HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 22 20021
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
October 22, 2002
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
Dan McShane
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RESOURCE LANDS CHAPTER OF THE
WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2002 -084T)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated this exercise was to make sure the
chapter is still in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Staff only
dealt with the agricultural portion of this chapter. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee reviewed it. There is not a great deal of changes.
Olason read the changes and the rationales in the proposed document.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the new policy 8A -2(6) regarding farm friendly
regulations limits the County from creating certain regulations, such as mushroom
compost regulations. Olason stated the concept is to consider the inadvertent
impacts to code changes. There is not a test of whether or not something is farm
friendly. These aren't regulations. This is guidance for regulations.
Nelson stated how they interpret development assistance is more important
than farm friendly regulations. He asked what "development assistance" means to
agriculture. Someone could really stretch what an "agricultural- related enterprise"
means. Olason stated there would be some County assistance in working through
the permit maze. It's not about the County rewriting regulations to allow anything
to come into the county.
Nelson stated they need to define "agricultural- related."
Olason continued to read the changes and the rationales in the proposed
document.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/22/2002, 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.
Nelson stated ancillary agriculture industries are essential to maintain
agriculture. According to the current agricultural zone, ancillary industries are
allowed. He asked if they would still be allowed, given the new language of Policy
8A -5. Olason stated they would be allowed because there will not be a re-
designation of the zone from agriculture. Consider that major support industries
can only go in light impact industrial, manufacturing, or commercial land areas,
which are typically in cities and urban growth areas (UGA's), and require public
water and sewer. At some point, consider a designated development area for
agricultural support industries.
McShane stated they've benefited from spots around the county where
agriculture support industries can go, but over time those spots have disappeared.
Olason stated it would be better to have agriculture industrial parks, similar to an
intermodel park.
Roy asked if this is an immediate problem, or something they may want to
look at in the future. Olason stated the question is how progressively they want to
pursue processors. Processors will have to have a serviced site that is ready to go.
If that's not ready, businesses will go elsewhere.
There were a couple of small changes to the action plan to reflect the
accomplishments of the County to this point.
Fleetwood asked about the Right to Farm ordinance. Olason stated it is in
Title 14 of the Whatcom County Code. It is allowed by State law to define
nuisances. Farmers are protected under the law from any nuisance claims. It
does not take away someone's right to go to court. It is only a test of the
argument being made in front of the judge. Additionally, it allows the County
enforcement personnel to evaluate and respond to complaints.
Fleetwood asked the primary features of the agriculture protection overlay.
Olason stated the agricultural protection overlay was a compromise to look at
clustering development rights and leave remainder areas for agriculture use. That
way, the County doesn't have to downzone rural lands.
Nelson stated the overlay was to protect property rights and also preserve
agricultural uses.
Olason stated the cluster requirement is the only cluster requirement of the
county.
Fleetwood asked if there is anywhere in the country that has instituted a
zero -loss strategy for preserving agriculture. Olason stated most efforts have a
one -to -one or three -to -one exchange. Someone could protect an additional three
acres for every acre taken out of the agricultural zone. It is still a net loss. He is
looking at whether or not they can bring in additional areas. One issue is how
Natural Resources Committee, 10/22/2002, 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.
good the land is that is not in the agricultural zone. The parcel maps have been
updated, so staff will begin to look at the amount of viable areas.
Nelson stated agricultural lands in the United States have diminished
dramatically, but agricultural production has increased rapidly because of
technological advances.
Fleetwood asked if policy 8A -5 is expressing what is already implicit in the
law. Olason stated it adds clarity for everyone. Whatcom County has informally
made changed conditions the test for re- designation.
Fleetwood asked where the standard for changed conditions is spelled out.
Olason stated case law will talk about changed conditions for zoning. In this case,
the applicant has to make the case for changed conditions.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Olason stated that the State requires changed conditions.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should try to define changed conditions in
the agricultural zone. Olason stated this is for the Comprehensive Plan
designations. There are agriculturally zoned lands in the urban growth areas,
which this would not apply to. If they are going to modify the Comprehensive
Plan, one would have to meet this test. Now, the language applies to rural lands
and pre- existing development that makes it impossible to comply with the
agricultural protection overlay (APO).
Caskey- Schreiber stated this puts parameters on what is or is not usable
land and what should fall out of the APO.
Nelson stated he preferred to amend language in policy 8A -2(5). He asked
if providing development assistance means that the County would provide financial
aid or encouragement to economic development groups. Olason stated it could
include that, as well as permit assistance.
