).
1. If in the shoreline iurisdiction Reasonable Use Exceptions shall be processed Der the shoreline
variance procedures of WCC 22.07.050 (Shoreline Variances);
2. If not in the shoreline jurisdiction, then Reasonable Use Exceptions shall be processed per the
variance procedures of WCC 22.05.024 (Variances).
C. The Hearing Examiner shall only grant a reasonable use exception under all of the following
conditions:
1. The proposed development is otherwise allowed under Whatcom County code.
2. There is no portion of the site where the provisions of this chapter allow reasonable economic
use, including agricultural use or continuation of legal nonconforming uses.
Page 6 of 13
3. The application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable and economically viable use of the
property so that there is no reasonable and economically viable use with a lesser impact on the
critical area than that proposed.
4. There is no feasible alternative to the proposed activities that will provide reasonable economic
use with less adverse impact on critical areas and/or buffers. Feasible alternatives may include,
but are not limited to, locating the activity on a contiguous parcel that is under the ownership or
control of the applicant, change in use, reduction in size, change in timing of activity, and/or
revision of project design.
5. Activities will be located as far as possible from critical areas and the project employs all
reasonable methods to avoid adverse effects on critical area functions and values, including
maintaining existing vegetation, topography, and hydrology. Where both critical areas and
buffer areas are located on a parcel, buffer areas shall be disturbed in preference to the critical
area.
6. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health and safety.
7. The proposed activities comply with all state, local and federal laws, such as special flood hazard
areas restrictions and on -site wastewater disposal.
8. Measures shall be taken to ensure the proposed activities will not cause degradation of
groundwater or surface water quality, or adversely affect drinking water supply.
9. Any proposed modification to a critical area will be evaluated by the Hearing Examiner through
consideration of an approved critical area assessment report and habitat management plan and
will be the minimum modification necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.
10. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions
by the current or previous owners in segregating or dividing the property and/or creating the
condition of lack of use after September 30, 2005.
(V s)
4-2-.11. For single-family residences, the maximum impact area shall not exceed 10% of the lot
area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater; provided that in no instance shall it exceed
4,000 square feet. This impact area shall include the proposed residential structure as well as
appurtenant development that is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-
family residence. Such appurtenant development includes garages, decks, driveways, parking,
E)R site septie systems, and all lawn and nonnative landscaping,,, L except,io-%
that wWhen an extended driveway is necessary to access a portion of a development site with
the least impact on critical area and/or buffers, those portions of the driveway and drainfields
shall be excluded from the 4,000 square maximum impact area; provided; that the access
road or driveway meets the standards of WCC 16.16.620(D) or 16.16.720(1)), as applicable.
D. The Hearing Examiner may issue conditions of approval including modifications to the size and
placement of structures and facilities to minimize impacts to critical areas and associated buffers.
The Hearing Examiner may also specify mitigation requirements that ensure that all impacts are
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible using best available science.
Page 7 of 13
Issue #7: Change in forest practices permitting authority (SMP Exhibit F, WCC Chapter 16.16)
On April 26, 2022, a code amendment transferring jurisdiction from the Department of Natural
Resources to Whatcom County on regulating Forest Practice Authorizations in Urban Growth Areas was
adopted by Council. Amendments to 16.16.230 (Exempt Activities Allowed without Notification),
subsection (A) are proposed to be consistent with this change.
16.16.230 Exempt Activities Allowed without Notification.
The following activities do not require authorization from Whatcom County. However, this shall not be
construed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of
this chapter or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Activities within the shoreline
jurisdiction (WCC 23.20.10) may require a shoreline permit or statement of exemption:
A Clan- 1 11 ni and w Special (Ret Class IV ,,en r.,n {Forest practices regulated by the Washington
State Department of Natural Resourceseenducted in aceeFdance with the applicable standaFds
PrAdut#4p.
Issue #8: Fixing an error in lake buffers (SMP Exhibit E, WCC Title 22)
When changing our water typing system to the Department of Natural Resources' water typing system,
staff inadvertently increased the buffers on our lakes from 100 to 200 feet. We are now proposing to
amend 16.16.730 Table 4 to rectify this by listing Type S lakes separately from Type S streams, clarifying 'I
that those lakes have a`100 foot buffer (which it currently is).
