Ferndale planners weigh zoning options after council’s six-month moratorium on immigration detention facilities

City council’s recently approved temporary moratorium on immigration detention facilities and the question of how to regulate such facilities led to an extended discussion at the Ferndale Planning Commission’s March 18 meeting.

City staff opened the item by summarizing council action: "At the previous city council meeting, council approved a resolution to temporary, for a temporary moratorium on immigration detention facilities," staff said, noting the moratorium is time-limited and that council asked the planning commission and staff to explore potential zoning-based approaches. Staff highlighted that the current zoning code treats detention uses as "government facilities," which are permitted in many districts, and that any permanent approach will require collaboration among staff, the commission and city council.

Public commenters urged strict limits. Paul Collum, a Ferndale resident, urged stronger local requirements to deter facilities: "Maybe we can mandate that they have to undergo community impact studies," he said, suggesting lot-size caps, limits on lighting and camera placement, and reclassification as a transitional-housing or other use to limit where such facilities could locate. Another resident, Jonathan, said he supported the moratorium and "support, if it is possible, a permanent ban on any kind of ICE development in Ferndale." Dan Masolia likewise voiced opposition to any ICE presence in the city.

Commissioners and staff discussed possible options and constraints. Key lines of inquiry included whether the state zoning enabling act would permit an outright ban of a particular use, whether detention facilities could be treated as a special land use (requiring public notice and review) and whether objective triggers — building occupancy, number of beds, square footage or traffic-impact thresholds — could be written to require higher-level review. Commissioners asked staff to research how other jurisdictions have handled similar proposals, to consult the city attorney about legal constraints and to propose objective criteria (for example, 24-hour occupancy triggers or occupant counts tied to plumbing and sewer capacity) that would require special land-use review.

Commission members also raised practical conditions that could be added to special land-use approvals — traffic and noise studies, setbacks from schools and parks, limits on razor/barbed wire, and standards for camera placement — and discussed whether reclassifying detention uses into heavy-industrial zoning or creating a standalone "detention facility" use would be workable without illegal spot zoning.

No formal action was taken: commissioners directed staff to compile examples from other communities, propose possible definitions and triggers for review, and seek legal guidance. Staff said the six-month moratorium gives the commission time to research and develop recommendations to forward to council.