Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask for clarity on curbside recycling and proposed agritourism rules
Summary
An online resident and in-person commenters asked the county for clearer timing and process on a curbside recycling ordinance and flagged planning commission agritourism changes they say could impose lengthy waits and $500-per-acre revenue thresholds for farm stands.
Get email alerts on the Planning And Recycling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comment at the Feb. 3 meeting, Lake Cavanaugh resident Larita Humble and an online farm owner pressed county staff to clarify the schedule and decision process for a curbside recycling/minimum service-level ordinance and for proposed agritourism code changes.
Humble said staff replied that a draft ordinance is prepared by staff, then goes through management, legal review and outside committee review before it reaches a county vote. She asked why the item was not yet scheduled for the Feb. 11 Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting and asked who signs off on the approved language.
Humble read staff correspondence indicating the county’s public-works staff is drafting the Lake Cavanaugh recycling ordinance and that route changes and fees would later require approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. She said an earlier reply suggested the process could take “several months” and that documents could have been completed and in service by a prior September date; speakers framed that timeline as inconsistent and asked for clearer next steps.
An online farmer raised separate but related concerns about recent planning commission discussion to fold agritourism into permitting requirements. The commenter said the draft could require a one- to three-year qualifying period and a $500-per-acre minimum showing of revenue, which they said would effectively prevent small farms from operating on-site farm stands.
County staff and commissioners did not set a date for a final vote during the meeting. Residents asked for a formal update after planning-commission recommendations and for public notice of any hearing or voting schedule.
