HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 10 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
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
September 10, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:32 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:
Sam Crawford
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
(AB2002 -312)
Roy stated the committee would address this item and the next item
together.
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, submitted a substitute ordinance (on file).
There are also changes to the guidelines. The ordinance authorizes the creation of
the program, and outlines the basic components of the program. They are going to
work through the process over many years. Staff developed guidelines to look at
how they do applications, the process, and all the questions that will come up after
the ordinance is adopted and the oversight committee starts to do its work. They
have authorization through the ordinance and mandates, and there is a series of
guidelines. The players are a Planning and Development Services (PDS)
Department administrator and an oversight steering committee, which would look
at the rating of each property and forward it to Council. Staff used a document
produced by Lancaster County as a guideline.
This document requires approval through a resolution as well. This
document has to reflect the ordinance. They want to be able to modify the
guidelines over time. They don't want to have a huge public hearing every time
they amend the language. Staff would send forward a recommended change, and
the Council would pass a resolution to adopt and modify the guidelines. It would be
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
done at a public meeting. The primary purpose of this document is to make sure
they are fair in how they expend funds and that there is a consistent process.
He explained the purpose of each section in the guidelines. The County
would contract with the Whatcom Land Trust to assist with this program. The Land
Trust would work through the negotiation process. The County staff would do
everything up to that point. The Land Trust would negotiate and monitor for the
long -term for the County. There is a draft contract form for the Land Trust. The
Council will see the contract in the next few weeks. The staff would like to see the
Land Trust involved from the first round. Ultimately, they are an important
component of the program.
They haven't decided yet the role of the Planning Department in this process,
and whether it will be in a position to carry out the PDR program. There is a
supplemental budget request at the Executive's Office. They need more people and
more money to run the program. It is important for the department to know soon,
so they may begin to get matching federal funds for the program.
McShane asked if the easement would preclude an expansion of the urban
growth area, or if it could be transferred to another area. Olason stated that on an
individual parcel basis, there is an extinguishments provision. If the changed
conditions are such that an individual parcel cannot carry out the function it was
served to do, the person can petition the courts to extinguish the easement.
Additionally, they want to buy properties that have the most effect. The committee
looked at the most potential urban areas that would creep into agricultural areas,
and identified where growth should occur and where it should not occur. The
committee left out an area to the east of Lynden, an area to the southwest, and an
area in the middle of the area to the south, up to the Guide Meridian. The area to
the north buffers a fairly large, easily developed, high value farmland that goes to
the border. The committee tried to figure out how to accommodate growth without
developing preconceived notions of where it should go. Through this technique,
they developed a concept of where they want urban growth to go. Without
targeting, they would be in a position where they would buy scattered parcels
everywhere.
Fleetwood asked if the extinguishments provision would be something that
the landowner would have the right to use, or if the City could use that provision.
Olason stated the intent is that the person holding the property would be the
petitioner in that case. If the person who owned the property wanted to extinguish
the easement, he or she could do so. If the city owned the property, it may be able
to do that provision also.
Fleetwood asked for clarification on the eminent domain provision. Olason
stated that if a jurisdiction exerts eminent domain, it would have to do the same
payback provision that a landowner would do.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 2
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.
1 Fleetwood asked what long -term monitoring consists of. Olason stated the
2 Land Trust will put together an inventory of information when a property is
3 purchased. Someone will look at the property annually. If there are limiting
4 structures that are found during the annual inspection, it would be a reported
5 violation. The Land Trust would have to make an attempt to get the owner back
6 into compliance, which could include court action. The restriction on the property
7 would call those things out, and become a civil infraction.
8
9 Fleetwood asked if it is tantamount to a building code violation. Olason
10 stated it is not. Because there is a legal document, they could sue to use the
11 property as outlined in the legal document. It's more of a civil action.
12 Conservation Easement language directs everything to the courts.
13
14 McShane asked if it is easier to develop in open agricultural areas if a
15 community grows and a developer decides to build a large development, including
16 infrastructure and services. It is something to think about. Olason stated it is
17 always easier to develop agricultural land because it is usually level, has reasonable
18 drainage, and doesn't have stuff on it. When they begin thinking about the long -
19 term future of the county, the County has to think about drawing lines between
20 what should stay agriculture and what the urban areas will be. Agriculture always
21 loses out to development. It takes a much bigger community commitment.
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated there was a proposal to put half the Conservation
24 Futures funds towards this, and it was vetoed. She asked if that would limit their
25 ability to match funds with the federal government. She asked if they need to
26 commit to a certain amount before they receive a match. Olason stated the
27 projects have to have a willing seller who is prepared to sell. The County should be
28 able to have a certain level it can match. The issue now is the possibility that the
29 money could be snapped up in one sale, if something comes along. Part of the
30 rationale is determining a minimum they can work with and not spend on
31 something else.
32
33 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they have a dollar amount in mind. Olason stated
34 they are talking about half of the $1.8 million that is in the Conservation Futures
35 fund now. That way, they don't continue on with additional applicants beyond the
36 established amount. Be clear that they are not going over what they can
37 reasonably expect to do.
38
39 Caskey- Schreiber stated one option is to remove target areas 10 and 12
40 from the initial round, and put it back to the City of Lynden, which can work with
41 the PDR oversight committee to figure out areas that might be more
42 accommodating. Another option is to leave it in and have the PDR committee work
43 with the City of Lynden. She and Councilmember Roy attended an international
44 symposium on sustainable land management. She talked with someone from the
45 Netherlands, where they can absorb unlimited growth. The Netherlands protects its
46 farmlands and grows up instead of out. Lynden is a very attractive town, with a
47 very agricultural character. Many businesses depend on that agricultural industry.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
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.
Also, Lynden centers around pedestrians instead of cars. She would hate to
sacrifice that even though Lynden needs an area to grow. The entire agricultural
industry is a $225 million per year industry. With every acre they lose each year,
they jeopardize the industry. The PDR program has had success in Skagit Valley.
She hoped Whatcom County could do the same.
Nelson asked how long they have had PDR programs in the United States.
Olason stated the original program started in the East Coast in the 1970's.
Nelson asked if any of those properties have been sold, and if there have
been any problems with a sale. Olason stated often times a second or third owner
isn't aware of the easements.
Nelson asked if there have been any problems with the easements. Olason
stated he hasn't done specific research on that.
Nelson stated those are unanswered questions they need to solve. They
have to look at how to address those issues ahead of time, rather than waiting.
Rather than adjust the guidelines later, he would prefer do as much as they can
ahead of time so they don't end up with a problem. Olason stated it would be
helpful to have a discussion with the Land Trust. The first owner wants the
easement. The second or third owner often doesn't know it's there. The County
staff thought a lot about how much regulating they want to do. The limitations are
primarily about putting non -farm structures on the property that would limit its
future use.
