HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 19 20121
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
Natural Resources Committee
June 19, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (9:34:52 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer and Sam Crawford.
Absent: Bill Knutzen.
Also Present: Ken Mann, Barbara Brenner, Kathy Kershner, and Pete Kremen.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
PROGRAM AND PRIORITIES (AB2012 -204)
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and submitted and read from a presentation (on file). There is a potential to build 4,000
more homes. Half are in the agricultural area, and half are in the adjacent rural areas, the
rural land study areas, with significant agricultural activities. A study by Whatcom Farm
Friends concluded that some of the development rights need to be accommodated and
others need to be transferred away or retired altogether.
The average farm size in the county is 70 acres. Many farmers operate on leased
land throughout the county. She described the PDR program in relation to the entire
Agricultural Strategic Plan, the purchase of development rights (PDR) target areas and rural
study areas, and the ring of agricultural and rural areas surrounding the main, highest value
agricultural land in the middle of the target areas. She described the PDR Program process,
history, and its benefits to farmers.
The PDR Oversight developed recommendations and priorities. She described the
four priorities.
rights.
The following people spoke and answered questions:
• Veronica Wisniewski, PDR Oversight Committee Chair
• Paul Schissler, PDR Oversight Committee Vice -Chair
• Henry Bierlink, Whatcom Farm Friends
Weimer asked and there was discussion of the location of the 4,000 development
Natural Resources Committee, 6/19/2012, 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 asked and there was discussion of whether the lands referenced include land
that is zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A) and rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A),
and the value of the land in the center of the target area. She would like the County to
target the properties that have the most benefits.
Crawford stated the agricultural culture is to keep farm families together, so the
development isn't necessarily a bad thing. He asked and there was discussion of:
• How the criteria could come up with a priority purchase on a piece of property
that didn't historically have an agricultural use.
• Density protections.
He stated the southern areas are less connected to agriculture. He's less impressed
with the mid - county purchases than the north county purchases.
He asked and there was discussion of:
• The Weatherby property.
• The parcels that are already zoned agriculture.
• Why the Everson property floated to the top.
• The amount of land that is being used for agriculture, regardless of zone.
He stated include a criterion about whether or not the land was ever used for
agriculture.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of how much of the 778 acres that have
been purchased are actually being farmed, and the total values and costs described in the
staff memo on Council packet page 2.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of a concern about the quality and number
of applications the County receives, and whether outreach and education would result in
more applications.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of focusing on targeting the best
agricultural land, and then working down from there.
Kershner stated the center of the target area that is zoned agriculture is being
protected by the marketplace, which is what they want. Target the areas that are not
zoned agriculture, but are being used for agriculture and have potential for being
developed. She's not interested in putting more money into the program. It provides too
small a benefit for too few people. She would support the program for R5A- and R10A-
zoned parcels. Don't do major outreach, because it would raise expectations.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of the platted, developable lots in the center
of the target area.
Weimer stated focus on the core agricultural area so it doesn't get developed any
further.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of designating a certain percentage of the
conservation futures fund for agriculture. It will make the County look better when seeking
grants.
Bierlink stated the program works well. The program should be more opportunistic,
taking advantage of times when properties are for sale in transition, and less reactionary by
Natural Resources Committee, 6/19/2012, 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
waiting for someone to apply. Fund the PDR Oversight Committee from the PDR fund to
help improve the program. Send a clear message that the County cares about funding the
Agricultural Strategic Plan. Outreach and education is tied to the whole plan. They need
more tools, not just the PDR program.
Weimer stated the program works well. He would like to provide more resources to
the program.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of adjusting the PDR ranking system so
more people will submit applications. The committee can come back with recommendations
to change the criteria.
Mann stated the Council must send a consistent message about whether the County
supports the applications and the program. Geographic priorities are important. Focus in
the center of the area. Prioritize soil quality and location. Parcel size is not as important to
him. He's not sure if it matters whether a parcel has been historically farmed.
Kershner stated the speakers have shown her the value of preserving the lots in the
center of the target area. She asked the committee members to come back with specific
things the Council can indicate it wants or doesn't want, rather than ask the Council to come
up with guidelines.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. UPDATE FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICAN RIVERS ON THE WILD
AND SCENIC RIVER PROPOSAL FOR THE UPPER NOOKSACK RIVER (AB2012-
224) (10 :38:24 AM)
Darcy Nonemacher, Washington Conservation Programs Associate Director,
submitted and read from a presentation (on file). She described the history of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
Jennifer O'Neal, Tetra Tech EC, Inc., continued the presentation supporting the Wild
and Scenic River designation for the Nooksack River.
Nonemacher concluded the presentation on the support from public and private
agencies.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of how this affects private land and county
roads and bridges and the timeline for asking Congress.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of what this designation would protect the
river from and whether there are existing problems on the Nooksack River that would be
solved by this designation.
Kremen stated he supports the proposal. A benefit to Whatcom County is a boost to
eco- tourism.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/19/2012, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@7.o.whatcorn.wa.us
Natural Resources Committee, 6/19/2012, Page 4