HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 6 20011
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 6, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Sam Crawford
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated the agricultural rewrite involved a great
deal of time from the agricultural community as well as the County. It included
public meetings hosted by the Ag Preservation Committee, and involved the
Agricultural Technical Committee to develop the first draft of the WCC 20.40 re-
write. The Ag Advisory Committee that was established by the County Council
reviewed the first draft. Today, they have the product from the Ag Advisory
Committee, which went to the Planning Commission. They do have a timeline
involved.
This proposal is the Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.40 Agricultural District
rewrite, but it doesn't address all issues facing agriculture, such as water
availability and crop and commodity prices. It strictly looks at agriculture as the
primary use in the district, and tries to protect agriculture from nuisances and other
uses that are incompatible with agriculture. The Ag Advisory Committee provided a
lot of feedback on the product and began development of their work plan.
Everyone recognizes that this is a baby step toward an overall agricultural
protection program. This isn't going to meet everyone's needs, and isn't meant to.
37 The Planning Commission approved this 5 -0 with some stipulations.
38 Throughout the packet, there are information boxes that reference other files
39 regarding gravel pits and gravel mining in agricultural areas and cottage industries.
40 Both of those were deferred in this proposal to whatever comes out of the other
41 activities. That was the Planning Commission's wish and intention. The other thing
42 the Planning Commission stipulated was that staff come back and look at
43 conditional uses and permits allowed in the agricultural zone. The reason was
44 because of concerns that conditional uses as presented in this ordinance were a bit
45 restrictive. They want to look at conditional uses or administrative uses that
46 provide greater flexibility for farm - related businesses. Staff agreed to do that. The
47 advisory committee didn't want to do it separate from this proposal because there
48 is an ongoing process of additional divisions that occur every month due to the
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
existing zoning language that allows for the divisions they are going to address in
this ordinance. They agreed to revisit it, but wanted this to move forward.
McShane stated that if the councilmembers have ideas on other conditional
uses to add, they may want to wait until they hear from the Ag Advisory Committee
and the Planning Commission. Olason stated it would probably come back this fall.
They are going to introduce the subject this spring, and introduce it to the Council
this fall.
Olason submitted a handout that has more background on the policy and
process for future discussion. This started on February 6, 1999 with the Agriculture
Technical Advisory Committee, the Conservation District, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, and the Agricultural Extension Office. They proceeded to the
point of docketing a draft for the zoning process. From that point, the Ag Advisory
Committee was formed in February 2000 and began a review of the process.
They've had several public meetings and meetings with the Planning Commission.
He recognized the committee members.
Factors that prompted the zoning amendment include the Growth
Management Act, which talks about preserving agricultural land and forest land
with a long -term commercial significance. Also, the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan goal 8 -A talks about conserving and enhancing the agricultural
land base. Task six in the Comprehensive Plan is what they are doing, which is to
review and rework appropriate sections, including land divisions below 40 acres.
Other activities were the Farm Futures Task Force proposal and County Council
resolution 2000 -006, which established the Agricultural Advisory Committee to do
this WCC 20.40 re- write. The value of local agriculture is listed in terms of the
return on the investment in the sense that they are getting a $241 million farm
value based on 1997 dollars. There are other benefits not addressed in that value.
Brenner asked if he had more current numbers. Olason stated those are the
latest numbers.
Olason continued to state that Whatcom County agriculture ranks highly in
the country and state. Dairy statistics show that the dairies are the biggest
producer of farm products. It has a huge impact on the County's economy and use
of agricultural land. The number of dairies has been reduced by 77 percent since
1962. Other statistics since 1962 include:
• 77 percent reduction in the number of dairy herds.
• 390 percent increase in individual herd size
• 27 percent increase in the total number of milk cows
• 50 percent increase in milk production per cow
• 151 percent increase in total milk production
• 992 percent increase in total milk production per farm
Brenner asked for an explanation of how cows increase their milk production.