Nelson asked if appendix B, the conservation easement, is part of the
resolution. Olason stated it is.
Nelson asked if the conservation easement would be approved without public
hearing or input. Olason stated that was the idea.
Nelson stated he is concerned about extinguishments and transfers. He
asked if the condemnation ability is limited to Whatcom County or local
jurisdictions. Olason stated that if a jurisdiction has condemnation powers, it can
use that power.
Nelson asked what impact a city has on an easement if it condemns a
property. Olason stated the city would have to pay the County back the difference
in value.
Nelson stated that should require a hearing. The extinguishments and
transfer process is not in the ordinance.
McShane stated it is by reference.
Nelson stated the action itself is only in the resolution.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, 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
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 this is based on legal parameters that they can't change.
Nelson stated they can't change the legal proceeding for condemnation.
However, the extinguishments and transfer process could be removed simply by a
resolution. Olason stated it is in the ordinance, in section 3.25A.120. He read that
section into the record. The County is bound to be in compliance with the
ordinance.
Nelson stated they talked briefly about the County's role. These are taxpayer
dollars going into the purchase of development rights. He asked the role of the
grantee. Olason stated that role is to remain the owner of the easement.
Nelson stated there are two grantees. Olason stated the County and the
Land Trust are jointly listed on the easement. The Land Trust would take the
primary role.
Nelson stated the Land Trust has no legal authority for collection or granting
of funds. The County has legal authority and authorizes distribution of the funds.
Olason stated the conservation futures funds can be provided to those conservation
organizations listed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Nelson stated that's done by the County. Olason stated the County collects
it. Whatcom County is the tax collecting body.
Nelson asked who authorizes distribution of the funds. Olason stated the
County does.
Nelson stated he's concerned that the resolution lists two grantees. The
word "grantees" was not defined in the ordinance. Olason stated it is defined in the
easement.
Crawford stated the ordinance doesn't include a definition of the grantor, but
the ordinance doesn't use the language of grantor and grantee.
Nelson asked why the Land Trust is listed as a grantee. Olason stated that in
terms of the long -term scheme, the County would provide the administration and
education to the point of negotiation. The Land Trust would negotiate as part of the
long -term maintenance. The Land Trust isn't listed in the ordinance because the
County may not want to work with them in the future. However, in terms of each
individual easement, if the Land Trust is listed as a grantee, then the Land Trust is
able to pursue any kind of action necessary, based on its contractual agreement
with the property owner and the County and the legal requirements of a recorded
document.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, 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
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 asked if they could do that under a contract. Olason stated no. The
County's goal is to let the Land Trust take the project on from the point of
negotiation into perpetuity.
Nelson asked what would happen if the County decided it didn't want to use
the Land Trust. Olason stated the Land Trust would still have responsibility for the
easements in which it is named, unless the County asked the Land Trust to send
the easements to the County for monitoring.
Nelson asked whose authority would those easements be under. Olason
stated they would be bound by the conditions of the restriction, and be bound to
the Land Trust or the County. There are pieces to this approval process. The
ordinance has to be done first. It authorizes and sets this in motion. The guideline
documents they are talking about today gives direction on the details. The third
step is a contractual agreement between the Land Trust and the County, which the
County Council will review.
Nelson asked why the Land Trust is a grantee. It has no taxing authority or
authority to administer. Olason stated they are an established, legal conservation
organization that does this.
Nelson asked why the Land Trust has a grantee's rights and interests. He
asked what would happen if the County no longer contracts with the Land Trust,
and if the Land Trust would remain the grantee for the easements already
established. That puts property owners at risk of being under the control of a
grantee who may have a different agenda from what those property owners or
jurisdictions have. Olason stated they can't go beyond what the conditions are.
Whoever is responsible can only ensure, through any kind of action, that the
landowner complies with the conditions. The contract with the Land Trust could
include a provision that all easements would revert back to the County if the County
decided not to work with the Land Trust any more.
McShane stated he is comfortable with the contract. Councilmember Nelson
seems concerned about what may happen with the Land Trust in the future. Within
the conservation easement, he asked if the easement has to specifically spell out
the Land Trust. He suggested that it instead say " Whatcom County and its
designee."
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane asked if there's a critical reason to name the Land Trust in the
easement.
Nelson asked if Whatcom County has the authority to no longer use the
easement and expand a city's urban growth area if it needs to. He asked why the
County should have to pay itself if it wants out of the agreement. Olason stated
this is the critical part of this next phase they are getting into. The reason this
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 6
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.
1 becomes a contract that is recorded and addressed in court is because it de-
1 politicizes the property's future. It isn't going to be a political decision unless they
3 have a public purpose that the County can demonstrate for condemning the
4 property. Otherwise, the County is done. When the County says it is going to buy
5 an easement, that's it.
6
7 McShane stated that creating an urban growth area doesn't mean they are
8 creating growth. That land is designated for where they want to direct growth.
9 Before that land can be developed, the owner could apply through the court system
10 to have the easement removed. He asked if that is correct. Olason stated the
11 change must occur. If the County is planning the change, it is bringing the change
12 to the site. If the change occurred around the site, that's different. When they
13 start buying easements along the edge, they are putting a public commitment in
14 dollars to that line.
15
16 Nelson stated he's not sure that's where it should be. Olason stated that's
17 what they have to figure out.
18
19 Roy stated that is the entire heart of what they are doing. If the County
20 wants to designate land use in a certain way, it can do that through zoning. The
21 difference between zoning and this program is the fact that they are saying that
22 this land will be farmland in perpetuity. Once they make that commitment, that's
23 the whole point of doing this. Otherwise, they could just use zoning. What they
24 are doing here is saying that they've lost 11 percent of the farmland in the last ten
25 years, they want that loss to stop, and they want to preserve farmland. Whether or
26 not the County can change its mind down the road is an interesting question, but
27 that's not why they are talking about doing this.
28
29 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's why it is important to address Mayor Louws'
30 concerns and bring Lynden on board. Where they target areas and getting willing
31 sellers is the most crucial part of this process. She wants Lynden to put forth its
32 vision and work with them on exactly where they can target areas. The Council's
33 decision will be essential to this community's future identity.
34
35 Brenner asked if the County would have access to the Land Trust's books.
36 She doesn't want to get into a position where the County may pay a higher price for
37 the purchase of development rights because of hidden kickbacks. She has a
38 problem dealing with organizations if the County can't see its books. Olason stated
39 the County would not be able to pay any more than the appraised value. The
40 administrator would be required to conduct an appraisal. It is spelled out in this
41 program.
