Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 11 20031 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 March 11, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE RANKING AND AUTHORIZING THE WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ADMINISTRATOR TO PROCEED WITH THE ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND 1, 2002 APPLICATIONS (AB2003 -108) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated he would also provide an update on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. Today they are looking at the ranking process that was done by the PDR Oversight Committee. They are going to make application to the Farmland Protection Program, which is expected to announce the application period by the end of the month. The committee is ahead of the game. They have also brought on an appraiser that will develop a methodology to determine the conservation easement value. It is a new approach to come up with farmland value versus market value. They didn't want to have a bunch of different appraisers using different methods. It is a State certified appraiser who will appraise according to State requirements. Additionally, the appraiser will look at different ranges of values that could be attributed to the properties, in general terms. Those considering submitting an application will have an idea of the money they are talking about. Not knowing what one will get has been a frustration in the first round. They can use that information to value the applications sent to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Caskey- Schreiber asked for an explanation of the valuation system. Olason stated the appraiser would set the price of a typical market value, and then assign some value to the farmland as farmable property, which is the tricky part. They anticipate an established farm value subtracted from the market value. That will be the amount the farmer will receive. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, 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 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. Roy asked the timeline. Olason stated that the timeline for finishing the appraisal methodology would be this month. They've also been working on the latest list of federal rules for the Farmland Protection Program. He's been in consultation with the North Sound Conservation Services (NRCS). He sent the easement to the national office for comments, which they received. Now he is making changes to get something that everyone can agree to. Regarding the ranking process, the idea of the program was to do a ranking based on criteria, and then it would go to Council for review. Then it would formally move into the next phase. In this case, he anticipates that they would proceed with applications for all of these properties to the USDA, and see who comes out. Although they've ranked these locally, the USDA has its own program and may re -rank the applications. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County would be obligated to go through with the applications if the USDA decides to fund all the applications. Olason stated the County has not ever set a dollar amount. The last time they talked, the Council decided to move forward to see what kind of response the County would get, which has happened. It would be unfortunate if they were ranked in an order than how they are funded by the USDA, and then some farmers drop out of the program. When he did the estimate to the USDA program in November, he came up with some dollar figures for all the applications for which they thought they'd get funding. They asked for $1.2 million. It is a rough estimate. When they get an appraisal with high -low numbers, they will have more of an idea. Caskey - Schreiber asked if the $1.2 million is the USDA's 50 percent contribution. Olason stated it is. They have a balance in the Conservation Futures fund now of about $2 million now. Roy asked if the County must fund the applications in the order that the federal government has funded the applications if they get the $1.2 million from the USDA. It won't be a lump sum to be distributed however the County wants. Olason agreed. The federal government allows for substitutions, if someone drops out of the program. He doesn't think the federal government will fund them all. He suggested they send them all forward and see what comes back. The farmers are not committed until they accept the closing papers. The appraisals are not specific. Appraisals are done on the County's tab and can be expensive. Until the County gets federal matching, they didn't want to spend the money on an appraisal. When it comes down to it, they can fund one at a time and see what's left. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, 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 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 are assuming that the County would match the USDA 50 -50. They are also assuming that they will move forward with the offers being based on appraised value. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are going to look at extended payment plans. Olason stated he understands that the USDA will disburse funds in one lump sum. He's less clear on whether the County will arrange payments. He believes that the federal government requires a lump sum all the way through. A person may be able to do a payment schedule through a trust. Regarding the timeframe of when they actually pay someone, he guesses he will get the application opening in March for the USDA program. He guesses it would take the USDA two to three months. Then the appraisal process may take 30 days. Then they would enter the negotiation process. It will be late summer before they start writing checks for this. Fleetwood asked if the applicants are bound by the application. Olason stated they are not. Nelson asked why they awarded higher points for a threat of conversion on an imminent sale. Olason stated they discussed whether they should first buy agricultural land that is zoned agricultural, or whether they should first buy threatened areas. Rural areas ranked higher because they were more easily converted. Those with an imminent sale are more important because typically those are in an estate situation. The oversight committee asked how they would know if there is an imminent sale. None of these current applications are imminent sales. However, one property has a lot of existing five -acres lots. Those are already divided, legal lots. All the owner has to do is put a for sale sign up. The owner of a forty -acre parcel in a rural zone at least has to subdivide, which takes time. Nelson stated they need a different term. If a person will post a for sale sign on the property, he or she will automatically get eight points. Olason stated the committee is going to rework the site selection criteria. One question that came up was regarding views being from the road or the property. Fleetwood asked if they would give consideration to rezoning to agriculture later if there is a conservation easement through the PDR program in a rural zone. Olason stated it becomes moot. The limitations are property- specific. The goal is to try to get areas that have potential for buffering, but to try and encourage a lot of participation within those areas. Item F of the ranking awards significant bonus points to properties that have a lot of easements already. Brenner stated they are talking about preserving agriculture land for agricultural use. Item B of the criteria, long term resource value, should have been given higher points by taking five points away from item A or item C. Good agricultural land is most important. Olason stated one of the reasons they gave Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, 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 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. some of the other things higher points is because there are a lot of high valued resource lands out there. When they attribute higher points to those properties that are threats or have better buffering, 80 to 100 percent all had prime soils. It is the other amenities that will prioritize them. Brenner asked if they would end up with properties that have high points, but no good agricultural soils. Olason stated the property has to have a number of things to identify that it is actively farmed. Typically, these are good farms. A person who applies must be in the target areas that have almost all prime soils. The committee also asks about water rights. Brenner asked if they could redo the criteria if they open the target areas countywide. Olason stated they could. They would probably continually rework the criteria as they go along. McShane asked if there has been any contact with farmers in the Lynden target area that is being reviewed by the City of Lynden. Olason stated he's had one contact. The City of Lynden is looking at a counter - proposal. They're looking at all the areas that are targeted as being needed by the City somehow. The Council will have the opportunity to comment on that in the next few weeks. The PDR Oversight Committee did not get an advance copy of the counterproposal. He understood that the PDR Oversight committee would review it and comment to the Council on it. He introduced the chair of the Oversight Committee, Rod Erickson. Rod Erickson, PDR Oversight Committee Chair, stated he couldn't participate in the program because of his location. The committee is very diverse and good. They will try to critique and refine the point system. As they preserve agricultural land, they preserve the economic value of the county. It is not political. Brenner asked the kind of influence the County could have on preserving farming as a business. Erickson stated it comes down to economics. There's a fine line between over - production and under - production. The market swings back and forth. Federal programs are effective in keeping some farming. Brenner asked if there are any ways the Council could structure its ordinances to make them more farmer - friendly. Erickson stated the Council and county as a whole have been farmer - friendly over the years. However, it only takes one bad neighbor to make life miserable. He has good neighbors. Over the years he's served on several land use committees, but they have to accommodate population growth. Caskey- Schreiber thanked Mr. Erickson for his participation. The PDR Oversight Committee has done a great job. Farming could be their future economic value. They need to attract the kinds of business that complement the farming industry. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, 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. Roy thanked Mr. Erickson. The product succeeds at doing what they wanted, which is protecting those areas that feel the most pressure. One concern is what happens to a farmer who becomes surrounded by residential development. Olason stated that if one person sells his or her development rights, then pretty soon the farmer becomes surrounded. Olason stated the score sheets are self - explanatory. Roy asked if Mr. Olason wants the Natural Resources Committee and Council to confirm whether or not he should proceed with sending applications to USDA and continue the process. Olason stated that is the direction he's looking for. The resolution in the Council packet lists three items he wants to be clear about. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber asked to talk about the second tier of applications and how things go in Lynden. She distributed articles from the Lynden Tribune (on file), which claim that the process is extremely biased. She asked if the County is at all involved in this process. The alternate plan being proposed is to make all 2,300 acres an urban growth area. Olason stated the instructions given by the Council in September were for the City of Lynden to work with the PDR Oversight Committee to come up with a proposal. He went to the Planning Commission and City Council for Lynden to do a presentation in October. At that time, he offered to assist the City. He offered the County's geographic information system (GIS) services, which the City used. He didn't hear back from the City. He requested that the City of Lynden planner make a presentation to the PDR Oversight Committee. The planner declined, and said that they were going to move forward themselves, and then send it on to the County Council. They are not engaging the PDR Oversight Committee at all. There was a meeting in Lynden that included members of the previous PDR Committee, not the current PDR Oversight Committee. The City will probably try to get something to the Council at the first meeting in April, which puts the second application round in limbo. He wanted to start the application round in March or April so they can give people a longer window to make application. The City is just looking at the target areas for expansion. The PDR Oversight Committee will look at it at some point. There isn't a final proposal yet. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council could forward the proposal to the PDR Oversight Committee. The City is being negligent in not involving the PDR Oversight Committee. There are reasons the PDR Oversight Committee targeted those areas. Someone said Lynden could accommodate another 30,000 people with the way it is laid out now. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, 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 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. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Caskey- Schreiber asked if Mr. Olason has an opinion on that. Olason stated it depends on how dense they go. The problem with trying to retain a small town feel is that too much density will change that. Roy stated that it would also lose its character if it begins to sprawl out. Olason stated there is some internal debate in Lynden about how they want to be. Caskey- Schreiber stated that if the City of Lynden extends the urban growth boundary, it would extend residential development into the farmland. She asked if the City is aware of the County placing high value on 40 -acre tracts. Olason stated it is an ongoing debate. When it gets right down to growth management, it's the urban growth areas. They are moving into a discussion of how they co- manage urban growth areas. He hoped that they get to the point where they have that discussion. There was only one application from that area. In reality, the other target areas are more at -risk. In some ways, it is a property rights issue for the farmers who are not allowed in the program because the City doesn't like it. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they couldn't keep hanging the farmers to keep them in business. The farmers can only take so many hassles before they decide it's not worth it. The Council has some control over the regulations. Brenner asked what, in the right -to -farm ordinance, isn't working. Wiesen stated almost all right -to -farm ordinances have been declared unconstitutional. Everyone has a right to complain. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO ADD NEW TEXT TO THE RURAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.36, TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF MULTIFAMILY FARM WORKER HOUSING SEPARATE OF THE FARMLAND (AB2003- 103) Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the ordinance has to do with multi- family farm worker housing in the rural zone. It is a housing type provided through Farm Home Administration loans and programs, which are federally funded. Some of the farm worker housing is not very nice. State -run farm worker housing does not require Uniform Building Code (UBC) or County building code compliance. The federal program requires local building code compliance. There are only two facilities in the county funded by Farm Home. They are both in the rural zone, which allows for farm worker housing in conjunction with a farm. Build out density dictates the number of farm worker units allowed. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, Page 6 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. Today's proposal gets at allowing for the sale of the apartments separate from the farmland. It is trying to address the situation based on the financing requirements of the federal government and the local zoning rules being out of sync. In this case, the Farm Home financing entity required separating the farm worker housing area from the farm, which made it non - conforming. As a consequence, the only way the situation can be righted is to be sold with the land. The farmer who ended up buying the farmland didn't want the apartment house. It is a well- maintained, high quality apartment building. The apartments are not salable and not usable for the farmer. This text is to maintain farm worker housing in the community in a form that it meets the needs of the farm workers, and allows a sale under certain conditions to a non - profit organization. They are dealing with pre- existing developments. He read the sale conditions. Also, this allows for the part -time units to be treated as full -time units, since they are exactly