Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 11 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee July 11, 2006 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:38 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. PRE- INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 20.15 — MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITIES SITING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 20.40 — AGRICULTURE DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 20.68 — HEAVY IMPACT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (AB2006 -302) Fleetwood asked if the Council already did this. Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services, stated it did, but this is in response to the Hearings Board, which said that the County is out of compliance. The Hearings Board said the County is allowed to require these uses to comply with best management practices (BMP's). As long as they are on -farm substrate production facilities, then they are agriculture and can be conducted in the agricultural zone. They couldn't justify buffers and setbacks through BMP's. The Planning Commission confirmed that calling something a best management practice is subjective because they are typically designed to fit the site. One key issue with setbacks was that it created a nonconformity for the existing facility, which couldn't meet the setback. That was a big part of the Hearings Board's decision, which asked why they were buffering the agricultural use in the agricultural zone for neighboring properties. That is not in compliance with the purpose and intent of agricultural zoning. Unless they can show how to justify it, the Hearings Board said don't do it. Staff didn't feel comfortable with revisiting it when it was never the staff's recommendation in the first place. This is a limited version. This ordinance still retains the commercial substrate production distinction, which goes in the industrial zone. The original concern was with a large off -site shipping substrate production facility in the agricultural zone. This ordinance seeks to redirect that to the industrial zone. However, this ordinance does not prohibit an onsite operator from getting big. The County has two concurrent ordinances. Prescriptive methods for processing are handled by Health Department. That Health Code ordinance is also before the Council. A collective State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) appeal on these two ordinances that will occur in August. Staff will look at whether the SEPA determination is in error. A question is whether it is a reason to delay the decision on the ordinances. It's more of an issue if there is a project than if there is a legislative action. Nothing will change between Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 1 adoption and a hearing. Legal counsel advised that they go ahead and get it done. Staff tried to have them come out together. A question is whether they need a hearing for this one. This ordinance came forward from the Planning Commission with a unanimous vote. Staff incorporated public comment after a lengthy hearing. Weimer asked if the neighborhood association is appealing. Olason stated it is. There were seven appeals an the two ordinances. The Hearing Examiner aggregated them into one hearing. Weimer asked if the companion health ordinance requires a small operation to go indoors when it gets bigger. Olason stated it does. The health ordinance embodies best available technology, which goes beyond what they can justify as best management practices. The best management practices must be financially feasible and acceptable to the industry. They change over time. A BMP for this decade may be different than the BMP for the next decade. Therefore, the ordinance just references BMP's. It's not a nuisance if the farmers can prove they operate with BMP's. If there is a real issue with a site over time, there is opportunity to make that claim. If the operators can't show they operate with BMP's, they are liable to follow court orders. There are things that help the community have some control over the impact of these industries. Whatcom County is on the forefront of all this. There is opportunity to use the other avenue. Weimer asked about the State Department of Ecology and water quality impacts. Olason stated that if a facility is out of compliance with water quality, there are many regulations that Ecology must enforce. One particular site is working on developing a farm plan with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). That will be addressed whether or not the County has an ordinance. McShane stated Mr. Olason has done a tremendous job on this ordinance. He's been frustrated with this issue in the past. Olason stated he may need an executive session discussion one more time. The Health Department staff have been wonderful on this, including Jeff Hegedus. Having the attorney at the Planning Commission meeting go through the history of the issue was very helpful for the Planning Commissioners. It's something to think about for the final hearing. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY, THE WHATCOM LAND TRUST, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FARM AND RANCH LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $435,153 (AB2006- 290) McShane stated he would like this committee informed on this issue since it has to do with agriculture. Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services, stated this is the fourth round of funding from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). There are a couple of changes in the contract, but they're not substantial. Timing is an issue. Get these properties purchased quicker. The first few contracts specified five years for a time frame, but then it was changed to two years. The language in this gives them a two -year timeframe, but they want the appraisal to be good on the slate of signature. Appraisals are usually good for 12 months. If it is tied to the date of the contract, there may be a good Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 2 I reason to say it's too late. In their efforts to use the funds, think about doing them right 2 away. It's a challenge to get them done in 12 months. The NRCS and Land Trust have 3 already signed this contract. That's the main difference in this contract. 4 5 One other change is that a certified appraiser is required to do an appraisal of the 6 appraisals. Having worked with several appraisers, he's learned that it's always good to get 7 someone else in the industry to give the appraisals a look. It's another detail that does add 8 to the expense, but is worth it to make sure the prices are accurate. 9 10 Statewide, the amount has gone down the last three or four years. This time, the 11 County did well. The NRCS only issued funds to three counties. 12 13 Fleetwood asked the source of the funds. Olason stated it is federal funds from the 14 NRCS. 15 16 Fleetwood asked the State funding mechanism. Olason stated it is out of the Parks 17 and Recreation program, called the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program Farmland 18 Preservation Program, which is scheduled today in the Finance and Administrative Services 19 Committee, item 9 on the Consent Agenda. 20 21 They are looking to make the State match be the federal match, so they don't have 22 to use any other money. That's another opportunity they've not had in the past. 23 24 25 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 26 27 1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE RANKING AND AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM 28 COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMINISTRATOR TO 29 PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 4, 2005 30 APPLICATIONS (AB2006 -296) 31 32 Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services, submitted and read from a 33 presentation (on file) about the round four application ranking and the purchase of 34 development rights (PDR) program to -date. When they buy development rights in 35 agricultural land, they buy more than just agricultural preservation. They are also saving on 36 cost of services and infrastructure. Existing lots cost more than large parcels that have to 37 be subdivided. Round four has received the most applications by far. They would double 38 the development rights and triple the acreage if they could purchase all of this. 39 40 He continued the presentation on the round four applicants and indicated the location 41 of the farms on a map. More farmers are looking into this program. 42 43 Brenner asked if staff discussed with lake Strauss about his property. Olason stated 44 Jake Strauss doesn't qualify. If there is an agricultural crop, it can't be over ten years. His 45 trees are too old. 46 47 McShane stated they could expand the program to include other types of properties, 48 such as forestry land and land that used to be agriculture. It will reduce the need for 49 services, also. That may be something to consider as they move along toward changes in 50 the rural areas of the county. There could be other programs to save properties like that. 51 52 Olason stated the ranking is based on the guidelines and criteria, not price. He read 53 from the presentation the list of applicants and the property characteristics. The value of Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 3 raspberry ground affects how convincing the County is in its purchasing efforts. Look at the Ebe property carefully. The Ebe and Maberry applicants aren't reserving any future development rights, which is good. The Dickson property is currently in estate status. The heirs want to move the property. They would like to retain an easement. The Groen property doesn't have development rights, but has views and highly sought -after real estate. In the middle, it has a huge set -aside for a wetland that is in the middle of it. He read the presentation on the characteristics of the Bajema West application. He's not sure all are legal lots. They will have to do a subdivision review. Fleetwood asked how this property has all these development rights. Olason stated these were all created In a week. Some were created before there was 40 -acre zoning. Some were created through exemptions. In the agricultural zone, there used to be seven ways to divide property. The density issue wasn't addressed by the lot size because of the exemptions. Now, exemptions and such are considered in terms of not increasing density. These lots were created during the period of road frontage lots. Another issue is whether the County considers other alternatives to buy the rights, because it may not be able to afford them all. One option may be re- platting the lots to cluster them. They would have to include existing lots. Then, the County could buy some of those cluster lots. There may be other ways to work with these properties. It would cost more than a million dollars. There is no city water, which may be a problem for clustering and would require wells, which is another issue. One issue is where they want to put the available money for development rights. He read the presentation on the characteristics of the Bajema East application. Fleetwood asked if this is the beginning of creating a green buffer on Badger Road. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Olason stated that if they want to armor the boundaries, purchasing the rights on these properties would be a good start at a fairly high price. Snohomish County purchased one property under this program last year. They estimated a per development right cost of over $100,000. This seems expensive, but the cost will just get worse. Look at all of these as a composite, and decide how they want to move forward. There are policy implications of buying these. They are going to have (inaudible). Fleetwood asked if this is the location in the target area where they have to build a firewall against urban expansion into prime agricultural land. Olason stated it is one of the areas. It is the most probable direction for expansion. He read the presentation on the Sytsma, Maberry, Ebe, Joneli, and Dickson applications. McShane asked if agriculture activities are happening on the smaller lots. Olason stated five -acre lots were more palatable for people to own, but now they are clustered because of the pressure to develop. (Inaudible.) Olason continued the presentation on the Dickson and Groen applications. He read the presentation on grant funding. The proposed IAC grant is an estimate. They must settle on a final grant amount. It takes about 18 months from the appraisal time to the time they get the money. Natural Resources Committee, 7/1112006, Page 4 Fleetwood asked if it's possible they may have about $2.5 million for round four. Olason stated that is correct. Fleetwood asked the percentage of rights they might be able to get. Olason stated he doesn't think they will get the two 80 -acre properties. Fleetwood stated that the County will get only two or three of all the applications. Olason stated it would take about $6 million for all. Fleetwood asked if there is bonding authority to buy more. Olason stated that in the past, they've tested the market to build interest. A bond would be one option to establish a certain amount for a period of time. Another option is a bigger bond issue for all open space programs for the County. The values have doubled since they started. They need to re -think how the program will proceed in the long -term. It's an expensive program. Some people the program isn't as focused as it should be. Fleetwood asked if a bond would be worth considering if they dedicate some future percentage from conservation futures for annual payback. Olason stated he would put some estimates together. One question is how much they will rely on grants. They can't count on money from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). There is a lot of time and expense to close these purchases. Since the applications are volunteer, the County tries to be strategic but must take what it can get. McShane stated they could tolerate a certain level of development in the rural areas as long as there is no net loss of agriculture. Weimer asked what it means to affirm the ranking. He asked if that means they try to purchase the properties in the order they've been ranked. O[ason stated that's how they've traditionally done it. There may be other options that come up. They could buy some of the cluster development rights. It would be difficult to farm with houses on every corner. Talk to the City about it a bit. Think about how they want to deal with the first two properties. The ranking of the others has some relevance. Based on this other opportunity for funding, they can pick up the Joneli and Dickson properties together as a combination. If either Dickson or Joneli doesn't agree on the price, the County can drop them and move back up the ranking. Approval doesn't cast the decision in concrete. The Council can approve a caveat about the purchase order. He wants to know if the Council wants him to pursue outright purchase of development rights on the top two ranked properties, or look for alternatives. Weimer asked if they could go ahead with the IAC could request that staff proceed with it. The IAC grant staff, through a resolution, to proceed with the application. McShane stated schedule this for the next meeting. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION grant. Olason stated the Council requires the Council to authorize 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING AGRICULTURAL ZONING ISSUES (AB2006 -203) Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 McShane stated this item should be scheduled each meeting for awhile to see where things are. The Council has not taken any action on these docketed items. They will have to consider it at some point. He asked for a brief summary of the administration's work. Kraig Olason, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the major effort has been to follow up with the Agricultural Advisory Committee to establish a more focused agricultural area review for rural zoning. They have met two or three times and will meet tomorrow. They are identifying the areas that have the most potential for continuing, ongoing agricultural use. He will bring in a series of maps. He hopes to get agreement on the map areas from the advisory committee on Wednesday. Their goal is finding 20,000 more acres to meet the total goal of 100,000 acres. When he talked to the Council about the top three things, the initial primary focus was to work on agriculture - related issues. The broader rural and resource issues are yet to be discussed. The next thing is to work out a more detailed schedule. OTHER BUSINESS Weimer stated get the Conservation District to talk to the Natural Resources Committee about things the County has asked them to do. Try to do that before the August recess. AD30URN The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription A ,,, „clo''� - -, . �N co . /���fl11111i00*1 Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL W OM COUNTY, WASHIN GTON N Dan McShane, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 7/11/2006, Page 6