HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 0428 03
è,', £'£.: It/. J'1 {)3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF REVISIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO THE COUNTY'S UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ORDER TO
IMPLEMENT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN JEFFERSON COUNTY AND THE
WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
[MLAO2-485]
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
ORDINANCE NO. 05-0428-03
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq.,
adopted the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), a Plan that was
originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and subsequently later
amended, and;
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Plan, the County adopted its GMA-derived
development regulations, known locally as the Unified Development Code (or "UDC"),
in December 2000 to be effective as of January 16,2001, and;
WHEREAS, the UDC, upon its adoption, was timely challenged through means
of not less than five Petition For Reviews ("PFRs") filed with the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB"), and
WHEREAS, one of the five timely PFRs was filed by the Washington
Environmental Council ("WEC"); and
WHEREAS, the County and WEC signed a Settlement Agreement on March 26,
2002 as an alternative to arguing before the WWGMHB; and
WHEREAS, one of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement was that the
County would introduce specific UDC revisions into a public process; and
WHEREAS, that public process is now complete;
9.
ORDINANCE NO.
05-0428-03
re: WEC Settlement Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners that they approve the following revisions and additions to the UDC and;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that they make the following
general Findings of Facts applicable to these revisions and additions to the UDC:
Section 1 - General Findings of Fact for Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
1.
The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development
regulations or UDC in December 2000.
2.
The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
3.
These amendments to the County's UDC are being made in order to resolve a
particular petition before the WWGMHB, specifically the PFR timely filed by
WEC.
4.
The County and WEC signed a Settlement Agreement on March 26, 2002 that
committed the County to introduce into a public process specific UDC revisions.
5.
Proposed UDC amendments were prepared by County planners and sent to the
County Planning Commission for review by that advisory body.
6.
The Planning Commission discussed the contents of MLA02-485 at seven (7)
different Planning Commission meetings from January 8 to April 16, 2003.
7.
Public hearings on the proposed UDC amendments occurred before the Planning
Commission on February 5 and March 19,2003.
8.
The Planning Commission conducted a workshop with the Jefferson County
Conservation District Board on one component of MLA02-485 at the April 2
Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission considered and voted on each of the three (3)
components ofMLA02-485 on April 16, 2003.
10.
With one amendment made to the first component (regulation of existing and
ongoing agriculture), the Planning Commission voted to adopt the staff
recommendation from the Department of Community Development ("DCD").
Page 2 of 5
17.
18.
19.
20.
ORDINANCE NO.
05-0428-03
re: WEC Settlement Agreement
11.
DCD transmitted the written Planning Commission recommendation to the elected
County Commissioners.
12.
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously on April 21, 2003 to
adopt UDC revisions per the Planning Commission recommendation for MLA02-
48S.
13.
Adoption of this amending language (which alters the UDC) promotes the health
and welfare of the citizens of Jefferson County.
14.
Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's Unified Development Code, all proposed
amendments to the GMA-derived development regulations should be analyzed, in
part, through the "filter" of the seven growth management indicators (or "GMI")
listed at UDC §9.5.4(b), although those GMI represent only some of the criteria
that the County Commission must use when deciding whether to adopt or reject a
proposed UDC amendment.
IS.
Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be
applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission
has considered.
16.
However, the County Commission, in order to comply with UDC Section 9,
should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI
listed there and do so now.
With respect to UDC §9.S.4(b)(1), the County Commission finds, as an example
of numerous findings they might make with respect to (b)(1), that in the short-term
the population of this County has not increased as quickly as the Comprehensive
Plan envisioned.
Regardless of the possible fluctuation in the rate of population growth that does
occur or might occur in this County the adoption of these UDC amendments
supports GMA goals to further protect critical areas and the practice of agriculture.
The County Commission finds that the other six' growth management indicators'
listed at UDC §9.S.4(b)(2) to (b)(7) are not applicable to these amendments to the
GMA-derived development regulations.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the County Commission
finds that there has been much public testimony and concern on the issue of
regulation of existing and ongoing agriculture during the public process associated
Page 3 of 5
24.
25.
26.
27.
ORDINANCE NO.
05-0428-03
re: WEC Settlement Agreement
with MLA02-485 and that therefore there is interest in this issue among the
general public and among the agricultural community in particular.