42
43 Nelson suggested striking language on Council packet page 34, item I(B) to
44 define the grantee as Whatcom County and its designee. Olason stated they could
45 not include the conservation easement in the resolution at this time, and work it
46 out later. He would like to include a representative from the Land Trust in this
47 conversation. The idea was to get the Land Trust to do enforcement so the County
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
doesn't have to do it. That's all they would do. The Land Trust would have to be
listed. Normally, two entities are listed in any conservation easement so there's a
backup.
Fleetwood moved to remove appendix B, the Agricultural Protection
Conservation Easement, from the resolution. Appendix B comprises entirely the
proposed easement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Kelli Linville, 3113 Aldrich Avenue, recommended adopting this type of
program because of its importance to the State. Many of the very important
agricultural commodities are in Western Washington, which has the pressure of
development that Eastern Washington does not experience. They don't receive
subsidies. The past executive director of the American Farmland Trust said things
they can do to protect agriculture is done at the local level. The State plays a part
by requiring the identification of the agricultural land and supporting the local
governments to come up with their own plans. Agriculture is a strong part of their
economy. It's part of their rural character in Whatcom County. They can support it
at the State and local level by making sure they protect the land and also
supporting the farmer. The purpose of a PDR program is to preserve agricultural
land in the community and to support the farmers who are on that land producing
the food.
McShane stated federal dollars would be available for PDR programs. There
are a lot of feed trucks from Eastern Washington carrying feed to Western
Washington. Those farms depend on Western Washington farming also.
Brenner stated she supports this program. Her only concern is with the
targeted areas. There are mixed feelings in the farming community. Don't create
priority areas for purchase, which may leave other important areas out of the
program. Take out that part of the program. Consider all areas. Olason stated the
PDR committee talked about that for nine months. The issue came down to the fact
that they don't have a lot of money and the purchases should count for something.
Also, there are other programs to protect agriculture. A TDR program could be
broader in scope. The problem with the PDR program is the limitations on funding.
Roy stated they need to respect the committee's work. She asked how
significant this is in terms of getting the federal matching funds. Unless they have
a target, they will never accomplish a goal. They need to have a plan. It doesn't
have to look exactly like this. To go at it without a plan, the expenditure of
conservation futures fund has been opportunistic.
Brenner asked about provisions that would allow them to purchase
development rights outside of the target areas. Olason stated the goal is to
purchase development rights in the target areas during the first two rounds. If
there is something super fabulous that comes up, they should consider it. The
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, 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
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.
target areas were picked because they are on the edge of encroachment. They are
also in areas that have reasonably sized lots. The committee went through a long
list of things to come up with the target areas. They are not definitive areas based
on hard science. The program is voluntary. They don't know from where the
applications will come.
Nelson stated he understood why the committee targeted the areas it did.
He asked if there are impacts to other ordinances if they target these areas and
only get a few applications. He asked if the County has assurances that a property
that is inside or outside an urban area if it becomes surrounded by urbanization.
Olason stated that the committee picked the target areas in rural five -acre and
agricultural zoning. The Council would have to decide to go to a higher density
than the five -acre zoning around the property with the conservation easement.
Part of having the easement is deciding whether or not they really want
urbanization to go in those areas. The theory is that, when they start laying out
purchases, it should make the next Council think twice about rezoning. If land is
developed around conserved areas, the landowner can come to the court and say
the farm can't function under the terms of the easement.
Nelson asked if the property is in the County's or city's jurisdiction. Olason
stated the landowner would be in a city's jurisdiction if the land was within that city.
There's no requirement that they can make anyone do anything beyond what they
are doing with his or her property.
Nelson stated he doesn't understand how they prevent gentleman farms.
Olason stated the only way they prevent anything is to limit conversions. There are
limitations in the easement that talk about conversions. The key thing is to not do
anything to the property that would impact the future use of the property.
McShane stated the intent is to maintain the agricultural land base.
Nelson asked if taking the taxpayer dollars out of circulation would prevent
the County from protecting real farmlands. Olason stated farmlands are real,
whether or not there is a real farmer on it. They look at the soil and other things
as part of the rating criteria. The focus is to buy land that has commercial farmland
value.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported the targeted areas, aside from the
area around Lynden. The committee has put a lot of work into these areas and the
list of criteria. These are viable, working farms. The targeted areas are not helter-
skelter. Once they go through the rounds, they can look again at where they need
to change the target areas. It is not fixed forever. It depends on the money
available and the number of willing sellers.
Roy stated the oversight committee includes community -based
representatives, including municipal representatives. That is an important piece of
the ordinance.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 9
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.
Fleetwood asked where the language is that binds the County to going to the
target areas first. Olason stated it is only in the guidelines, under the eligibility
criteria. The idea is to be bound by those target areas during the first two rounds.
After that, the target areas would be reviewed.
Fleetwood stated they might want to amend that requirement so they don't
lose some extraordinary piece of property.
Roy stated it is very important to have criteria and stick to it. There is
something in there that says nothing can happen in urban growth areas.
Fleetwood stated the committee obviously disagreed with Mayor Louws about
not extending the PDR target area across Badger Road. He asked for a summary of
what the committee said about that issue. Olason stated the Badger Road is the
line in the sand for a lot of people who want to preserve agriculture. There was a
very strong feeling about that. The committee talked about going Y4 mile back
from Badger Road so they could have some light impact industrial areas along the
road, and buffer the farms from the road. However, the committee decided the line
was easier to draw as they did. Extensions of service are a big part of it. Deciding
isn't based on hard science. It is a judgment call. They set some lines and then
changed them. That may be true in this case, and they may need to discuss it
more with the City. The Comprehensive Plan talks about a 200 -year concept to
preserve farmland.
Brenner stated the Council should consider the Y4 mile change on Badger
Road. There are different opinions on whether lines should be along roads. Roads
are to transport goods and services. It would be better for protecting the
agricultural land to do that buffer, especially since the City of Lynden is interested
in a compromise. It is better for urbanized land to not end at a road.
Charles Antholt, 2265 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he is the chair of the
Agricultural Advisory Committee to the County Council. It is a good proposal.
Support it. Conversion of agricultural land cannot be reversed. Be sure there are
resources there, particularly the manpower to implement the program successfully.
This kind of program contributes to the long -term financial viability of farming. It
changes the cost structure of those farmers who choose to participate. It takes out
the capitalized value that development represents in their land. Farmers can farm
at $2,000 per acre instead of $10,000 per acre. It eases intergenerational land
transfers. It allows younger farmers to buy at its agricultural value, not its
speculative value.
Lynden and the area north of Badger Road is prime agricultural land. They
can't get around it. It's a good suggestion for the Y4 -mile buffer, but it is good
agricultural land. The committee wrestled with that a lot. His counterpoint in W.