Olason stated it is done through breeding and nutrition.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
Olason continued to state that there is currently about one acre needed per
animal unit, which is 1,000 pounds, for waste disposal. For instance, there is an
average of 265 cows per farm that would require 370 tillable acres. As farms get
bigger, they need more acres. As waste disposal regulations become more
stringent, the acreage has to be more useable, flatter, and more convenient to the
farm.
They looked at the effect of existing and future fragmentation of the
agricultural land base. They questioned the effect of continual division of parcels
through the code provisions. They looked at the increasing numbers of non -farm
uses and residences in the agricultural district. The number of farmers is going
down, but the number of parcels is not going down. They looked at increasing
homes between farmers and non - farmers. They hear a lot about that problem.
They looked at reducing acreage dedicated to agricultural production. Sometimes
the land is not converted, but is just not farmed anymore. That becomes a
problem. They looked at reducing the number of farmers actively engaged in
farming and the changing nature of farming, which is more emphasis on marketing
and value added products to help provide additional income to the farmer.
Brenner asked if they are talking about agricultural land that is not being
farmed or agricultural land that has been converted. Olason stated he is talking
about both.
Brenner stated she wanted to know what percentage has been converted and
what percentage is just unused. Olason stated he guessed that a lot of it is just
vacant. As they start to see a lot of subdivisions, the 20 -acre parcels that used to
be used are now so small that they are not going to be used for traditional
agriculture.
Olason continued to state that people have been in the county longer than
the existence of zoning. Some of the parcels happened when there was a general
protection zone in the county. Agricultural exemptions have been a part of this
since the Agricultural zone was established in 1981.
Brenner asked to know which existing parcelization is causing the greatest
impact. Olason stated he didn't know if they could get that information. It is very
difficult to track. They don't have good records to track that information.
They looked at the information they could more easily gather, which was
land divisions that happened through the exemptions to the code for the 40 -acre
minimum lot size. From 1995 to 1998, 222 were created. The majority happened
during the period of the 600 -foot exemption option. That has been corrected and
the County doesn't have that anymore. For 2000, they had 15 additional
agricultural exemptions. The number of exemptions was less in 1999.
He tried to break out developed and undeveloped parcels using the
assessor's parcel data.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford asked if development includes parcels with only barns. Olason
stated they tried to determine between structures and farm buildings. They tried to
segregate the residential structures. They wanted to find out what was out there
and what else could go out there. There are about 2,285 parcels that are
developed and 2,200 that are undeveloped currently. If they figure 2 to 2.5 people
per household, there is a potential for 5,000 more people.
Hoag stated finding eight of the ordinance said that over 50 percent of the
existing lots are under ten acres in size, while only 12 percent of the lots are 40
acres or larger. If they compare that statement with the graph in the handout, it
shows that the parcels that are above 40 acres are 47 percent of the developed
acres and 34 percent of undeveloped acres. Olason stated there are two graphs.
Crawford stated finding eight refers to the number of lots. The graph refers
to the number of acres.
Olason stated that 50 percent of the lots are less than 10 acres. Of the land
base, or the overall acreage, the majority is in large lots. While there are a lot of
parcels, the majority of the land is still in larger blocks of acreage, which is good.
There is a good base out there to work from.
Crawford agreed with Brenner and asked if there is a way to speculate how
many developed parcels have houses dedicated to farming as opposed to houses
for people who aren't farming. Olason stated the number of farms over the years
has been reduced. There are going to be a lot more people out there that aren't
farming than people who are farming. To be considered a farmer, a person has to
make $1,000. The census data will show that the majority of the farms are making
less than $10,000 per year and are part -time farms. There might be 300 or 400
full -time farms out there.
Brenner asked if there was a way to speculate how many developed parcels
are not being farmed, but would be appropriate for farming in the future. They
can't force people to farm, but can protect unused farmland for the future. Olason
stated they could look at parcel sizes. Lots under 10 acres are not going to be for
extensive farming. They would be for more intensive uses and would not be
considered commercial agriculture. It depends on the use and how close it is to the
farming enterprise also. Parcels closer to the farm are worth more. He showed a
map of parcels that have less than ten acres. They are spread around.