16.16.730 Habitat Conservation Area Buffers
B. Buffers for Other Habitat Conservation Areas Buffer Widths.
Table 4. Buffer Requirements for HCAs
Habitat Conservation Area
Buffer Requirement
Type S — Freshwater
Streams — 200 feet
Lakes —100 feet
SMP Exhibit E — WCC Title 22 (Land Use & Development)
Chapter 22.05 Project Permits
Issue #9: Deleting a conflicting note in the Permit Processing Table regarding appeals of shoreline
permits (SMP Exhibit E, WCC Title 22)
Through previous decisions Council has removed itself from appeals of shoreline permits, choosing
instead to send all appeals to the State's Shoreline Hearings Board. Unfortunately staff has realized that
Page 8 of 13
an existing note in the Permit Processing Table (§22.05.020(2)(f)) still indicates that an applicant could
appeal to the Council. Staff proposes to delete this note and renumber the subsequent subsections.
22.05.020 Project Permit Processing Table.
(2) Project Permit Processing Table Notes. As indicated in Table 1, project permits are subject to the
following additional requirements:
_(f) Whateem Ceunty shall eensideF an appeal ef a decisien on a sheFeline substantial develepment
peFFn
r- & ght te a single appeal te the SheFelines Hearings Board. When an applicant has waived his/he
Fight te a single appeal, such appeals shall be pFeeessed im @eC-eFdaRee with the appea4
(...) (and renumber the subsequent subsections)
Issue #10: Removing the requirement for pre -application conferences for Shoreline Exemptions and
Shoreline Conditional Use for single-family development in the Permit Processing Table (SMP Exhibit
E, WCC Title22)
Pre -application meetings for Shoreline Exemptions and Shoreline Conditional Use for single-family
developments are not required. Staff is proposing to delete the two checkmarks in the Permit
Processing Table indicating that they are.
22.05.020 Project Permit Processing Table.
i abie L Project Permit Processing i aDie
Permit Application Processing Table WCC Reference for Specific Pre -Application Required
Requirements (see 22.05.040)
Type I Applications (Administrative Decision with No Public Notice or Hearing)
Shoreline Exemption 22.05 & 07 -L
Type I! Applications (Administrative Decision with Public Notice; No Public Hearing)
Shoreline Conditional Use for single-family 22.05 & .07 -.L
development, uses, and activities (a)
Issue #11: Clarifying shoreline permit expiration language (SMP Exhibit E, WCC Title 22)
All shoreline permits are supposed to expire after 5 years if the project isn't commenced within that
timeframe, though this timeframe may be extended due to tolling (extensions granted by way of
appeals and legal challenges). In §22.07.080 (Expiration of Shoreline Permits), Council approved
subsection (F), which was proposed to deal with projects that spanned multiple versions of the Shoreline
Page 9 of 13
Management Program and limit permits to 8 years with tolling. But the language wasn't as clear as it
could be and could be read it to mean that al/ shoreline permits expire after 8 years. Staff is now
proposing to revise the language of subsection (F) to clarify its intent.
Chapter 22.07 Additional Requirements for Shoreline Permits and Exemptions
22.07.080 Expiration of Shoreline Permits.
All shoreline permits shall expire as indicated in subsection (B); however, regardless of tolling no
shoreline permit shall be valid beyond 8 years from the date of filing unless a di4eFent time peri
SMP Exhibit D — WCC Title 23 (Shoreline Management Program)
Issue #12: Clarifying shoreline bulk provisions (SMP Exhibit D, WCC Title 23)
In 23.40.020 (Shoreline Bulk Provisions), Table 2, footnote (3) states that "a side setback of 5 feet applies
to residential decks and accessory structures 15 feet tall or less." Though this is existing language, staff
has realized that all decks and accessory structures should have a minimum of a 5-foot setback, not just
those less than 15 feet tall. Thus, we proposed to delete the "15 feet tall or less" clause.
Chapter 23.40 Shoreline Use and Modification Regulations
23.40.020 Shoreline Bulk Provisions — Buffers, Setbacks, Height, Open Space and Impervious Surface
Coverage.
Table 2. Bulk Regulations for Shoreline Development
Footnotes:
(3) = A side setback of 5 feet applies to residential decks and accessory structures , 5 feet tall r less.