Pennsylvania County has not had a problem with second - generational sales.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 10
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.
1 Nelson asked what happened with the second- and third - generational sales in
2 that county. Antholt stated it boils down to finances. It's easier for a young person
3 to get a loan for land at $2,000 per acres instead of $10,000 per acre.
4
5 Nelson asked if people are staying in the industry more because of the lower
6 value.
7
8 Louws, City of Lynden Mayor, 323 Front Street, stated this is a big step. The
9 City would like to negotiate to be a part of the long -term solution. Everyone
10 realizes the impact of agricultural businesses on Lynden. However, he takes issue
it with the PDR proposal as presented. He questions whether the guideline will
12 accomplish the desired outcome of the proposal and compliment the State
13 mandated actions of the Council regarding the Growth Management Act. The City
14 of Lynden is concerned about the target areas that surround Lynden's current urban
15 growth area and the impact on the city's future. He has three main concerns.
16 First, the question is whether the plan is consistent growth management and its
17 first goal of encouraging development in the areas where the public facilities and
18 services exist and can be provided in an efficient manner. Another concern is
19 whether the PDR program truly protects agriculture or only creates open space.
20 The third concern is whether they are creating a redundant protection beyond the
21 Growth Management Act. By State law, they already control the urban growth
22 boundaries in the county.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
25
26 Louws continued by reading from the Growth Management Act regarding the
27 County's responsibilities. He questions whether the intent of the County, in
28 implementing the program, is to protect itself from the County. If the PDR program
29 is successful along Lynden's corridor, they go against the purpose of growth
30 management by allowing for reasonable well - planned development into a rural area
31 for the protection of the entire area. The City of Lynden can put eight people per
32 acre on land better than the way the County has put 2.5 people on five -acre parcels
33 of land in the last 20 years. By limiting growth to the north and east of Lynden, the
34 unintended affect will be added pressure on the county lands. The County can stop
35 it. They need to take a look at the land use management plans and stop
36 subdividing property. They need to take a hard line approach to their desire and
37 willingness to move the urban growth areas out from the City of Lynden and other
38 municipalities. The County is taking taxpayer dollars and using them for something
39 the County already controls. It just takes the political will to do that.
40
41 To save farming in Whatcom County, they need realistic compensation for
42 the commodities grown. They need to revise water laws, providing for long -term
43 availability. They need agriculturally friendly nuisance laws. They need a
44 mechanism to compensate for the nations highest minimum wage. They need a
45 better transportation corridor. They need protection from importation of goods and
46 commodities from countries with lower wages and land costs.
47
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 11
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.
If they control urban growth under the Growth Management Act, as they are
obligated to do, and they fight to solve some of the real issues regarding
agriculture, then agriculture will survive in Whatcom County. If the real issues are
not dealt with, regardless of PDR's and GMA, agriculturally productive land will
decline. Hobby farms will flourish. Let the City of Lynden work with them to find
the right balance of urban growth and agricultural land protection. Don't pass the
PDR program as written. It is a poor use of the taxpayers' money.
Nelson asked if Mr. Louws' disagreement is with the PDR program or the
specific target areas around Lynden. Louws stated the program is redundant. They
are elected to take care of business. Their business is to follow the mandates of
the Growth Management Act of 1990. He is personally opposed to a PDR program.
Nelson stated growth puts impacts on farmers for increased land value. The
PDR program could be a tool to lower the land value. Louws stated there is a land
purchase by a big farmer in Lynden on Badger Road, which is being held up by the
seller, who is waiting on the outcome of the Council's decision on this program.
The Council has the power to control the land use in Whatcom County. The PDR
program may not be necessary as it is in other states. The State of Washington
gave the cities and County the authority to control land use. The County's
responsibility is to stop the population increases in the urban areas. The way to do
that is to stop subdividing land. It is a legislative action, but not an easy legislative
action. That's what it would take to prevent a loss of farmland. The City of Lynden
currently has 9,400 residents. In the year 2022, the projection is that Lynden will
have 16,900 residents. The area left over from this proposal will provide room for
5,000 beyond that, which would get them into the year 2030 or 2035. If the PDR
program is successful, Lynden will run out of room.
Fleetwood asked Mr. Louws' vision for the future, and the ability to growing
up instead of out. Louws stated Lynden needs to grow up to accomplish its
densities. Zoning densities have increased. They have to continue balancing that
out.
Fleetwood asked if the County could simply use zoning to accomplish the
same thing. Olason stated the traditional wisdom is that zoning is transitory. Even
with growth management. There are city urban growth boundary changes every
year, not every five years. Some of those urban growth boundaries are to expand
into designated agricultural land. If no one challenges a decision by an elected
body under the GMA, it is good to go. That is the failing of GMA in real resource
land protection. With this program, they will make the decision, and then they are
done. Whenever there is an application for a UGA, they don't get three
alternatives. They get one alternative. That doesn't mean it's the best place for
that city to grow. Sometimes it's because a farmer wants to sell out. As they
move into a new realm, they have to begin long -term planning. This is a good start
to that. With the City of Lynden and the County, they are vying for the same land
because they have different expectations for that land. It's the motivation that
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 12
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.
1 could develop a good dialogue that could end up with a better city and a stronger
2 agricultural zone.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated the PDR program would also protect the very
5 amenities that are going to keep the City of Lynden in the future. The program will
6 ensure that the character that attracts people to Lynden will always attract people
7 to Lynden.
8
9
10
it
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
Ten percent of the targeted PDR areas are already zoned something other
than agriculture. Zoning is no guarantee for anything. That's one of the reason
they need this program. They've already lost a lot of agricultural lands that are still
in operation, but are zoned rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). There are farmers
who are hanging on, waiting to keep their farm in a farming use so they can sell
development rights and then sell the farm to another farm at a reasonable price.
She hoped they can work with Mayor Louws and still compromise on preserving and
protecting some of the farmland around Lynden without sacrificing the Mayor's
vision of Lynden. She has received calls from Lynden citizens who are strongly
opposed to some of the Mayor's statements.
Louws stated that when he first saw the target area map, it looked like
someone used the proposed map as a dartboard with Lynden as the target. That
was the first time he's heard about it. He doesn't feel that the County has given
the administration and the legislative branch of the Lynden City Council the proper
opportunity to work through this proposal. It does concern them deeply.
Paul Schissler, 714 Wilson Avenue, Bellingham, Kulshan Community Land
Trust Executive Director, stated he served on the PDR Committee. The majority of
the committee was farmers. The farmers knew a lot about the target areas that
were picked. The resource agencies that participated as non - voting members spent
months targeting certain areas because of their importance.