Crawford stated they are ten percent of the agricultural land. Olason agreed.
Olason showed a map of parcels with 20 to 39.99 acres.
Crawford stated that size represents one -third of the parcels.
Olason showed a map of parcels with more than 40 acres and a map that
shows potential and existing development.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 4
1
2 McShane asked if these maps are based on the lots of record, not necessarily
3 underlying zoning where there would be cluster development. Olason stated they
4 are not based on any type of layout. The Right to Farm ordinance talks about
5 notifying people within a mile of the farming operation. There are houses
6 surrounded by agriculture everywhere. Today they are talking about not allowing
7 additional density to continue to spread.
8
9 Hoag stated the conclusion statements of the ordinance talk about the
10 current inventory of undeveloped lots within the agricultural district resulting in
11 increased nuisance complaints if developed, and the proposed changes would
12 minimize the number of potential nuisance complaints and conflicts between farm
13 and non -farm uses by requiring any future divisions to not result in increased
14 residential development density. The conclusion statement doesn't address those
15 that have already been. The County has conservation futures money to help
16 preserve agricultural land and open space. They are not using it for agricultural
17 land currently. Skagit County is using conservation futures to purchase
18 development rights from farmers. In 1996 and 1997, there was a misinterpretation
19 of the law, and the County got 200 divisions in a very short amount of time.
20 Therefore, there are many undeveloped lots out there that are not in the best
21 interest of agriculture to be developed. At the same time, farmers have these
22 vested. She wanted the County to pursue purchasing the development rights from
23 those farmers. The things in the ordinance addresses future divisions but don't
24 address all the existing divisions. She wanted staff and administration to bring
25 forward proposals to use conservation futures to purchase those development
26 rights from those undeveloped existing parcels. Olason stated this ordinance
27 doesn't attempt to do that. That is part of what the Ag Advisory Committee will do
28 in their long -term planning. They will have to look at the impacts of not doing
29 anything about it and stopping any additional divisions. That is something that will
30 be included in the long -range plan that the Council will see this spring.
31
32 Hoag stated the sooner they do that, the fewer the number of lots that will
33 be developed. They can't sit on it because the lots are already vested.
34
35 Olason stated the recommendation from staff is that the Planning
36 Commission adopt the proposed text amendment and that the Planning Commission
37 initiate the development of other programs to transfer density to areas more
38 suitable for residential development. Their first effort is to reduce development.
39
40 Hoag stated the transfer of development rights program hasn't been a
41 program that is up and working. She encouraged outright purchase. They have
42 money in the conservation futures fund and public support for it. It is working in
43 other counties. Skagit County concentrates on areas prone to development.
44 Olason stated they would have to develop specific criteria. If that is the Council's
45 directive as a top priority, the staff will deal with that issue. He will have a report
46 on the most pressing concerns of the farmers, which is surviving at this point. The
47 primary effort is preserving farmland and farmers.
48
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
McShane suggested that Councilmember Hoag bring forward a resolution for
staff to use to work from.
Hoag asked if they would ignore any mention on surface mining and cottage
industry since they will deal with it later. Olason stated he didn't want to get
embroiled in a discussion on cottage industry and surface mining with this item.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated those ordinances address
those issues, but from a different perspective. She suggested that the committee
look at what the Ag Advisory Committee recommended and compare it to the
Planning Committee recommendation. They will find that there is a substantial
difference.
Hoag asked if she should bring up any concerns about gravel mining and
cottage industry. Goodwin stated they are covered in the other ordinances, but it is
a policy decision on what the Council wants to do for gravel mining on agricultural
land. She couldn't say that either one of them is covered. This recommendation is
to limit building size and the number of employees for cottage industries.
Olason stated they did not do anything on the gravel issue for this proposal.
Crawford stated he had a few points of clarification on the text, and asked to
hear from the audience before working on the text.
Hoag stated she wanted to hear from the members of the Ag Advisory
Committee about the purpose of certain changes.
McShane suggested that they work on clarifications first.