Issue #13: Clarifying the freshwater dock length standards (SMP Exhibit D, WCC Title 23)
In the table of freshwater moorage structure dimensional standards (§23.40.150(B)(1)) we did not
include a length limit as we had thought that overall dock length would be self-limiting'. However, we
have since realized that there are areas (e.g., Geneva area of Lake Whatcom) that have very shallow
depths for quite a distance from the shore that could necessitate extremely long docks (up to 300 feet)
to achieve a usable depth. Thus, to minimize potential impediments to navigation we propose to add
the clause "though in no instance shall a dock be longer than adjacent docks or 100 feet, whichever is
lesser," which is the standard in our current SMP.
23.40.150 Moorage Structures
1 Given the maximum area and width standards along with the "Minimum necessary to obtain a moorage depth of
5.5 feet measured below ordinary high watermark at the waterward end of the dock" length standard.
Page 10 of 13
B. Dimensional Standards
Freshwater — Moorage structures in freshwater environments may be permitted, subject to the
following:
Design and, Dimensional Standards
Maximum Area: surface
480 sq. ft. for an individual use dock or pier
coverage, including all attached
700 sq. ft. for a shared moorage facility used by 2 residential property owners
float decking, platform lifts,
1,000 sq. ft. for a shared moorage facility used by 3 or more residential property
covered moorage, ramps, ells,
owners
and fingers
Public and commercial moorage structures shall be limited to the minimum area
needed to accommodate the intended use.
• These area limitations shall include platform lifts
• Where a pier or dock cannot reasonably be constructed under the area limitation
above to obtain a moorage depth of 5.5 feet measured below ordinary high water
mark, an additional 4 sq. ft. of area may be added for each additional foot of pier
or dock length needed to reach 5.5 feet of water depth at the waterward end of
the pier or dock; provided, that all other area dimensions, such as maximum
width and length, have been minimized.
Maximum Width
For moorage structures accessory to a residential use:
0 4 feet for pier or dock walkway or ramp
0 6 feet for ells
0 2 feet for fingers
0 6 feet for float decking
• Public and marina moorage structures shall be a maximum of 6 feet for all
elements unless a need for a larger size is demonstrated
Height
Minimum of 1.5 feet above ordinary high water to bottom of pier stringers, except
the floating section of a dock and float decking attached to a pier
Maximum Length
o Marine Rails
• 20 feet waterward from the ordinary high water mark
o Floats
• 20 feet per user (e.g. single user — 20 feet, 2-users — 40 feet, etc.)
o Overall Dock Length
. Minimum necessary to obtain a moorage depth of 5.5 feet measured below
ordinary high watermark at the waterward end of the dock though in no instance
shall a dock be longer than adjacent docks or 100 feet whichever is the lesser.
Decking for piers, docks,
• Floats 6 feet wide or less must have at least 30% of the deck surface covered in
walkways, platform lifts, ells, and
functional grating
fingers
. Floats greater than 6 feet wide must have at least 50% of the deck surface
covered in functional grating
• All other dock components must have 100% of the deck surface covered in
functional grating
• The open area of functional grating must be at least 60%
• Replacement of more than 33% or 250 sq. ft., whichever is greater, of decking or
replacement of decking substructure requires installation of functional grating in
the replaced portion only
Issue #14: Clarifying the maximum number of shared moorage slips in multifamily, camping clubs, and
subdivision developments allowed (SMP Exhibit D. WCC Title 23)
Whatcom County has long required that if multifamily, camping clubs, or subdivisions provide or allow
recreational docks that they be provided though one shared moorage facility rather than a multitude of
individual docks. Historically, the maximum number of slips have been limited to the number of lots/
dwelling units with water frontage plus a quarter of the non -water frontage lots/dwelling units within
shoreline jurisdiction. And that policy has been carried through in this update. But the language is
unclear, with of some reading it as allowing more slips that dwelling units in the development.
Page 11 of 13
Therefore, §23.40.150(E)(2)(f) and (B) are proposed to be further amended to be more clear. Staff also
proposes to replace "leased" with "served" as not all slips are leased.
23.40.150 Moorage Structures
E. Additional Standards for Shared Moorage.
1. When allowed under the provisions of this program, a shared moorage dock may be permitted
for multiple users. Such docks may consist of one pier and multiple floats or platform lifts, boat
lifts, and covered moorages, not to exceed the number of authorized users nor the total
maximum area allowed per WCC 23.40.140(B).