Adopt the program. The PDR program is one component of a comprehensive
approach to protecting the agricultural economy. There are other things they can
do. Move ahead with the transfer of development rights (TDR) program. The PDR
program is a fiscally conservative position to take. They are saving the taxpayers
the cost of extending services. Residential developments cost the taxpayers more
than they generate in tax revenue. Adopt the program as soon as possible. The
federal government has doubled the amount of money available for PDR programs.
The County can apply for matching money if there are pending offers. The
Agricultural Preservation Committee strongly endorses the program.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the correct statistic is 50 percent, not 10 percent, of
the targeted areas that have already been zoned other than agriculture, which is
what she said earlier.
Fleetwood asked the County's chances of getting a $1 million match if the
County put in $1 million. Schissler stated the chance is good, if there is a well
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 13
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.
thought out program and pending offers. The PDR Committee suggested setting
aside Y2 of the existing conservation futures reserves and Y2 of the revenue for
2002 and 2003. That would provide about $2 million for the program in local
funding.
Roy asked if the grant would be more effective if they were to have very
specific target areas that are under pressure. Schissler stated it would help for two
reasons. First, there is a threat of conversion. Second, it is a very sensible
program focusing the effort on certain areas rather than a scattered approach.
Limited funds are available. Encourage the farm owners in these areas to get
together and apply.
Nelson asked if there is enough protection to prevent the gentleman farmer
who will take advantage of an easement. Schissler stated that is a big concern.
PDR programs don't require the landowner to farm in a way that contributes to the
agricultural economy. There are ways to address that.
The second issue is that PDR programs lower the land value, making it more
attractive to people who want the property just for the open space.
Brenner stated she was not suggesting a first come, first served purchase,
but evaluating purchases on a case -by -case basis. It wouldn't be a scattered
approach. If an extraordinary piece of property comes forward, she doesn't want to
be prohibited from the purchase.
McShane stated Mr. Schissler is suggesting some kind of protection based on
people purchasing the land beyond its agricultural or open space value, and that
they recoup some of that money that could then be applied to agricultural
conservation purchases or development right purchases. He asked if that is
correct. Schissler stated they don't necessarily need to recapture the money. They
wouldn't want the land to sell at a higher price just so they could recapture that
money and purchase land in the future that is more expensive. They want the land
to resell to a farming business at an affordable price. There are established models
from back East that are doing that.
Roy asked if there is room in this for the oversight committee to change that
around if the Council wants to approve the ordinance and resolution tonight.
Olason stated they plan for the final contract to be out in a few months. They
would pursue that. The first right of refusal language is in there. The point is to try
and maintain affordability. The County wants to maintain, through the agreement,
that there is an expectation that it will be made affordable to the farmer. They
could add that concept as an appendix to the guidelines.
Brenner asked if they could create it so a plan for the property is required,
and require that the plan, or some kind of plan, be transferred to the new farmer.
Olason stated it would be difficult to require.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 14
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.
Brenner stated Open Space agriculture requires that the landowner earn a
certain amount to quality. Olason stated a lot of hobby farmers meet that amount.
It is a very low amount.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association Government Affairs, stated he
was born and raised in Iowa, so he knows about farming. The BIA is in favor of
preserving agricultural lands. Of concern, there has been a downzone in the Lake
Whatcom watershed. There will be a downzone in the Lake Samish watershed.
While they protect water and agricultural land, there is a huge unmet need for
housing. He wants to know where that will go. At some point, they have to
accommodate that. The budget problems of this County do not lie at the feet of
residential construction.
Roy stated the Council needs to talk about affordable housing.
John Belisle, resident, stated agricultural land is land that is waiting to be
rezoned in this country. That is the problem. Half the land they are looking to
preserve is already rezoned. They have to stop development on those lands and
clear them out so they can stay in agriculture. He is a farmer. His future depends
on it. If there is development around his farm, his farming practices are
compromised. Even if the land is inexpensive for another farmer to buy, the
chance is that another farmer won't buy it because it is infringed upon in a way that
would take away his right to farm. The land would not be good for farming even
though it is excellent land. They need to have buffers around that land so it can be
farmland. He has no certainty that his land will not be rezoned. He needs certainty
about his land that it is worth something. Without certainty, he can't make
investments. That certainty comes from having agricultural land around him.
Approve the program.
(Continued below)
2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY'S AGRICULTURAL
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) PROGRAM GUIDELINES
(AB2002 -337)
See the above item.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS WATER
RESOURCES DIVISION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM (AB2002 -336)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the Council requested
that he design a different meeting strategy where there was more participation
among the various councils and commissions to work on issues that need
collaboration. Staff is interested in getting information from Council on priorities for
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 15
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.
the collaborative effort. When they go to the meeting on Thursday, the staff will be
prepared to address the issues that are important in Lake Whatcom. Staff will
address those issues in the context of which can be accomplished. Hopefully, they
will come together with the other jurisdictions on some common themes. He
provided a handout on the existing programs (on file).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Roy stated the committee would like to recess until 3:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AGRICULTURAL PURCHASE OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
(AB2002 -312)
(Continued from above.)
McShane moved to recommend approval of the substitute ordinance and the
resolution as amended. He moved to amend the resolution guidelines to remove
certain target areas. They are probably not going to have enough money to cover
all the target areas anyway. He'd like to pull out some target areas around the City
of Lynden. He moved to remove the following two areas:
• Township 39 North, Range 1 West, Section 13; and
• Township 40 North, Range 1 East, Sections 8, 9, and 10.
These would be secondary areas that would not be included in the first two
years. Those areas are also already zoned agriculture now. They can't be
developed in the short -term. They are probably going to be talking about a TDR
program down the road. If Lynden wants to grow in that direction, those areas
might be more appropriately used for a transfer of development rights. Someone
would have to purchase the development rights before he or she gets the zoning.
The County could get more bang for its buck elsewhere. It might ease some of the
concerns of the City of Lynden, as well. They are not in any short -term risk of that
area developing.
Roy stated she is not inclined to support the motion. She asked the urgency
to do it right now, and why the Council would change this arbitrarily when so many
people have worked hard on this. She preferred to pass it along and let people look
at this, with Lynden's input, and revise the map based on actual dialogue.
McShane stated this is based on the concern that these target areas were
designated without the benefit of appropriate dialogue. Some of these areas do
need to be set aside and targeted now. However, it's too broad of an area to
target. If they end up with easements in that area within the next two years, it's
hard to go back. He's not worried about those areas developing or being zoned
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 16
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.
differently. That's not going to happen anytime in the next two years because it
would require the City of Lynden to come forward with an expansion of its urban
growth area first. That's not going to happen within the next year or two years.
