HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 29 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
January 29, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:08:12 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Knutzen and Kershner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW
AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING
DISTRICT (AB2012 -300)
The following people answered questions:
• Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department
• Joshua Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department
Brenner submitted and read proposed definitions for cooking and for rendering.
There was discussion about rendering and the difference between rendering and cooking.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of allowing slaughterhouses now in the
rural industrial and manufacturing (RIM) zone.
Brenner stated amend Exhibit B to replace any reference to "rendering" with
'cooking" in all sections. Also, remove references to poultry.
Mann stated and there was discussion of sending it back to the Planning Commission
because they don't know what they're talking about.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of:
• Replacing "rendering" and "incidental edible rendering" with "smoking or cooking"
in Exhibit B, sections 20.40.056(3) and sections 20.40.164 (3) and (3a),
smoking and /or cooking...."
• Amending section 20.97.010.2, "...pFeeessing smoking and /or cooking...."
• Eliminating sections 20.97.107, .189, .343.1, .343 and .424.
Knutzen stated and there was discussion of leaving "processing" in Whatcom County
Code (WCC) section 20.97.010.2. It's talking about the whole process of dealing with that
animal.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, 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
Personious stated leave in the rendering definition, and then clarify that rendering
and importation of animal byproducts is strictly prohibited unless it's associated with the
rendering plant approved through the conditional use process. They could amend the last
sentence in section 20.97.010.2 to indicate clearly that agricultural slaughtering facilities do
not include rendering and /or the importation of animal byproducts unless associated with
the rendering plant approved through the conditional use process. It would be clear to
applicants that they can only do rendering through the conditional use process.
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.40.056(3), "Where an agricultural
slaughtering facility, as defined in WCC 20.97.010.2, includes ,
identified On WGG 2"�97Z'� smoking and /or cooking of animals slaughtered onsite..."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.40.164(3), "Where an agricultural
slaughtering facility, as defined in WCC 20.97.010.2, includes ,
;Qe t#iedWG20.97.107, smoking and /or cooking of animals slaughtered onsite..."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.40.164(3x), "Where an agricultural
slaughtering facility, as defined in WCC 20.97.010.2, includes ineidental edible m ,
identified On smoking and /or cooking of animals slaughtered onsite...'
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.97.010.2, "...Agricultural
slaughtering facilities may include ineidental edible rende smoking and /or cooking of
byproducts of animals slaughtered onsite, in accordance with USDA regulations...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, to delete section 20.97.107 and add a new
definition, "Cooking and /or Smoking. As defined by the USDA, Food Safety Inspection
Service (FSIS), cooking is a process involving smoking or other culinary preparation of meat
whereby fat is preserved as an integral component of the finished product. The result of
cooking of meat products includes bacon, sausages, such as pepperoni, salami and
landjaeger, jerky, ham, and roast beef. Cooked or fully cooked is defined as when a meat
product has a cooked, ready -to -serve appearance, usually attained at 148 degrees F for
meat and meat food products. Cooking is considered to be a step in a process, and is where
a partial or full lethality is applied to the product to make it free of the pathogen or
organism of concern."
Kremen asked and there was discussion of why they care about whether the meat
has a cooked appearance.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, 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
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether this is the current standard and
definition of the USDA FSIS.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B to delete section 20.97.189, the definition of
inedible rendering.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether the definition of rendering is
used in any other section of the code, so the definition should remain.
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.97.010.2, "...in accordance with
USDA regulations. Rendering and importation of animal byproducts is strictly prohibited
in an
agricultural slaughtering facility."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend Exhibit B, section 20.97.424, "Slaughtering means the
killing and packaging of animals for human consumption."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Mann (1)
Knutzen stated they still need to decide whether it's a permitted use in the
agricultural zone.
Mann stated and there was discussion of coming up with findings to make it a
permitted use and raise the square footage limit to 10,000 square feet.
Brenner stated use the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that clearly states that,
among other things, processing of animal products is a primary use in agricultural land.
Kershner stated it is a Growth Management Act (GMA) definition of agricultural use.
Mann stated and there was discussion of not using square footage as the threshold
or the criterion of requiring that 50 percent of the animals come from Whatcom County as
guides for defining what is small scale. Get rid of the 50 percent criterion, but not if it's a
permitted or accessory use. Make it a conditional use. Do a better job defining the criteria
that will provide good guidance.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of permitted versus accessory use.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, 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
Kershner stated that if left as a permitted use, include a finding that references RCW
36.70A.030, the definition of agricultural land.
(4:08:56 PM)
Kershner continued to state that she's fine with the square footage thresholds of
5,000 square feet is permitted, 5,000 to 10,000 is an administrative approval, and anything
over 10,000 square feet is a conditional use.
Brenner stated include a finding that says 10,000 is an extremely small footprint,
considering what the USDA calls a small scale facility.
Mann stated don't use size as the controlling metric. Allow slaughter of poultry if
there is a better way to measure small scale.
Kremen stated whether the use is permitted or conditional depends on the
definitions.
