HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 9 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
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
October 9, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Bill Knutzen called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3 :03:47 PM)
Present: Ken Mann, Bill Knutzen and Barbara Brenner.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Sam Crawford, Pete Kremen, Kathy Kershner and Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
I. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR ZONING
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300)
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
report and stated there were legal concerns of allowing slaughtering facilities as an outright
permitted use instead of an accessory use. He presents an alternative that gives better
protection under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and better compliance. They can be
an accessory use with two conditions.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of allowing these facilities as permitted uses
and the difficulty of requiring that a facility be an accessory to another agricultural use.
Personious stated a facility would be an accessory to agricultural uses allowed by the zone,
not an accessory to how the property is used.
Mann stated he's inclined to put the use in the permitted section. If putting it in the
accessory use section is necessary according to legal counsel, he will support it. However,
someone should be allowed a standalone facility. Personious stated the language in Exhibit
A on Council packet page 71 would allow a standalone facility.
Brenner stated a facility is a necessary use in the agricultural zone to allow more
agricultural production locally. A slaughtering facility is a production facility. Only rendering
is processing.
Mann asked and there was discussion of the definition of an accessory use.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of amending 20.40.114, "...to support the
continuation of the overall agricultural use of the pFepeFty and neighboring pFelperties in the
area, provided the following criteria are met:" As the language is suggested on Council
packet page 71, it can be misinterpreted.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2012, 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
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, answered questions. It's not an outright
permitted use because it is processing, not production. They are looking for an alternative
that allows a standalone facility. The intent of the agricultural zone is to make sure land is
available for production. The processing must be accessory to the land that is available for
production.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of language in the Growth Management Act
that prohibits processing.
Mann stated and there was discussion of whether financing institutions would be
reluctant to lend money for a facility if the proposed use is in the accessory use section of
the code.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of whether staff's suggested language is the
solution that permits processing plants anywhere in an agricultural zone.
Kershner stated existing permitted uses in the agricultural zone have nothing to do
with agriculture. A slaughtering facility is agricultural- related. She asked and there was
discussion of why it can't be a permitted use.
(3 :26:46 PM)
Kershner stated someone made an interpretation that a slaughter facility is not part
of traditional farming.
Brenner stated that if the use is a permitted use, it would have limitations such as
the local origination of the agricultural goods and number of employees allowed. She
moved to amend 20.40.114 and 20.40.164, "...to support the continuation of the overall
agricultural use ef the preperty and neighbering preperties in the agricultural zone, provided
the following criteria are met:"
Buckingham stated that minor change won't be a big deal. It's not as accurate as
the alternative staff suggested, but it shouldn't cause the code to be more vulnerable to a
challenge.
Mann asked and there was discussion of whether the language in the motion would
result in a greater burden and would require a facility to prove it won't have to be a burden
on the entire zone rather than on just the neighboring properties.
Buckingham stated it doesn't make it much difference. He agrees with Mr. Mann,
because it appears that the language means a use can't interfere with uses such as
daycares and other things, even though it may be elsewhere in the zone. However,
slaughtering facility wouldn't interfere anyway because it wouldn't be anywhere nearby.
Practically, it doesn't make much difference. The motion is not as accurate as the existing
proposed language. Traditionally, an accessory use is accessory to a use on the property.
This is saying it's accessory to the entire zone, which is a concept he doesn't agree with.
However, practically, it won't make it more vulnerable to challenge.
(3 :36 :18 PM)
Kershner asked and there was discussion of whether there must be a permitted
agricultural use on the property.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2012, 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
Josh Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department, stated land must
be left over for agricultural use. An accessory use is accessory to the land available for
production.
Personious stated the main intent of GMA is to protect the soils.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Mann (1)
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of facilities that existed before 1990, and
whether the Hearings Board would take that criterion into consideration. Personious stated
that language only applies to limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs),
not agricultural zones.
Mann stated he's persuaded that the use as an accessory use is a reasonable
solution. He stated and there was discussion of how it works with berry production, and
they are financed for a multi - million dollar production facility. He prefers it be a permitted
use, but if not legal, it can be an accessory use. He asked and there was discussion of how
to track whether 50 percent of the goods originate in Whatcom County and the number of
employees. He moved to amend the language in 20.40.14 and 20.40.164, "20 full -time-
equivalent employees."