Motion to amend failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
Motion to recommend the substitute ordinance and the resolution as
amended carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee recessed from 12:03 p, m. to 3:00 p.m.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE BY THE WHATCOM COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS WATER
RESOURCES DIVISION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM (AB2002 -336)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, provided a handout on County
activities (on file). They will talk about what issues the Council wants to work on
jointly with the other jurisdictions under the Joint Lake Whatcom Management
Committee.
Federal mandates are coming forward next year that will require them to
deal with phase two of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations. There are six key elements identified in that work.
The other things on the list are discretionary. He encouraged continuation of
the successful educational programs that they've put in place. They seem to be
working well.
The goal of the meeting on Thursday is to get the Councils and Commission
talking about what they see as the areas or priorities for the coming year. The goal
isn't to agree on how each issue will be accomplished. The goal is to provide City
and County staff the work priorities. The staff will develop the program itself.
The staff has recommendations for issues that need to be addressed in the
coming year. They also need to begin thinking about establishing benchmarks.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated they are in the process of figuring out
what they want to do with Lake Whatcom about this plan that was put together.
One of the tasks in the plan says that they should review all the goals and policies
for the watershed, and see if anything needs to change. In doing that, they've
noted that a deficiency with the existing goals and policies is that they don't include
any kind of benchmarks. It's difficult for anyone to know what they are shooting
for and whether they've achieved the goals. One of the joint exercises that may be
worthwhile to work on with the other jurisdictions is to engage in a benchmarking
exercise for the watershed. She submitted detailed information on what
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 17
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.
benchmarks are (on file). They have opportunities to use benchmarks for defining
what they mean by some of the goals and knowing up front how to measure the
success of the actions and projects. They have to plan for it when they are doing
the action, or they won't know what they are measuring against and whether or not
they achieved the goal. Ultimately, they have to look at the activities they are
implementing to see if they worked or if changes should be made. It's an adaptive
management approach. To do that, they have to be more specific about their goals
in the watershed.
Engaging in this exercise requires a commitment of resources. To do
benchmarking well, they have to be committed to measuring it on a regular basis.
Staff proposes that the County Council discuss engaging in a benchmarking
exercise for the Lake Whatcom watershed with the City Council. If there is interest
in and support for doing that, staff will come back with more specific
recommendations on how that might occur.
McShane asked if the problem is that they don't even have real clear goals.
Blake stated they have goals. Without benchmarks, the goals will never be clear.
They can use the goals they've got. In the benchmarking process, they may find
out that the goals simply don't make sense, and need to be modified.
The benchmarking exercise will take lots of time and careful consideration on
the part of the councils. The community needs to be involved in the process as
well.
Fleetwood asked if they can guarantee a result of some of the goals, so they
don't need to be measured. Blake stated they can on some activities, such as
repairing septic tanks. They may need to only monitor how many they checked
rather than going out to do water quality studies.
Fleetwood asked for which tasks they don't have to do benchmarking. Blake
stated she will learn that as she goes through the process.
Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated two other areas are recommended
for coordination with the City and Water District 10, which are land preservation
and land development regulations.
Land use and development regulations is something the Council has worked
on quite a bit lately, and it continues to come up year after year. The question is
whether there is consistency between the County and the City. Open space
planning is another piece of land use development. It also fits in with the land
preservation discussion.
Benchmarking for land preservation is one way to determine when they've
done enough land preservation. The County, City, and Water District 10 might
have different ideas about how much is enough. They might be able to partner
with other groups, like they are now partnering with Sudden Valley and the
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 18
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.
Whatcom Land Trust. To have a successful land preservation program in the
watershed, they need to have a strategic program. It is difficult to do when they
operate opportunistically. They have a limited funding source. There are a lot of
different needs in the County for land preservation. They need to balance out those
needs to optimize land preservation. In a joint land preservation program, there
may be different priorities between the jurisdictions. The funding sources are also
different.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated another issue they are
working with at the City is the urban residential, mixed development (UR -MX) zone
as a receiving area for transfers of development rights (TDR). It doesn't directly
relate to the watershed because there isn't supposed to be any UR -MX left in the
watershed. Staff is looking at changing the regulations regarding TDR receiving
areas. There are a lot of differences in development standards, design standards,
stormwater, and those types of issues. As a developer, those differences are an
issue. The City's Lake Whatcom regulations are not flexible, and would like the
County to adopt them as its own. However, the County can't adopt the City's
regulations because the County has a bigger area and more issues to deal with.
Those are some things they need to coordinate with. The Silver Beach regulations
have a high bar for rural areas to meet.
McShane stated he is interested in pursuing issues about recreational uses of
the lake, especially boating. The City was going to take a lead on that. Hopefully
they will have more information on that Thursday night. It will take coordination
and a lot of work. It should be done fairly soon. He hears about it a lot. Those
who do use the lake recreationally are very concerned about the direction in which
the County is going. It would be good to give those people an indication of where
the community should go. One reason it should be a priority is because a lot of
people are thinking about it and worried about it.
Roll stated they also need to consider an associated issue of spills and spill
response. That is a big issue because of the number of people and the potential for
some types of accidents in certain vulnerable areas. The intakes are quite
vulnerable to those types of activities.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the State Department of Natural Resources is not
willing to take the County's proactive activity on Lake Whatcom seriously until the
County deals with the boating issues on the lake. That's why it's important to
address the boating issue. They could begin with phasing out the two stroke
engines. Roll suggested that they get a few people who understand the relative
risk assessment to determine the risk from the various activities, and then put
together a proposed management strategy. The City was going to do that with its
task force. They need to triage all the risks. They have to look at the relative risk
contributions are to degradation of a drinking water supply. Some of them have a
variety of risk levels. First consider those that reduce many of the big ones as
quickly as possible. Then deal with the other over time. In other jurisdictions he
worked in, restrictions were phased in. Also consider actual regulatory
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 19
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.
mechanisms. Island County set precedence with the two - stroke engine regulations.
In other states, the state is required to deal with some of these issues. There is a
good likelihood that they can create an enforcement mechanism locally, but it has
to go through this exercise.
Fleetwood asked if the City and Water District are having this discussion in
anticipation of Thursday's meeting. Roll stated they are.