the same. There is a restriction on the title to restrict future use to housing farm workers, and the ordinance restricts the sale to not - for - profit agencies that have experience with low- income housing. Brenner stated she liked everything in the ordinance. She wanted to add that farmers should be able to buy these for use for farm workers. There are ways to ensure that they are talking about real farmers. She doubted that many farmers would take advantage of this, but she would like to leave it open. The only people at the Planning Commission who spoke were farmers who said they wanted to be able to purchase the housing. The County needs to be more inclusive. Olason stated one of the things the Planning Commission was concerned about was that the definition of farmer is a bit vague. If someone who wants to be a slumlord purchased it, the County might have a difficult time enforcing it. He doesn't think there is money to be made, however. Because there are 18 units, it would be expensive to purchase for full -time housing. One option would be for a group of farmers to form a non - profit cooperative and buy it under the current regulations. It has not been marketable anyway, and not many farmers would be interested. The existing language is a way to limit potential problems. Roy asked if they are under a time constraint. Olason stated this has gone on for a long time. They need to resolve it. Caskey- Schreiber asked if a concern of the farmers is that the housing will go to someone other than migrant farm workers. Roy stated it couldn't. Caskey- Schreiber stated they could have farm worker housing on their own farm as well. She asked why they would be so eager to buy someone else's. Olason stated there is not a huge market for this. Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the full Council. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, Page 7 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. Roy asked if using the term "active" farmer would clear up the concern. Olason stated that in the past he worked on the definition of a retiring farmer. That was comedic. They had a hard time telling someone that he or she isn't a farmer. Brenner suggested using the Assessor's definition of an active farmer. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is a real issue, or if the farmers want a competitive market. Olason stated it would be difficult to move the property either way. The non - profit agencies will be the market. The agencies won't take it on as a non - conforming use. If the Council changes the language, it would have to have a public hearing. They could change it later if it doesn't work. Brenner asked why they would make it more restrictive if there were a chance that a farmer would want it. Fleetwood asked if Brenner's suggestion would cause problems. Olason stated it sometimes becomes difficult for staff to make a decision on who is a farmer and who isn't. However, he doesn't think they will have to make that call. Fleetwood stated that if a farmer comes forward, they can come back with a text amendment rather than second - guessing the Planning Commission. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any way that staff could recommend allowing a farmer to buy the property. Olason stated there are a lot of ways around the definitions if they want to play the game. Using the Assessor's definition is a possibility. Caskey- Schreiber asked if a non - profit agency would raise the standard of the housing. Olason stated a non - profit agency would be a better fit since this is their mandate. This is odd to market. The purpose of it was to benefit the farm workers, not the farmers. Most farmers don't even want a rental house. McShane stated this is for farm workers. It is best to leave this language alone. Farm workers are what the building was built for. The purpose of the housing was for the farm workers. It is well thought out language. It is problematic as it is. Don't make it more problematic. Brenner agreed that this is for the farm workers. If it makes the housing more usable, they shouldn't restrict it. Roy stated one reason to restrict it is that non - profits would have guidelines in terms of the healthfulness of the environment. She asked if those same guidelines would be in effect if owned by a farmer. Olason stated there are minimum requirements. Non - profits have an ability to get extra money. Private farmers don't have those resources. Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, Page 8 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 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. Paul Schissler, 215 W. Holly Street, stated a non - profit owner would help to assure that the housing would remain for its purpose and be affordable in perpetuity. If a farmer intended to provide and maintain affordable housing, he or she could always form a non - profit. McShane stated there are instances of farm worker housing that were intended for farm workers, but that are not being used by farm workers. Brenner stated this is a problem with not helping the farmer. Roy moved to amend 20.36.135(7)(b), 'restricts sale of structure to not - for- profit housing agencies or active farmers, as defined by the Assessor's criteria for agriculture exemption." Motion to amend failed 1 -1 with Roy in favor and Fleetwood out of the room. Roy restated the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood out of the room. OTHER BUSINESS Brenner asked to schedule a discussion on what is happening with the right - to -farm ordinance. Olason stated an intern is working on that project and has written that report. He will submit that report to the committee. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2003, Page 9