HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 9 20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 9, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:03:11 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Carl Weimer, Kathy Kershner, Pete Kremen, and Sam Crawford.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW PACKINGHOUSES IN THE
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300B)
Joshua Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services, read from his staff memo
beginning on Council packet page 49 and gave a staff report.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether the State waste discharge permit
covers all three disposal methods, or just the land application. He asked for a report from
Health Department staff about their perceptions, jurisdiction, and perspectives. The
councilmembers have not received that kind of information.
Brenner stated she would like to know how many dairy, beef, and other animals
leave the County annually.
Jeff Hegedus, Health Department, answered questions.
Kurt Baumgarten, Department of Ecology, answered questions.
Knutzen stated a digester would be a perfect use for waste products. He asked and
there was discussion of who would have jurisdiction over what goes into a digester. He
described and there was discussion of the difference between a slaughter facility and a
packinghouse.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether every packinghouse or slaughter
facility produces industrial waste water, whether the ordinance covers the State waste
discharge permit, and how the County Health Department is notified about this. He asked
and here was discussion of the point at which the Health Department or Department of
Ecology is brought into this supervisory or regulatory role. The concern is with wastewater.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/9/2013, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of the discharge and permit requirements if
someone wants to have a berry or dairy processing plant and discharge into a ditch.
Knutzen ask the difference between the industrial stormwater permit and the State's
waste discharge permit, and which one is easier.
Baumgarten described options for dealing with waste, which includes trucking to
another location.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether the facility is required to have a
discharge permit if it were trucked to a municipal sewer.
Baumgarten described the treatment plant's obligation to not discharge dirty water
and in what instances the State waste discharge permit may be required. Requirements are
site specific, and depend on what the facility wants to pay for. He continued to describe the
State waste discharge permit process.
(3:46:09 PM)
Crawford asked and there was discussion on whether there is a slaughterhouse size
that would be below a threshold for regulatory review. Wastewater regulations are already
in place.
Mann stated he wants to be able to assure people that regulations are clear and
consistent. It's better for applicants and neighbors to know what the obligations are.
Knutzen stated he doesn't want someone to have to go to many different local,
state, and federal offices to get all their permits. Create certainty that there will be a path
for someone to get a permit. If they want to run it through a digester, they should be told
then that they can, as long as they don't supply more than 30 percent of the digester's total
quantity, and run it through a traditional dairy nutrient plan. It's the same kind of
nutrients. Create a program that people can adhere to without having to invest hundreds of
thousands of dollars in consultants and permitting attorneys. Hegedus stated the
conditional use permit process provides that certainty, and could be revoked if not followed.
Brenner stated an administrative approval process would also provide certainty and
could be revoked.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether a conditional use permit gives the
County additional oversight over an administrative approval use permit.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of who ultimately has oversight if it's an
agricultural use. He asked if there would be potential for the Conservation District or
Department of Agriculture under the dairy nutrient program to have oversight.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of the use being an agricultural use or an
industrial use.
Mann asked and there was discussion of the Department of Ecology working with
County staff to develop the ordinance and the risk from contaminates, pathogens, and other
things that are associated with packing houses and slaughter houses, as compared to dairy
operations.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/9/2013, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether someone would not be required
to have a State waste discharge permit if they use a digester and whether the items
prohibited from the digester would have to have a State waste discharge permit.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether there have been any cases of
scrapies from sheep or mad cow from cows and whether these measures are meant to
prevent such outbreaks.
(4:10:36 PM)
Knutzen referenced and there was discussion of working from Exhibit B, specifically
section 20.40.114(5). Make sure the Health Department is the governing body that has
jurisdiction. He's unclear about the answer to that question. It looks like there are avenues
to go around the State waste discharge permit.
Landon VanDyke described how he uses his digester and answered questions.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of how much product from outside their
dairy Mr. VanDyke takes in, how many cows he milks, his cull rate per year, and the tip
charge.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of the definition of poultry.
Mann stated he would like to consider the information they received today. He
moved to hold both Exhibit A and Exhibit B in committee until the first meeting in May.
Knutzen suggested a friendly amendment to hold for two weeks.
Mann did not accept the friendly amendment.
Kremen stated they have received a lot of information. It would be wise to hold this
for one month.
Kershner asked what direction the committee is going, and asked the committee to
move forward, one way or another.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW AGRICULTURE PARCEL
RECONFIGURATION AND RELATED CHANGES AFFECTING THE AGRICULTURE
ZONE AS APPROVED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -023 (AB2013 -128)
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a memo
dated March 28, 2013 (on file) and stated staff would like information and direction on
moving forward. The memo includes options for moving forward.
(4:27:15 PM)
Lutz read from the memo and gave a staff report.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/9/2013, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Amy Keenan, Planning and Development Services Department, answered questions.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether the new version allows a lot to
be made more nonconforming through a boundary line adjustment.
Mann asked and there was discussion of why some planning commissioners were
against transfers of development rights (TDRs).
Brenner stated and there was discussion of the possibility of transferring
development rights into small rural communities, such as Acme, Van Zandt, or Maple Falls,
that aren't in an urban growth area (UGA) rather than in the cities.
Knutzen stated it seems councilmembers are interested in option two of the memo,
to set aside the full draft amendment package, or condition implementation of the package
until a revised TDR program is developed that allows transfers of development rights from
the agricultural areas.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of also passing the lot line adjustment part,
which isn't controversial. Don't allow any kind of clusters in farmland.
Lutz described the three noncontroversial items, listed in the top paragraph of page
four of the staff memo.
Crawford stated and there was discussion of not conditioning this on developing a
TDR program. It won't happen in the near future.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of a cash subsidy to go along with a TDR
and of infilling crossroads areas.
Mann stated they can develop a creative TDR program that is attractive to people.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether they can subsidize TDRs from
the conservation futures fund, which subsidizes the purchase of development rights (PDR)
program.
Kremen stated the City of Bellingham has not been willing to provide any meaningful
receiving areas. Developing a TDR program isn't realistic, although it could be done.
Weimer stated he supports option one on page four of the memo. He is skeptical of
TDRs, but they are possible, so hold on to the idea.
Kremen stated most TDRs need to be in the greater Bellingham area, where
everyone ends up going anyway. Ferndale may be an exception because it is so close to
Bellingham already.
Knutzen stated the direction from committee seems to be to develop TDRs later and
move forward with:
A. Option one on page four of the March 28, 2013 staff report, to set aside the
parcel reconfiguration - specific amendments, but proceed with the other
agricultural amendments contained in the draft ordinance, and
B. Considering amendments one, two, and three on page four of the March 28,
2013 staff memo:
Planning and Development Committee, 4/9/2013, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1. The allowance for a 1 -3 acre residential lot to be created in advance of a
home being built through a boundary line adjustment or agricultural
short plat (farmstead parcel creation,
2. The addition of siting criteria, or
3. The exemption for ag -only divisions (with deed restrictions)
The Committee concurred.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.w hatcom .wa.us
Planning and Development Committee, 4/9/2013, Page 5