Caskey- Schreiber asked staff to comment on the relative risk if the Council
does not impose seasonal clearing regulations tonight. Roll stated that regardless
of what strategy the County has, it comes down to who is meeting with the
developers and the capacity the County has to make sure that best management
practices (BMP's) are installed and maintained. If the BMP's are not installed and
maintained property, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Overlay the
management strategy that best fits with that. Staff's ability to meet with everyone
in the county becomes problematic.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that was one reason for having the seasonal
clearing restrictions. She asked the risk to the lake if they put it off for a year to
come up with other options. Roll stated it depends on what they are most
concerned about. A lot of these issues have to do with cumulative effects over long
periods of time. That said, there is a greater possibility of pollution when there are
land disturbances or BMP's that are not installed or working properly. The relative
risk is based on the number of proposed observations versus the historic
perspective of how many of those observations turned sour. They have anecdotal
information. They haven't gathered the data to do risk assessment for land
disturbances.
McShane stated the one item that they will need to work jointly on is
coordinating a stormwater system with the City. It may be early to do that because
they don't know what the goals of the system should be. They should start that
conversation now. The stormwater runoff at Silver Beach starts in the county and
ends in the city. The Geneva area is all in the county, but it's very close to the
City's intake. A question is how much interest the City has in protecting their
drinking water source and helping the County to do that. Roll stated they have had
some discussions with the City already. The City is a little further along. They
have staff hired to deal with some of this stuff. They have a long way before they
can get into the collaborative retrofit opportunities. They should collaborate
immediately on the fundamental pieces, such as public education. Right now,
stormwater is not a designed program yet.
McShane stated he would like to emphasis that task. The City does have a
stormwater program that is being funded at a hefty rate. So far, the two big
stormwater projects they listed were a flood project and stormwater controls for the
widening of Sunset Drive. He would like to steer the City into doing more
environmental uses with the money.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 20
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.
He is interested in working on the boating issue and stormwater tasks with
the City. The benchmarking task is fantastic. Regarding land preservation, he
hoped the City would consult with the County before doing preservation activities.
Regarding land use regulation consistency, he's worried about it because the city
lots are different than the county lots. The City's areas are a smaller geographic
area than what the County will be working with. That is not a high priority for him.
It's okay for the County to be different because its lots are different.
Roy asked if there is ongoing dialogue about that. Goodwin stated staff has
been meeting with the City regularly on a range of issues.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Goodwin continued to state that they have to do amendments to the UR -MX
zone. The County has copies of the City's regulations, but the City doesn't provide
a lot of direct input from the City on the County's regulations. The regulations have
to be different. The County has been looking at the City's regulations to the extent
that they can make them consistent. If a developer has a similar situation in the
City and County, then try to make them the same. They are trying to do that with
all of the zoning because constituents are trying to get through the maze of working
with the County on one issue and the City for utility connections.
Roy stated it doesn't seem that regulation consistency is a high priority.
Goodwin stated it is a priority for the City. The City wants the County impervious
surface calculations to be the same, but that may not be possible.
Roll stated the priorities according to the councilmembers are recreational
watercraft, stormwater issues, benchmarking, and land preservation. He would like
to narrow the list down to two. Each item requires an enormous amount of staff
time and energy. Narrow the list down to three, so they can have unilateral
agreement on one or two of those three.
Fleetwood asked Dr. Roll what his top three choices would be. Roll stated
that, for collaboration purposes, he would choose land preservation, benchmarking,
and stormwater, in no particular order.
Roy stated stormwater is important to her.
McShane stated his three priorities would be the recreational boating,
benchmarking, and stormwater, in that order.
Roy stated her three priorities would be stormwater, recreational boating,
and benchmarking. Stormwater is the most important.
Fleetwood stated his three priorities would be stormwater, land preservation,
and benchmarking.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 21
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.
Roll stated that those four items would come forward on Thursday night.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ordinance amending Whatcom County Code 20.83.070, Lot
Consolidation (AB2002 -282).
Scott Wesley, 3206 Eagle Ridge Way, Bellingham, stated Hal Hart invited him
to address the committee on lot consolidation and the watershed area rezone. He's
been talking to Councilmember McShane for a few months about the ordinance.
When he first contacted Councilmember McShane, it was to explain his situation.
He bought property in 1998. It is in Geneva. The property is four
contiguous lots in a developed area. The four lots don't meet the minimum lot size
for a building. However, the gross size of the property would allow for three lots,
and the zone would be urban residential, three lots per acre (UR -3). The zone
would only be UR -3 if there is access to public water and sewer. In lieu of that, the
zone is rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). A moratorium has been in place
because of multiple lawsuits against the second sewer line. The second sewer line
is now reaching completion.
When he bought the property, there was a sewer waiting list with Water
District 10. After about a year and a half of waiting on the list, they quit awarding
sewer permits off of the waiting list. Approximately 500 permits were dedicated to
Sudden Valley. Unused permits for Sudden Valley were to be awarded to people in
Geneva. That never came to be. Now, he has no ability to do anything with the
land, and the land gets rezoned.
The lot consolidation rule came into effect in 2000. Councilmember McShane
understood his situation and tried to exempt properties like his from the rezone.
Unfortunately, people in the watershed are not excluded from lot consolidation.
Because his zone is R5A, without access to public water and sewer, he was exempt
from lot consolidation relief.
His situation is unique from the other lots that were rezoned because he is in
a developed neighborhood. The lots are developed at 12,000 square feet.
Everyone around him is developed. He cleared his land last year in preparation for
development, before the rezone. He is an island of cleared land. He is still waiting
for the sewer line. All the streets are in. The entire sewer is in. Water is available.
All the services are physically available. The only reason he hasn't connected to
sewer is because of capacity issues and the moratorium. To allow him to remain
zoned UR -3 doesn't increase the amount of impervious surface because the roads
are already in. It doesn't require the extension of sewer or any services. The
property is not a piece of forested land that will be cleared for three houses. It has
already been cleared. The impervious surface that would be created would be the
homes. He hasn't been constrained from development because of his own issues.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 22
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.
In lieu of the lawsuits brought on by others, he would have been able to have the
UR -3 zone, connect to public sewer, and this would be a non - issue. He agreed that
development in the watershed should be addressed, but gradually.
Roy asked if Mr. Wesley wants to be able to develop the land at a UR -3
density, but cannot do that specifically because of the downzone. Wesley stated
that is correct.
Roy asked if Mr. Wesley waited to develop his land because he got caught in
the sewer controversy. Otherwise the lots would already be developed. Wesley
stated that is correct.
Roy asked what lots are around Mr. Wesley.
McShane stated the surrounding lots are generally around 12,000 or 15,000
square foot lots. It is an established neighborhood. There are a number of little
islands that are surrounded by urban level development already.
Roy asked what the Council could do about this now. She asked if the lot
consolidation ordinance the Council is considering will help.
McShane stated it will help Mr. Wesley and a few others specifically. His
underlying philosophy of reducing density in the watershed should be done for the
long -term potential development that could occur. Those who had a reasonable
expectation to develop property in the short -term should not be impacted by the
zoning change. A number of people in the Geneva area have reasonable
expectations to develop because roads, sewer, and water area all available. If the
sewer moratorium hadn't been there, the properties would have already been
developed.