Nelson asked how they define agricultural related enterprises. He asked
whether the County wants to get into committing to this financially. He asked the
fiscal impact of this language. Olason stated one of the questions is what the
economic development sector is doing. The Comprehensive Plan is a directive for
how the entire County operates. The County just approved the Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). The burden is not completely on the
County Planning Department to do everything related to economic development in
agriculture. It is a policy statement that can be a component of an overall
economic strategy for the county. The concept was that the Port of Bellingham
would look at the different economic sectors, including agriculture, to identify their
values and find opportunities to enhance their values.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/22/2002, 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.
Nelson stated the interpretation of policy 8A -2(5) could be too broad. The
intent is good.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the ordinance to the full Council.
He understands the concerns about policies 8A -2(5) and (6), but it doesn't lock the
County into a level of development assistance that it must provide. That depends
on the resources that are available. He's fine with the language the way it is.
Roy moved to amend policy 8A -2(5), "Encourage developmerrt assistance...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to recommend to full Council as amended carried unanimously.
McShane stated the Council needs to schedule a public hearing at the next
Council meeting.
Roy moved to amend the language on policy 8A -2(5) to put back the
original language, "€nEetrr-age Development assistance...."
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
McShane moved to recommend scheduling a public hearing on the amended
ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. PROPOSED WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENT TO EXPAND A MINERAL RESOURCE LAND
DESIGNATION ALONG H STREET ROAD EAST OF BLAINE (JORDAN
SITE) (AB2002 -084N)
This item was withdrawn.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF A DRAFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY, THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WATER
DISTRICT #10 TO ASSIST IN THE PURCHASE OF SUDDEN VALLEY
PARCELS THROUGH THE 2002 WHATCOM COUNTY TAX
FORECLOSURE AUCTION IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT TO WHATCOM
COUNTY OF $18,000 (AB2002 -363)
Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, submitted a map showing lots and
restrictive covenants in Sudden Valley (on file). One of the goals is cost effective
Natural Resources Committee, 10/22/2002, 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.
land preservation and density reduction in the Lake Whatcom watershed to achieve
water quality.
This year, they are trying to determine the various jurisdictions' allocations
prior to the auction so the Sudden Valley Community Association can go into the
auction with the maximum amount it can spend. They are also trying to determine
the lots with the highest priority for preservation. They will substitute those parcels
that have a lower priority with parcels that have a higher priority. The high priority
parcels will receive restrictive covenants. They want to capture the high priority
parcels during auction.
Nelson asked if adjoining property owners have an option to consolidate lots.
Steve Greiser, Sudden Valley, stated they do. If Sudden Valley owns a low
priority property, it will sell the lot to an adjoining property owner and do a
covenant to bind. The owner will only have to pay one dues.
Stroebel stated the City of Bellingham approved $15,000 for this purchase.
The City of Bellingham will have an individual agreement with the Sudden Valley
Community Association. The joint agreement will include Whatcom County, Water
District 10, and the Sudden Valley Community Association. She asked the Council
to review the draft agreement. The official proposal will come to the Council on
November 12, 2002.
Roy asked why the City of Bellingham would not join in the joint agreement.
Stroebel stated the City of Bellingham uses a similar restrictive covenant. The City
is trying to find a way to simplify the process for itself.
McShane stated the language might not be as restrictive as it should be on
the future use of the lots. Residents of Sudden Valley, and not residents of
Whatcom County will use the lots for recreation, even though Whatcom County is
putting money into it. He is uncomfortable for that reason, but it is a good
program. Stroebel stated this is a great example of partnering with other groups to
benefit all the groups involved. Any of these recreational use developments would
be reviewed by the Planning Department and with the intent of water quality
protection. They are able to review structures that will be built to make sure the
green belt areas still serve the purpose of protecting water quality.
Roy asked about the parks being open to the public. Greiser stated it is not
really a park, but a green belt. The County's contribution is for watershed
protection.
Fleetwood stated that, through this agreement, the County is giving Sudden
Valley money to buyout lots that Sudden Valley will control. There is no language
that talks about public access. If Sudden Valley wants to consolidate lots that it
has bought out to create a park, there is no requirement that it be a public park.
Greiser stated it is not within Sudden Valley's ability or desire to open up the
Natural Resources Committee, 10/22/2002, 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
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.
private community to the county as a whole. There are covenants that restrict the
use. Whatcom County is not buying park property for residents. The County is
buying density reduction. After this year, the water district utility local
improvement district (ULID) will be attached to the lots that aren't permanently
restricted, and the price will go up another $2,500 per lot.
McShane stated the Sudden Valley Community Association is choosing to lose
revenue from association dues for this density reduction activity.
Roy stated she is glad that providing parks is not the objective.
Stroebel stated this will come to the Finance Committee in November. The
goal is to have the money up front so Sudden Valley knows how much money it has
to work with.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 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, 10/22/2002, Page 6