Kremen stated and there was discussion of how the motion doesn't address the limit
of the number of people working at any given time, which is the purpose for the limit in the
first place.
Mann withdrew his motion.
Brenner moved to amend the language in 20.40.14 and 20.40.164, "20 full time
employees averaged over a full year."
Crawford stated that would be unenforceable.
(Clerk's Note: The Committee did not vote on the motion.)
Kershner stated do research on the metrics of a slaughtering facility and what is
appropriate.
Gabriel Claycamp, applicant, stated and there was discussion of how the use is
seasonal, the peak number of employees can be large, the unintended consequences are
hard to predict, and the language about 50 percent local origination of goods is not bad.
Kremen asked and there was discussion of a realistic limit on the number of
employees. Claycamp stated maximum capacity would be at about 49 full -time employees,
including administration and drivers.
Michelle Luke stated the Planning Commissioners struggled with this language. The
Planning Commission had information on equipment needed. They didn't want to restrict a
business plan, because such a facility is a good thing. They tried to structure an ordinance
so a plant could be big enough to facilitate a successful business without being too big.
That's how the Planning Commission came up with the limit of 20 employees.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2012, 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
Mann moved to recommend approval of Exhibit A on Council packet page 71, with
the amendment the Committee made today.
Brenner stated write language that allows no more than 20 full time employees, but
allows more part time employees.
Weimer stated and there was discussion that, as written, a facility could have five
full -time employees and 500 part -time employees.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom, stated Councilmember Weimer's comment is
reasonable. Decide that this will be small scale. This is not the only place in Whatcom
County where a slaughtering facility is allowed. They are also allowed in industrial and
manufacturing zones. If the intention is for a small scale use, put that into the code. The
language about full -time equivalent employees would work, despite concerns.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the demand for such facilities and
whether cows from Canada can be brought down for slaughter, in the context of whether
they should be concerned about large facilities.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of whether there is room in the zones where
the use is already allowed.
Claycamp stated he agrees that a slaughterhouse is production, not processing.
There is no value to beef unless it is slaughtered. It is a beef - producing facility. He asked
and there was discussion of what they would have to do with the rest of the land on a parcel
if it's an accessory use.
Dave Onkels stated employment at Enfield farms approaches 1,000 employees
during peak harvest. The ordinance doesn't allow slaughterhouses in a rural five acre or
rural ten acre zone. They won't be in rural LAMIRDs. One could possibly be located in Birch
Bay or Lynden. If slaughtering facilities aren't allowed as a permitted use, they are only
allowing half the use. Livestock have no value until slaughtered. He read definitions from
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.030 for agricultural land and for long -term
commercial significance.
Wendy Harris stated they must consider water availability. Most watersheds are
closed to new water use, so a slaughterhouse will be restricted to 5,000 gallons per day. It
is an industrial use that creates new water demands that compete with farmers.
Slaughterhouses in agricultural land will fragment the agricultural base.
Brenner stated she spoke to two farmers about the water issue. They both said they
belong to water associations. She expects a slaughterhouse to comply with water use
regulations. If they can't do that, they can't operate.
Mann stated he agrees they need to provide tools to farmers. A slaughter facility is a
tool the farmers need. They don't need water rights to permit farming or berry growing.
That is up to the property owner or business owner when getting the permit. He asked and
there was discussion of whether Mr. Claycamp has water available and about plans for
rendering.
Kershner stated they need to clarify the definitions of slaughtering and rendering.
Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2012, 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
Mann asked and there was discussion of the scent of rendering that results in a
product not fit for human consumption. Allow rendering if it's only results in a product for
human consumption.
Mann amended his motion and moved to hold in committee for two weeks,
request a better definition of rendering, and clarify the differences between the odors of
rendering for human consumption and rendering not for human consumption.
Kershner stated she would like more information on the consequences of Canadian
business owners bringing their cows here for processing, and whether there are potential
legal concerns, and how big a facility should be, based on actual information such as pounds
of meat or other measurable metric.
Knutzen stated he encourages all councilmembers to be prepared to complete this
work and recommend to Council in two weeks. Start doing research and figure out the
language they want.
Mann stated he would like staff to come up with those parameters.
Brenner stated and there was discussion of how to track whether 50 percent of the
goods originate locally.
The motion 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 4:57 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 .w a.us
Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2012, Page 5