21.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the County Commission
finds that the Planning Commission, consisting of appointed members who reflect
the varied viewpoints held by the citizens of Jefferson County, approved these
amendments to the development regulations AND that the approval by the
Planning Commission indicates that these amendments to the development
regulations are therefore in conformance with the widely-held values of the
citizens of this County.
22.
With respect to the criterion listed at UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the County Commission
finds that the 3-0 vote by the County Commission in support ofthese amendments
to the development regulations is further proof that these amendments are in
conformance with widely-held values of the citizens of this County.
23.
On January 16, 2003, DCD issued an "Integrated GMA/SEP A Document &
Notice of Hearing." This document simultaneously served three purposes: it 1)
notified the Washington State Office of Community Development of this County's
intent to amend its GMA-driven development regulations, 2) provided a formal
notice of adoption of existing environmental documents to fulfill requirements
under the State Environmental Policy Act, and 3) informed the world that the
Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on this topic on February 5,
2003.
With regard to the first component ofMLA02-485, concerning the regulation of
existing and ongoing agriculture, DCD provided a 14-page memorandum to the
Planning Commission dated February 13,2003 with background information and
a revised proposal.
The DCD revised proposal was further defined, and augmented by a "Landowner
Interpretation Key," in a document provided to the Planning Commission dated
February 28, 2003 and entitled, "MLA02-485: Revised 'Exhibit B,' proposed text
amendment to the Unified Development Code."
These documents and other information were posted on a County web page
dedicated to Agricultural Lands planning:
http://www.co. jefferson. wa.us/commdevelopment/ Agriculture.htm.
The public participation requirements of the GMA have been satisfied with respect
to these amendments to the County's development regulations.
Page 4 of 5
ORDINANCE NO.
05-0428-03
re: WEC Settlement Agreement
Section 2 - Language Revisions and Additions to the UDC:
The language of the attached Exhibit, consisting of three (3) pages, is hereby adopted as
the detailed revisions and additions to the UDc.
Section 4 - Severability:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or figure of this ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance
or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 5 - Effective Date:
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners, also known herein as the County Commission.
" .i!Þ 1 '1
A~rROVE~ .AND ADOPTED this ¿Lday of tt¡Îj~"Ll.. .
\ '. ...
. "..
SEAL: ...~.. JEFFERSON COUNTY
. :\:t BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
\. i
.. . ,. ,. j .~.
.. .-. .
l' .
;,<7t £ i( -Þ¡ {ttT^~ ; ~i-J;¡-
(:1 {/
Lorna Delaney, CMC
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ a(l,;¡2~)O3
Deputy Prosecuting Atto~
~
~ntingfO ,Member
Or~~C\rJl
Wendi Wrinkle, Member
Page 5 of 5
Jefferson County Unified Development Code{UDC) line-inlline-out amendments
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners via MLAO2-485
1.
Exemptions to Standard Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area (FWHA) Buffers and
Wetland Buffers Jur E;r;ù.'ting and Onguing Agric.;ulture
.
Modification of the definition ofuAgriculture, Existing and Ongoing" in Section
2 of the UDC:
Agriculture, Existing and Ongoing
Any agricultural activity conducted on lands defined in RC\^/ 84.34.020(2) enrolled in the ODen
SDace Tax Proaram as Aaricultural Land or desianated as Aaricultural Lands of Lona- Term
Commercial Sianificance on the ComDrehens;ve Plan Land Use MaD; agricultural use ceases
when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a non-agricultural use.
.
Removal of the General Exemption at 3.6.4.f(1)ii. Refinement of exemptions in
3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas (specifically 3.G.B.d(3) and (6» and 3.6.9
Wetlands (specifically 3.6.9.c(1)v).
UDC 3.6.4 Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA), f. General Exemptions
(1) The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this Section: ...
ii. Pre existing and oAgoiAg agfiG~lwFaI aGti'.'itio6 OR laRds containing on...irsnmentally
sensitive areas. For the p~rp9se 9f this SOOtiSR, oxiStiAg am:! ongoing FReans that tho
aGtp..it)' /:)QS been oondl;lGted within the past fI'.'e year. ).
UDC 3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, d. Exempt Activities.
(3) Ongoing and existing Existina and ongoina landscaDina activities (such as lawn and garden
maintenance) and existina and oncoina aaricultural activities on lands enrolled in the ODen
SDace Tax Proaram as Aaricultural Land or on lands desianated as Aaricultural Lands of
Lona- Term Commercial Sicnlficance on the ComDrehens;ve Plan Land Use MaD. For the
Duroose of this section. existlna and onooina means that aaricultural activities have been
conducted within the five-vear Derled leadlna UD to the adoDtion of Ordinance No. on
.2003.'
