HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 12 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
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 12, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3 :31:37 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. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW
AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING
DISTRICT (AB2012 -300)
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
substitute of the Exhibit, labeled Exhibit A, with the changes from the last meeting and also
a proposed alternative, labeled Exhibit B, to address concerns of the public (on file). He
described the difference of Exhibit B.
Brenner moved to work from substitute Exhibit B.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Mann referenced Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.97.010.2, the last
sentence. He asked for the definition of poultry. They need to define poultry.
Crawford read the definition of poultry from the dictionary, "domestic fowls such as
chickens, turkeys, ducks or geese, raised for meat or eggs."
Mann asked and there was discussion of why they are eliminating poultry from being
slaughtered in a slaughtering facility. He would like to hear public comment on that
element.
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(5) and 20.40.164(5), "The facility will be
serviced adequately by necessary publie facilities...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, 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
Brenner moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(8), and WCC 20.40.164(8), "there shall
cumulatively be no more than three (3) six (6) agricultural slaughtering facilities...." She
stated they ought to have room to allow more facilities.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner stated and there was discussion of limiting the size of the kill floor.
Brenner moved to amend to delete sections 20.40.114(3) and 20.40.164(3).
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann and Knutzen (2)
Knutzen moved to amend WCC 20.40.164(3), to increase the size of the kill floor to
1,200 square feet, "...shall not exceed 1,000 1,200 square feet."
feet.
Brenner moved to amend the motion to amend to allow a kill floor of 2,000 square
The motion to amend the motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann and Knutzen (2)
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Dave Onkels referenced section 20.40.164(2) and stated allow slaughter of cows that
originate in rural zones.
Wes Kentch stated he wants to allow a slaughter facility on his farm zoned rural.
Farmers should be able to process inedible products. The process is flawed. Don't limit the
number of slaughterhouses allowed in the county.
Brett Biesheuvel, Lynden Meat Company, stated don't limit the size of the
slaughterhouse because new technology and equipment might not fit into it. He knows
what's best for the farmers. Allow the use in the agricultural zone.
Wendy Harris stated the standard is whether this ordinance complies with the
Growth Management Act (GMA). Mr. Claycamp's application is a primary use, not an
accessory use. Address water right availability issues. Use the Rural Industrial and
Manufacturing (RIM) zone. Protect agricultural land for growing food. Soil protection
provisions aren't GMA- compliant. They are arbitrarily changing the number and size of
slaughterhouses. Changes should be based on consideration of environmental impacts. Be
in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Jim Bjornstead stated he supports the ordinance. Don't limit the number of facilities
allowed in the county or the square footage.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, 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
Judith Daw stated do more research and study on this issue.
Stacy Rider stated she wants to buy local meat. Allow a slaughterhouse in the
community to know the source of their meat.
Nicole Brown stated the proposal doesn't address holding pens, increased manure,
and increased contaminated wastewater. Allow the use in the RIM zone for processing
agricultural products. The waste will have to be trucked and disposed of somewhere. If
allowed in the RIM zone, rendering can occur. Don't site the facility on agricultural land.
Marian (inaudible) stated support local source farming. She understands the
concerns, but find a way to process only local animals while protecting the environment.
(inaudible) stated she supports local food sources and farming and pasture -fed meat,
which promotes biodiversity. It's healthier for the community and environment.
Tip Johnson stated slaughter and rendering are industrial uses that belong in an
industrial zone. Public utilities have better oversight. Clarify the number of facilities that
can be used as an accessory use. Land near by one of these facilities could lose value due
to insect contamination of the crop. This ordinance deserves a State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) review determination of significance. The title doesn't adequately express to the
public what is being considered.
Linda Fells stated promote local meat sources and help farmers stay in business.
Allow rendering so as much of the animal is used as possible.
Jerry Blankers stated the agricultural zone is more appropriate to deal with increased
manure from holding pens. An industrial zone can't help it. Don't limit the size of the
facility.
John Kirk stated don't prohibit poultry slaughtering. Don't create bad legislation.
Karen Brown stated 50 percent of fecal coliform in creeks is proven to be from fowl.
No one is addressing that. She's tired of Futurwise suing Whatcom County.
Jessica Elenbaas stated there is a need for this facility. There isn't a slaughtering
facility that can handle her capacity. Don't limit the number of slaughtering facilities. Allow
farmers to have an income so they don't develop their land. Allow them to provide healthy,
local meat and jobs.