Roy asked how many individuals are in this situation.
McShane stated he's spoken to three individuals. There are probably more
lots. Of the three individuals, the total number of houses that would be built is
fourteen.
Roy asked if there is anything the committee can do this afternoon, other
than listen to the testimony.
McShane stated that is correct.
Roy stated the information is relevant to the vote tonight.
McShane stated that if the ordinance tonight is adopted, Mr. Wesley and the
others in his situation in the Geneva area still have to apply for lot consolidation
relief. The standards for that are not that easy to meet.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 23
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.
Ginger Essex, Consultant, stated she represents Norm Pennington on the
same issue. If they are under a UR -3 density, the minimum lot size will be 12,000
square feet. Under the proposal, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The
lots will be larger than they would have been before the ordinance, which is very
acceptable.
Fleetwood asked if there is a way they could count the actual number of lots.
He would like to know the implication of this ordinance.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the number of building
sites is on a map. There was 1,760 lots. With the downzone to rural, two acres per
unit (R2A), the number of lots is 445. It would take 1,300 lots out of the
watershed.
McShane stated it is difficult to count. One parcel with a lot of lots is actually
Geneva Elementary School. If they use simply lot numbers, it can be misleading.
Camp Firwood is on the map as well. The zone of those could be changed to
something more open space oriented. Some of these plats are actually outside the
urban growth area. Without a doubt, they have to go into this with open eyes.
Giving the opportunity for lot consolidation relief is going to allow more houses than
if they just leave it at R2A, which is the current interim zoning. It's R2A now, but
instead of lot consolidation rule changes in the watershed, they can get creative
about how they draw the zoning lines on the map. That might be a little more
challenging. He brought forward the lot consolidation to bring some predictability
to people who have to make a decision in the near future about whether or not they
are going to hook up to sewer. If someone doesn't hook up to sewer, he or she will
not be able to get lot consolidation relief.
Roy asked if approving this ordinance will encourage people to build out their
lots.
McShane stated he thought about putting a sunset date on that, but it might
encourage more rapid development. If there isn't a sunset date, there is still an
opportunity to affect things.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any other way that these folks can apply
for a variance or an exception. Essex stated they are excluded because they are in
the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Goodwin stated there is no other kind of exception. Because they are in the
Lake Whatcom watershed, they are not able to even apply for lot consolidation
relief. There is no other way.
McShane stated that in order to get relief, the property can't have critical
areas and must have sewer. Goodwin stated that even if someone has a 4,000
square foot lot and it can perk for a septic tank, the person can get relief in every
area of the county except the watershed.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 24
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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the minimum lot size would be one -third of an
acre if this were approved.
McShane stated that is correct.
Roy stated they will have a public hearing on this issue at the evening
meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how many homes would these people be allowed to
build if the Council doesn't approve the lot consolidation relief ordinance. Essex
stated one home for every two acres.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that, between Mr. Wesley and Ms. Essex's client,
they would be able to build fourteen homes if the ordinance were approved. She
asked how many they could build without approval of the ordinance. Wesley stated
he could build one home.
Essex stated her client could build three homes. Water District 10 required
her client to put in the water and sewer lines, and stub them to the sites. That was
done five years ago. At that time, her client was told they had to do it in order to
do phase one. Phase one was Lewis Avenue. Phase two is behind Lewis Avenue.
Her client paid for the engineering, the road is in, and had to wait for the sewer.
His client did what he was told with the understanding that he would have the
fourteen hookups.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they've heard that same argument with Cal
Leenstra on Lake Samish.
McShane stated no. Leenstra doesn't have the sewer line built. He paid,
along with a lot of other people, for the ability to hook up to sewer. The sewer lines
aren't constructed. In this case, the sewer line is in the street in front of these
properties.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the sewer is available in the other areas that are
going to be affected by this.
McShane stated no. It is not available anywhere else. In some of these
areas, people will be able to get lot consolidation relief, but not in all areas. They
are not opening up the floodgates. It's a matter of whether these people had a
reasonable expectation to build their properties, and if the Council is willing to take
that expectation away from them.
Fleetwood stated they haven't defined what a reasonable expectation is.
McShane stated he defined it for himself. The other councilmembers need to
define it for themselves, and make a decision.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 25
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.
Fleetwood stated that is presumably what the committee discussion would be
on, so they can come to consensus.
McShane stated he is not interested in that. He's not willing to look these
people in the eye and tell them they are only going to be able to build one house.
Fleetwood stated he is not either. He is motivated to help. He asked
Councilmember McShane's definition of reasonable expectation.
McShane stated his definition of reasonable expectation is, if someone in the
Lake Whatcom watershed was going to be able to build on his or her property in the
short -term. He is not comfortable taking that away from those people. The vast
majority of land zoned in the watershed at a density of one, two, or three houses
per acre don't have water or sewer available. They didn't have roads available.
The infrastructure is not there for huge areas of Lake Whatcom. A lot of the zoning
around Lake Whatcom was fantasy zoning.
Fleetwood asked how Councilmember McShane defines short -term.
McShane stated that the infrastructure and services are there. The person
has made some investment thinking that he or she is going to be able to build,
except the County Council suddenly made a change. If a property is on the
mountainside at the North Shore, the owner won't be able to do it because he or
she would have to build a long road, put in a waterline when water isn't available,
and put in sewer lines or a septic drain field. The property won't be developed for
years. The alternative would be to let the zoning lines determine that in the
Geneva area. He doesn't want to go that route because it will be difficult.
Goodwin stated a question was whether a person has to have sewer to get
lot consolidation relief. The answer is yes in the Lake Whatcom watershed under
this ordinance. Every place else allows an approved septic system. One would
have to have a building site that is 40 feet wide and 40 feet deep and that is not in
a designated critical area. That would exclude property that has steep slopes or
wetlands.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested adding language that onsite water and sewage
disposal systems are specifically not allowed in the Lake Whatcom watershed. It
would have to be served by public water and sewer. Goodwin stated the language
says that already.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a recent case was won because it wasn't spelled out
what'public' was.
Roy stated they would have to make that amendment at the full Council.
They would discuss this again at the full Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 26
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
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.
Fleetwood stated he wanted a questioned answered about the implication of
this language and the amount of additional potential build out. He is motivated to
help. A statute could be drawn up in a narrow - enough fashion that it would
envelope only a limited number of people. This statute isn't that way. He has a
problem with it.
McShane stated the only place it can happen is in the Bellingham urban
growth area. The language is pretty specific.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/10/2002, Page 27