2. Shared moorage shall be required in accordance with the following to prevent the proliferation
of moorage facilities:
a. Shared moorage shall be provided for all residential developments of more than two
dwelling units.
b. Subdivisions shall contain a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual docks.
c. Shared moorage facilities shall be available to property owners in the subdivision for
community access and may be required to provide public access depending on the scale of
the facility. A site for shared moorage should be owned in undivided interest by property
owners within the subdivision.
d. If shared moorage is provided, the applicant/proponent shall file at the time of plat
recordation a legally enforceable joint use agreement or other legal instrument that, at
minimum, addresses the following:
i. Apportionment of construction and maintenance expenses;
ii. Easements and liability agreements; and
iii. Use restrictions.
e. On marine shorelines a dock or pier may be approved only if it is not feasible to provide
mooring buoys with an adequate landing area or a dock or marine rail system sized to
accommodate tenders.
f. Where a new multifamily residential, camping club, or subdivision development proposes to
provide shared moorage, the number of slips shall be limited to the amount of moorage
needed to serve dwelling units/rental spaces with water frontage; provided, that a limited
number of upland dwelling units/rental spaces within shoreline jurisdiction may also be
accommodated at a ratio of 0.25 slips per such dwelling units/rental spaces. T
for sites witho-t water frontage up to a ratie ef 1.25 Fneerage spaces per total lots or units.
A.pplica_tions_for_sha,red._moora.g_e shall_ demonstrate _that_moorin-9 buoy_s_are_n_ot._feasible
prior to aaproval of dock moorage. Shared moorage currently serving or aroposed to
he!e-asedaserve upland dwelling units rentals aces shall be reviewed as
-- --
.__-..._......__.._ -.__.______.__._._....__......._.__._
ama_r..in_a_.. This provision does not apply to existing developments.
.3. Shared meerage shall be limited te the arneunt Of MOOFage needed to serve lets with water
frentage; previded, that a limited numbeF of upland lets may alse be aceemmedated.-
Page 12 of 13
Chapter 23.60 Definitions
Issue #15: Adding a definition of "finger" (SMP Exhibit D, WCC Title 23)
In moorage lingo, a finger is a narrow extension to a fixed -pile pier, usually extending perpendicular to
the pier walkway along with an ell to form an enclosed area for boat moorage. And though we regulate
the dimensional standards of fingers (and all moorage structure components) in §23.40.150, we failed to
include a definition of what they are (as we have for the other components). Thus, staff is proposing to
add that definition to §23.60.130(17) as subsection (m).
23.60.130 "M" definitions.
17. "Moorage Structure" means any in- or overwater structures, used for mooring, launching, or storing
vessels and may contain any one or combination of the following:
M. "Finger" means a narrow extension to a fixed -pile pier, usually extending perpendicular to the
pier walkway along with an ell to form an enclosed area for boat moorage.
Issue #16: Clarifying how many slips; constitutes a marina vs. shared moorage (SMP Exhibit D, WCC
Title 23)
Staff has found that there is an inconsistency between what's defined as "shared moorage" vs.. "marina"
in terms of number of slips. The definition of "marina" (§23.60.130(2)) states that "Shared moorage of
or more residential units is considered a marina," whereas the definition of "shared moorage"
(§23.60.190(3)) states "if a shared moorage provides commercial services or is of a large scale (four or
more slips), it shall be considered a marina." Staff considers this a scrivener's error as we had always
intended marinas to be five or more slips per US Army Corps of Engineers' guidance. Thus, we are
proposing to amend the definition of shared moorage to read "five or more slips," as shown in Exhibit A.
23.160.190 "S" definitions.
"Shared moorage" means moorage for pleasure craft and/or landing for water sports for use in
common by shoreline residents of a certain subdivision or community within shoreline jurisdiction
or for use by patrons of a public park or quasi -public recreation area, including rental of non_
powered craft. If a shared moorage provides commercial services or is of a large scale (fetff-five or
more slips), it shall be considered a marina. Shared moorage proposed to be leased to upland
property owners shall also be considered as a marina. If a proposal includes covered moorage,
commercial sale of goods or services, or a means of launching other than a ramp, swinging boom, or
davit style hoist, it shall be considered a marina.
Page 13 of 13