Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 22 20051 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee November 22, 2005 Committee Member Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy Also Present: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON THE PAUL DAIRY PROPERTY (AB2005 -432) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this is a big property, 156 acres, with rural five acre zoning on Haynie Road. This program was established in 2001. The County has purchased two farms. The Hemmi Road target area is the site of the first two properties. They try to make purchases in the target areas. The Hemmi Road is a target area. He described the first two purchases. Both dairies are still in operation. This program has helped transitions already. The third property is the Paul dairy from round two. The appraisal was initially very low. It was reappraised. It is a large property of 156 acres and 31 development rights. They have to evaluate how they would subdivide the property and what the owner would really end up with. Each parcel had to be looked at as a separate subdivision. The long -plat analysis had to look at each property and establish the number of development rights the owner could receive for each of those properties. In the process of doing that, the combination of the cluster ordinance and the six -pack well rule eliminated about ten of those development rights. Essentially, the County is paying the value of 21 developed properties. They looked at comparables in the long plat and upper - quality short plat lot varieties and cluster lots. The analysis was done this summer. For those lots, averaging one and a half to two acres, the retail price is about $180,000 to $200,000 per lot. Cluster lots are in demand. The price difference between one and a half and five -acre lots are not that different any more. People are looking for rural land without all the acreage. The offer prices is $710,000. It's fair and meets market value based on a recent appraisal. He submitted information (on file) on the target area and the three properties. He solicited the Paul Dairy application. The owners have been a good group to work with. This has taken two or more years to work with. It's a very nice property. Currently, it's farmed by Edaleen Dairy. Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. They continue to use the target areas as a basis for prioritizing applications, but if the right application from a property outside the target area comes up, they will look at it. The handout includes the purchase of development rights (PDR) status sheet. He read from the handout about past applications in rounds two and three of the program. The County may want to consider whether it wants to continue working with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on some of these properties or whether they want to pressure the NRCS to be more reasonable. Last week, they opened round four. They will solicit additional applications to the end of the year. A couple of applications have come in so far. They may also look more closely at purchasing some property in the agricultural zone and reselling it. They aren't able to buy property for development rights in agricultural zones. There aren't enough development rights out there. The handout includes a summary of backgrounds and accomplishments to date. Look at the challenges and think about how they want to proceed and where they want to focus in the future. The PDR Committee is interested in looking at a broader range of options. The committee worked hard on these projects. They plan to work with other groups and talk about open space issues in a broader context. They hope to have a better understanding of where all the programs are headed. Most traditional PDR programs have large state funding and major state initiatives that provide a significant amount of funding for local programs. Whatcom County doesn't have that. If that state funding never materializes, they will have to get more creative in finding funding if they are going to have an effect on larger acreages in the county. Fleetwood asked how they decided on the target areas. Olason stated they tried to make sure they could block growth from moving into larger tracts. They also wanted to work with some areas with very high value soils that have some development already. Veronica Wisniewski, Purchase of Development Rights Oversight Committee, stated they hoped to get people to cluster and compete to sell their properties within the target areas. The idea was that they would get more points because there would be a bigger block of property in the area if a lot of people competed in the program. They hoped to convince people to accept a slightly lower value for participating in the program. It hasn't worked out that way for many reasons. There hasn't been a ton of competition to get into the program. Farmers want to see whether things are going to work before they try something. Fleetwood asked the additional criteria when recommending that they go outside the target area. Wisniewski stated this wasn't set up as a hard and fast rule. They decided to reexamine the program after three years to see what works and what doesn't work. Getting people from the target areas to apply is an issue. Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. They've had applications from all over. In many cases, the applications are not within the target areas. They've had to look again at the criteria. All areas are important to the program, but they felt there must be a limit to how much they could initially target. Since then, some of the areas are much more attractive for other reasons. They may serve the same functions, the land may be particularly good or particularly at -risk. Fleetwood asked if the fact of landowners in the target areas that haven't taken advantage of the program suggests that the County should reconsider the target areas. Wisniewski stated it does. The committee has been talking about that for the last year. Fleetwood asked if all the landowners in the target area are aware of the program. Wisniewski stated they are. Fleetwood asked what they envisioned this program to be in 2002, when it was created, compared with what the program is today. Wisniewski stated her personal hope was that this program would be one piece in a number of programs to maintain open space in the county. She hoped they would come up with criteria for a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Other programs in the country have some PDR, some TDR, and a number of other programs being targeted at the same area because people have different needs and could use different programs. She hoped for funding from outside the country. She hoped this would be one of many programs to introduce some fairness in the windfall /wipeout that happens to people in agricultural areas. McShane stated he commends the program for stepping outside the target areas and seizing opportunities. He's beginning to be more optimistic about the program. He's willing to support and will also push for other approaches besides the NRCS matching funds program. Wisniewski stated this program is not the entire solution. It should be part of a larger program. McShane stated they will continue to push the TDR program. Make sure there is a commitment from this Council to see this expand as much as possible. One PDR application for round three is the Ray Fenton application, which is more than just agricultural land. Other resources are also very high value, particularly regarding forestry. Trees grow a lot better in the low lands. The consequences of harvesting in the higher lands is more detrimental to the community. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. McShane stated he thanks Mr. Olason and Ms. Wisniewski for their work on this program. The program seems to be gaining some traction. Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Wisniewski stated people have to get comfortable with programs for a few years before participating. Don't cancel this program just as it's getting going. Motion carried unanimously. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 11, BOATING AND SWIMMING, TO LIMIT THE USE OF LIMB - PROPELLED FLOTATION DEVICES ON THE SOUTH FORK OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER FROM JUNE 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 31 (AB2005 -173A) McShane stated there is a substitute ordinance. This is in committee to make sure everyone is okay with it before the committee recommends that it be voted on. Royce Buckingham, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated he was not yet able to run these changes by Mr. Martin, the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) official. He hoped the changes work for Mr. Martin. The substitute resolution balances recreation concerns with salmon concerns and omits one conclusion about which Councilmember McShane was not comfortable. Councilmember Roy suggested that the Council vote on the ordinance on December 6. Fleetwood asked Mr. Buckingham to review his revisions in the substitute ordinance. Buckingham stated the underlined language indicate his changes. He read the changed language. McShane stated the cultural issue was overlooked in the previous version of the ordinance. He's glad it's included in this version. Buckingham stated Mr. Martin noted that the ordinance didn't mention that they've balanced recreation with salmon protection. It is now mentioned. Limb - propelled flotation devices are the most disruptive and harmful form of waterborne recreation that was considered. He noted that quiet enjoyment of the river and surrounding area cannot coexist with the loud, boisterous activity from packs of people riding inner tubes down the river. They are preserving and enhancing one use by limiting this use. The ordinance also concludes that they are not banning everything all over the river. People who float on the river will have other places to go. Fleetwood asked if there is a provision in the SEPA statute that requires preservation of recreation be balanced against other concerns. Buckingham stated there is. The Council considered it, but didn't mention it. Mr. Martin said it wasn't mentioned in the initial version of the ordinance. It is mentioned now. Fleetwood asked where the record shows that it was considered, and if it was considered simply by talking about it. Buckingham stated the Council held a lot of discussion about swimming. Citizens came forward who own a campground. The Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. committee talked about fishing and possibly hiking as quiet enjoyment of the river. That should be on the record in committee. Fleetwood stated the reference to quiet enjoyment is a legal term. He asked if there is something in SEPA that refers to quiet enjoyment. Buckingham stated there is not. It can be changed because it may cause the lawyers to be confused, but he likes the term. They might want to change it just because it has something to do with title. They don't want to make an incorrect implication. Fleetwood stated it is difficult to imagine people who may want to challenge the ordinance based on that language. He moved to amend finding 11, "Other; q-a+et enjoyment of the river...." Motion carried unanimously. McShane stated a lessen was that the SEPA checklist pointed out that the County would provide mitigation. That was a difficulty. Mitigation is that Whatcom County is working with the State to coordinate additional possible recreational areas along the river that aren't as sensitive as the South Fork. That's not very specific at this point. That may have been why Mr. Martin was concerned. Mr. Martin may have also been concerned that the limited area wasn't very clear and that there wasn't any language that this partial closure would enhance other types of recreation. Some people who live in the area expressed their displeasure from the noise level and the irritation from that many people in the river. Fleetwood stated the Lummi Tribe is referenced. He asked if the Nooksack Tribe also supported this ordinance. Buckingham stated he doesn't recall. McShane stated he doesn't recall anyone from the Nooksack Tribe being mentioned. People from the Lummi Nation attended the committee meeting. He moved to recommend approval to the full Council at the December 6 meeting, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS McShane stated the committee should discuss at a future committee meeting a letter addressed to Executive Kremen from the Lummi Indian Business Council. Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated the letter will be scheduled at the next Natural Resources Committee meeting and the current review process for County application of the project in that area. Fleetwood asked what the letter was about. Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, 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 28 29 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated this committee had some discussion regarding the lower Hutchison Creek instream project, even though the committee has no authority over the project. Even though the County has no authority, the Council may give an opinion. Roll stated there are some critical issues. The County has an application before the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board that would join this project with the community needs. Council will need to give direction. It is a project of concern by the SRF Board. At the next committee meeting, they will review the letter, talk about the comments from the SRF Board Review Committee, and review staff's response to their comments. They are moving quickly to getting an answer from the SRF Board about the County's portion of that project, which enables the Lummi project to move forward. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Committee Member Natural Resources Committee, 11/22/2005, Page 6