Mann asked staff to get information to him about how the Assessor measures the
impact of slaughtering facilities on neighboring properties and the feasibility of slaughter
houses in the RIM zone and whether or not rendering would be well- suited to that zone.
Now, slaughterhouses are prohibited in the agricultural zone. They are trying to responsibly
allow the facility in the agricultural areas. The question is about what impacts should be
mitigated and how they want to set it up. The councilmembers are receiving very different
rhetoric. Everyone here agrees on the end result to have locally raised and slaughtered
meat. The question is how to mitigate the serious environmental impacts. He appreciates
all the input. They're trying to get what everyone is asking for in a responsible way. No
facilities are allowed now. If they allow six, and all goes well, they can decide to allow
more. They must be cautious.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, 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
53
Brenner stated the original proposal was possible, but the County was threatened
with a lawsuit, so the administration backed off. Create an ordinance the County can begin
to implement. Don't let the ongoing threat of lawsuits decide how they vote.
Crawford stated make a recommendation and move this to Council.
Kremen stated he agrees with the comments from Jessica Elenbaas. If farmers can't
make a living, there won't be agriculture in Whatcom County. Develop an ordinance that
will enable the agricultural community to process their animals locally while complying with
the Growth Management Act. He's conflicted about what the right ordinance should be.
The committee should make a recommendation and move a proposal on to the Council that
allows local farmers to viably raise their animals and have them slaughtered locally, so they
can operate in Whatcom County.
Kershner referenced subsections 20.40.114(1) and 20.40.164(1) in the proposed
ordinance, which references WCC 20.40.051, which is specifically about permitted uses in
the agricultural zone. She asked and there was discussion of the purpose of requiring that
50 percent have to come from agricultural land. Personious stated cows raised on rural
lands would county as a cow from Whatcom County.
Brenner moved to amend WCC 20.40.114(1) and 20.40.164(1), "...from permitted
uses in WGG29.49.051." Personious stated they have to have a connection to that
accessory use provision, that the permitted use is in that zone. It says raising of cows is a
permitted use in that zone, as well as it is in rural zones.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Knutzen restated the motion to recommend substitute Exhibit B as amended to
the full Council for introduction.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR 2013 (AB2013 -088) (4:41:36 PM)
Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, referenced the
substitute Exhibit A and gave a staff report and answered questions.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council of the resolution with
the substitute Exhibit A.
Mann asked and there was discussion of how they concurrently review the items
regarding mineral resource lands (MRL). He would like a legal opinion before staff spends
time and the applicant spends money on these items.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether the slaughterhouse ordinance
has to go through concurrent review.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, 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
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the difference between conditional use
and administrative approval and the reason that Councilmembers Weimer and Brenner put
forward their item regarding MRL policies and surface mining regulations.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje answered questions.
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, answered
questions.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the mineral resource land section of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan update and how they are going to accomplish everything planned
for the 2016 update.
Knutzen moved to amend to remove PLN2013 -0008. It is unnecessary and will
make this process more difficult.
Crawford stated and there was discussion of getting more clarity of the overall 2016
update process and asked for an update of adding a forestry component to the Surface
Mining Advisory Committee.
Weimer stated he is against the motion. He stated and there was discussion of
coming up with a new process that doesn't create so much angst every time one of these
things comes forward.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether this was about South Fork.
Meredith Mensch stated she was involved with the Lummi Island application. She
supports the amendments, even though they have nothing to do with her application. The
process is flawed. Have a better understanding of impacts at the beginning of the process.
Put this through the public process.
Suzanne Shull submitted a handout (on file) and spoke. There have only been two
appeals because people aren't aware of what's going on due to the current process. Don't
take it off the docket.
Wendy Harris stated a conditional use process allows more public process. It's
necessary for the Council to hear controversial issues after they've been vetted, which is the
purpose of the Hearing Examiner.
Mann stated and there was discussion of whether docketing allows the Council to
evaluate the details of the proposal.
Personious stated the Council can direct staff to consider this item as part of the
2016 review.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen (1)
Nays: Mann and Brenner (2)
Crawford asked and there was discussion about the last item, the wetland mitigation
banking.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, Page 5
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
The motion to recommend approval carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Planning and Development Committee, 2/12/2013, Page 6