Crawford questioned language on packet page 203 in section 20.40.250(1)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford stated that Roger Almskaar was concerned that they insert
language, "...The minimum average length and average width ratio...." Mr.
Almskaar has no significant problem with the language as it is now, but is working
currently on a lot division and concerned that they would create long spaghetti -like
developments. Because some lot line adjustments are irregular in shape, Mr.
Almskaar wanted to make sure that could be done as an average. He so moved.
Hoag stated she was concerned with the language and questioned how the
averages would be calculated.
Olason stated it wasn't discussed. It is typical language. He could look into
it to determine whether it would be a problem.
McShane stated the other ordinance on the agenda addresses subdivisions
within the agricultural protection overlay. It talks about a parcel being bisected by
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
a public right -of -way, pond, or a river, making the resultant area less than 20
acres. The provisions of this chapter would not apply. Olason stated that is for
rural zoning. It is not related to this ordinance.
Crawford amended his motion, "...The minimum average length and average
width ratio for each lot is 5 to 1."
Hoag asked to defer the motion until they could get more information from
staff.
Olason stated the permit staff has looked at the language and didn't have a
problem with it.
Crawford stated he would withdraw his motion based on the need for more
clarification.
Crawford suggested amending section .252(1)(c) on packet page 204. "The
If the remainder parcel is less than 40 acres, then it shall have no...." Olason
stated that to be correct, less than 80 acres would be allowed one lot because of
the 40 -acre minimum. If a house is removed from a parcel that is 79.9 acres in
size, the person didn't have two development rights to begin with, so would only
have that one development right to give. Adding the 40 -acre restriction would
provide the ability for additional density to be created. They are trying to get at the
density. In any division, they don't want to end up with more density than they
would have had in the first place. In each case, they want to make sure they have
a statement on the remainder that calls it out as being already encumbered.
Crawford asked if agricultural zoning is a density of one house per 40 acres.
Olason stated it is, but if a person has less than 80 acres, he or she doesn't have
two lots. There has to be 40 acres per house.
Crawford questioned whether he could add the term "nominal." Olason
stated that if they want to do a one -acre division, the remainder has to be at least
ten acres. They could do this with 11 acres. A nominal 40 acres is typically adding
back in the road right -of -way.
Sharon Digby, Planning Department, stated they are considering this only for
parcels that are less than 80 acres because it can be made into a division of two
40 -acre parcels.
Olason stated people have come in for an exemption with 80 acres. They
didn't do an exempt 40 acres first. More density happens when people begin
juggling lot lines around. They are trying to limit that.
Hoag stated that on the one hand, the suggested language would allow a
property owner to keep taking off ten acres. Olason stated this wouldn't allow that.
This allows a one -time exemption to take the house off. The remainder is going to
be limited unless there is a rezone.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
Hoag stated that the suggested language makes it so that if the remainder is
more than 40 acres, the owners would be able to still develop it. If the owner still
can develop it, then he or she can take off another ten acres, and keep taking ten
acres off at a time. On the other hand, if someone does have 80 acres and wants
to take ten acres off, they should still have a development right for one more.
Olason stated that was correct.
Hoag asked if the current language would still allow the development right
for the remainder 70 acres. Olason stated that the only way ten acres can be
broken off is through a boundary line adjustment. This provision for a division
requires that there be a house and at least ten acres left over. The existing house
is divided off. It can be done one of two ways. It can be done through this division
process or with the neighbor. Beyond that, the owner doesn't have any further
divisions without a rezone.
Hoag asked where it says that the maximum lot size with the separation of
the farmstead is only accomplished through a lot line adjustment. It sounds like it
is an outright exemption. Olason stated that the list in subsection .252(1) is of the
overriding guidelines that have to be satisfied. He read the proposed subsection
.251(1) through .251(3) into the record. That language goes on the remainder of
the property. The question is whether an owner with 80 acres would lose the ability
to further divide their property if they did the exemption for the house. The
exempt division does not require a boundary line adjustment. It requires a short -
plat. Staff would advise the 80 -acre property owner to do a 40 -acre exemption
first to create two parcels. That would protect the development rights.
