From: Linda Twitchell
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:50 AM
Subject: PDS on GMHB water issues - Oct. 10
hearing
Friends – can you help with testimony at an Oct. 10 W.C.
Planning Commission hearing?
Gary Davis sent out an announcement on the hearing
Monday. In essence:
WC PLANNING COMMISSION will hold an Oct. 10 public
hearing on staff proposals designed to comply with GHMB’s June 7th
decision on water-related issues.
6:30 p.m. Oct. 10 at the Northwest Annex
The County is appealing the GHMB’s
June 7 decision on water issues. Meanwhile, PDS staff is proposing Comp
Plan and Title 20 Zoning amendments, has written a 25-page report supporting
them, and has set an Oct. 10 public hearing on these recommendations.
Much of this seems to be changes the County Council turned down a year ago.
The staff report says these do not
“run counter to any points of the Council’s appeal” (p3) – but at the same time
it says the proposed amendments would “resolve” that June 7 noncompliance
finding (p13).
Gary Davis is out of town till the
day of the hearing. Mark Personius is out of town till next week. I’ve
asked Jack Louws’ office and left a message for Sam Ryan saying, why has staff
gone to all this time, trouble and expense if the county has decided to appeal
this? No answers on that yet.
The staff report with draft
amendments is available at http://www.whatcomcounty.us/pds/plan/lr/projects/lamirds/lamirds.jsp
.
My short version:
Of serious concern:
The proposal adds Comp Plan language – Pt. 8 to “regulate water resources by
requiring evidence of an adequate water supply prior to issuance of any
building permits, through WCC 24.11.060” and Pt. 9 to “regulate ground and
surface water resources by issuing building permits proposing to use a well,
spring, or surface water, only if the site does not fall within the boundaries
of an area where DOE has determined by rule that water for development does not
exist, through WCC 24.11.090, .100, .110, .120, .130, .160, .170.”
·
As I understand the situation, it’s virtually
impossible to prove before drilling a well that there’s enough ground water for
withdrawal, and existing information is not sufficient on stream flows.
How would one be able to prove this?
·
Wouldn’t there be a continuing hindrance of
challenges from Futurewise, the tribes, or others when you try to prove you’d
have enough water?
·
Unless we’re willing to give up on building
in the rural areas entirely, doesn’t this need a provision allowing use of RCW
90.44.050 to provide an exemption for ground water withdrawals (wells) for
residential use?
Staff opposes a Futurewise
recommendation to limit vegetative cover, but adds points to “Establish a
more stringent standard for clearing activity in highly valued water
resource areas, environmentally sensitive areas, or areas where natural
conditions are so unstable that clearing activity in the areas can results in
hazardous conditions through WCC 20.80.735 Water Resource Special Management
Areas …” and to “Protect water quality through limits on impervious surfaces
in rural areas through WCC 20.32.500 and 20.36.500 …”
Staff is again proposing limits
on impervious surface in Rural and Rural Residential districts, on a
sliding scale. Under the proposal, maximum impervious surface in the
Title 20 Zoning Code, 20.32.500, would read “No more than 7,000 square feet or
25 percent of the total area, whichever is greater, not to exceed 35,000 square
feet of the total area, shall be covered by buildings, structures, hard
surfacing, impervious parking areas and other impervious surfaces.” (The
35,000 sq.ft. maximum equals 4/5 of an acre of impervious surface, and would
apply to any property covering 3.24 acres or more. On a three-acre lot,
25% would equal 32,670 sq.ft., or 3/4 of an acre. On a two-acre lot, 25% is
21,780 sq.ft., or half an acre of impervious surface.) Stricter rules
apply in the Lake Whatcom, Lake Padden and Lake Samish watersheds.
Exemptions include:
o
Roads or driveways in pipe stem portions of lots
where the lot width is 30 feet or less, or easements that serve neighboring
properties.
o
Buildings “used for” livestock, horse arenas, or
agricultural products. (Note: Does that wording require continuous use,
or does it mean buildings “intended for” these uses?)
o
Area covered by alternative surfacing methods as
described in WCC 20.71.603 …”
Thanks,
Linda Twitchell
Government Affairs Director
Building Industry
Association of Whatcom County
1650 Baker Creek Place
Bellingham, WA 98226
360.671.4247 (ph)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.