Personious stated and there was discussion of whether a slaughtering facility is an
agricultural activity legally, per the GMA. The Agricultural Advisory Committee will discuss
next year all the agricultural accessory uses. If this is approved as an accessory use, it may
set a precedent for other accessory uses. There aren't good metrics for a slaughtering
house, which is why most jurisdictions designate them as conditional uses. They potentially
have impacts, so make them a conditional use. No one has tried to define small scale, so
staff suggestions restriction by size for most efficient County regulation. They could limit
the number of animals, but it will only be enforced via complaints.
Knutzen asked staff to provide the legal opinion to the Council.
Ben Elenbaas stated a slaughtering facility to a beef producer is the same as a
milking parlor to a dairy producer. Milking parlors don't have size limits. A slaughtering
facility won't be intrusive to agricultural uses. The berry and dairy industries are big in
Whatcom County because they have the infrastructure. A strong agricultural community is
diverse and requires infrastructure. Slaughtering is highly regulated by the federal
government. Don't add other regulations, such as size. There is a difference between
cooked and fully- cooked. There is a demand for this facility.
Gabriel Claycamp stated the square footage metric is problematic because it's an
average. A footprint limit made sense. Instead, regulate the size of the kill floor or pre -
chiller. It's a more accurate way to control how many animals can be processed daily.
Mann asked and there was discussion about not processing poultry in Mr. Claycamp's
proposed facility.
Nicole Brown stated she likes the idea of limiting the size of the kill floor or pre -
chiller. Add language to adequately describes what these facilities will do. Limit the
number of heads going through the facility. According to the Washington Administrative
Code (WAC), this activity is a processing activity, and is not agricultural production. This is
not an agricultural use. A percentage of the animals should be grown onsite or within a
certain distance from the facility. The code should encourage more sustainable practices
and agri- tourism.
Brenner asked to see the WAC. Production is the same as processing.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, 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
Mann stated he would like to get more specific, as Ms. Brown recommends by
limiting the number of head slaughtered.
Terry Wexler stated local farmers should be able to process and sell locally, but this
ordinance only allows small versions of industrial farms.
Joe Knight stated someone could build an industrial process and claim it's an
agricultural use. Animal slaughter is industrial, not agricultural. A facility that can slaughter
100 cows a day will create a heavy demand on traffic and will disrupt the rural character of
his area. Consider the impact from discarding the offal.
Wendy Harris stated keep a square footage limit so they don't allow an industrial use
in agricultural land. The use, as a primary use, should be sited in the rural industrial and
manufacturing (RIM) zone. There is a difference between producing and processing.
Elizabeth Elkhart stated this is an industrial use. It's not good to focus on one
agricultural product over others. It's not healthy to put processing plants in agricultural
land. Local farmers should be able to butcher their cows locally. It's not necessary to allow
50 percent of the cows to come from outside the area.
Doug Tolchin stated the proposed ordinance is inappropriate. Read the report he
emailed to the Council. The ordinance is illegal because the State Environmental Protection
Act (SEPA) determination of non - significance (DNS) addressed allowing slaughterhouses as
a conditional use. The proposed ordinance would require an environmental impact
statement (EIS) because it's not non - significant. The ordinance as proposed isn't limited to
small scale. Also, the ordinance will produce about 35 tons of raw manure per day.
Spreading that waste around agricultural land will violate the Endangered Species Act.
Don't adopt the ordinance.
Tip Johnson stated the private sector is meeting the need for this use. It's not
possible to do an 88,000 acre upzone without a proper SEPA review. Other jurisdictions
have concluded they need one 2,500 to 3,000 square foot facility for one or two counties.
The industry is problematic because of noisome and psychological effects. The North
Cascades Meats farmers cooperative is open to anyone who wants to join. It is close to
having an operational facility. It's best to have one really good facility, not several small
marginal facilities. The ordinance will create problems.
Jessica Elenbaas stated she is a founding member of the North Cascades beef
cooperative. It's not something that will happen soon. The cooperative can't get enough
farmers to join, because it costs a lot of money. Now, they don't have facilities that meet
the demand. She is often bumped from the schedule. There is a huge demand from
farmers who grow sustainable meats.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of investment into the farmers cooperative
and the cost and benefits of membership.
Mann stated he hopes staff will research how to design, operate, site, and size an
agricultural slaughterhouse. The Council has made its intention and desires clear. He
hopes staff will do the research with the USDA and other jurisdictions, and provide
information before the next meeting in a timely manner. He's not comfortable with the
criteria in the ordinance, but he doesn't have the answers. The kill floor idea is useful.
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, 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
Regulate the number of head of each type of animal that may be slaughtered. He asked
staff to do that research and provide it to the councilmembers.
Knutzen stated hold this item in committee for two weeks. He asked staff for the
legal opinion on conditional use, the information in the last packet regarding the list of
facilities, and to research the kill floor size limit criterion.
Brenner stated make sure the attorney reviews the ordinance to substance, not just
to form.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:08 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(g-.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Planning and Development Committee, 1/29/2013, Page 6