(6) Harvesting wild crops which do not significantly affect the viability of the wild crop, the
function of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area or regulated buffer (does not include tilling of
soli or alteration of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. exceDt as Drovided in (3), above).
I The blank date space is reserved for the date of adoption of the amending ordinance associated with
MLAO2485.
UDC 3.6.9 Wetlands, c. Exempt Activities, (1) Wetlands.
v. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities on lands enrolled in the Open Space Tax
Proaram as Aaricultural land or on lands desianated as Aaricultural lands of lone-Term
Commercial Sianiftcance on the Comorehensive Plan land Use MaD. For the purpose of
this section. existlne and onaoine means that aaricultural activities have been conducted
within the five-vear Deriod leading up to the adoDtion of Ordinance No. on
~.2
2.
Required Replacement Rations for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation (UDC
Table 3-5)
3.6.9 Wetlands.
f. Mitigation. The overall goal of mitigation shall be no net loss of wetland function, value, and
acreage.
(2)
Compensatory Mltlgatlon-General Requirements. As a condition of any permit or
other approval allowing alteration which results In the loss or degradation of regulated
wetlands, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section 10 of this Code,
compensatory mitigation shall be required to offset impacts resulting from the actions of
the applicant or any Code violator.
i. Except persons exempt under this Section, any person who alters or proposes to
alter regulated wetlands shall restore or create areas of wetland equivalent to or
larger than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. The following
Table 3-5 specifies the ratios that apply to creation or restoration which is in-kind, on-
site, and is accomplished prior to or concurrently with alteration:
2 The blank date space is reserved for the date of adoption of the amending ordinance associated with
MLAO2-485.
UDC Amendatory Language Adopted by BOCC
MLA02-485
2
Apri121,2003
Table 3-5.
Required Replacement Ratios for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation.
.
IV
Forested
Scrub-Shrub
Emergent
Replall8ment
::=;'":I:~~? and
3-.2:1
3~:1
U-2:1
~-2:1
4 1.25:1
Enhancement'"
Wetland Category
I
II or III
R;1
6:1
á:.1
i;1
2.5:1
Note:
1. The first number in the ratio specifies the acreage of wetlands to be created, and the second number
specifies the acreage of wetlands proposed to be altered or lost The reolacement ratios are derived I
from Department of Ecoloav Publication No. 97.112 (1998\: "How Ecoloav Reaulates Wetiands."
2. Enhancement of existing wetlands, may be considered as compensation; but above ratios must then
be doubled.
3. Compensation must be completed prior to wetland destruction, where possible.
4. Compensatory mitigation must follow an approved compensatory mitigation plan pursuant to this
section, with the replacement ratios as specified above.
5. Compensatory mitigation must be conducted on property which will be protected and managed to
avoid further development or degradation. The applicant or Code violator must provide for long-term
preservation of the compensation area.
6. The applicant shall demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial
resourC08, Including bonding, to carry out the project. The applicant must demonstr:ate the capability
for monitoring the site and making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals.
3.
State Agency Review of Special Reports Associated with Development Permit
Applications
Section 8 . Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation
8.2
Project Permit Applications (Type I-IV).
4. Referral and Review of Development Permit Applications. Upon acceptance of a
complete application, the Administrator shall do the following:
a. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each
affected agency and county department for review and comment. including those
agencies responsible for determining compliance with state and federal
requirements. The affected agencies and county departments shall have fourteen
(14) calendar days to comment. except that State aaencies shall have twenty-eieht
(28) davs to comment on special reports per UDC 3.6.4 at al. including Habitat
Manaeement Plans and Wetland MitiQation Plans. _Affected agencies and county
departments are presumed not to have comments if not submitted within the fourteen
{14} calendar day period, or twenty-eight (28) calendar dav Deriod. as above;
provided. that the Administrator may grant an extension of time if needed...
Additionallv. in the event that the State aQencv or aaencies involved communicate
verbally or in writina intention to waive the opportunity to submit comments. the
correspondinQ State aQencv comment period shall terminate and be so noted in the
case file.
[END)
UDC Amendatory Language Adopted by BOCC
MLAO2-485
3
April 21.2003