Crawford stated it is a catch -22 unless the person knows this up front and
can follow the logic. He questioned whether section .252 should be titled Minimum
Lot Size Exceptions instead of Maximum Lot Size Exceptions. They are talking
about exceptions to creating a smaller parcel. Olason stated these are the types of
divisions that are allowed. He didn't know why it is titled the way it is.
Mike Boxx, farmer, stated subsection .252 was to review the retiring farmer
situation in the code. They discussed this in the situation of allowing someone to
buy the remaining land for farming purposes. It is to allow someone to break off a
parcel for the house on a lot from one to three acres.
McShane stated the maximum lot size addresses the lot with the house on it.
Hoag stated she could see how they would want to keep the house lot small
to keep the remainder in farming, but an elderly farmer may still want to farm ten
acres instead of 40 acres. She questioned whether there is a reason why it would
hurt to say that the homestead piece could be any size, as long as the remainder
piece is at least ten acres so it can really be farmed. Olason stated the original
language allowed one to five acres to minimize the acreage taken out of the large
scale farming operation. The small lot is basically for residential use now, and not
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
intended to be a transitional farm. They are trying to get at minimizing the acreage
that goes out. Now, five acres goes out every time.
Hoag stated she understood the logic, but there are situations in which that
wouldn't apply. There is a lot of demand for smaller parcels for more intensive
farming. They are assuming that breaking off the parcel with the house is going to
be just for residential use, and nothing else would occur on the parcel. Boxx stated
farmers don't feel that there are many people making a living on five -acre parcels.
The dairymen need large parcels to get rid of manure. Many organic farmers are
farming small plots, and five acres is a bare minimum. It was their hope to keep
the remainder parcel as large as possible.
Olason stated the data shows 2,200 lots, about 900 of which are
undeveloped and less than ten acres right now.
Brenner stated there is still a lease option. She was concerned about the
problem about someone losing a development right. She asked to include wording
that allows people to come back in and have consideration of their development
right. She didn't want people to be at the mercy of the counter staff. There has to
be some kind of protection, especially if it could be done legally.
McShane stated that a proposed amendment or language is appropriate, but
they are only working on clarifications at this time.
Crawford stated someone had a concern about subsection .252(d) not being
enough with the allowed 30 days. The citizen suggested at least 60 days. Olason
stated adding time would put someone else in a bind.
Hoag questioned section 20.40.052 on packet page 192. She asked if this
section would allow wood processing in the Agricultural zone. Olason stated the
language was taken from the Rural zone. They had some other language under the
conditional use permit that seemed more like a sawmill. They wanted to take that
part out and put in the opportunity for someone with trees in the Agricultural zone
to bring in a portable mill.
Hoag asked if processing could exclude treatment, so not to allow treating
lumber with chemical applications.
Crawford stated one couldn't have a temporary use to treat wood.
Hoag stated there is no definition of temporary.
Crawford stated that would never happen.
Hoag questioned whether it would be allowed. Olason stated it wasn't
anticipated.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
Hoag referenced subsection 20.40.102(9) that was removed. It didn't get
carried over to the new section. She asked why they would drop the language that
the use would not be hazardous to neighboring uses. Olason stated they were
trying to make it consistent with other code sections. They didn't have any
discussion on that provision, and he would check on the reason.
Brenner stated she would want to know what "disturbing" means. To some
people, just the presence of a mobile home is disturbing.
Hoag stated she would address that definition with a motion later. She
questioned subsection .103 that was removed. She didn't see anything about a
retiring farmer elsewhere, other than that he or she could do what other people
could do. Olason stated they took that language out because the farmer would also
have the accessory dwelling option.
Hoag questioned subsection .133(5) on packet page 197. There is no section
20.80.255(4), which is referenced. Olason stated it should be the accessory
dwelling ordinance.
Hoag requested the appropriate language and criteria they are being held to.
Hoag questioned retail marketing in subsection .134 on packet page 197.
She questioned why they allow a building as large as 4,500 square feet. Boxx
stated that is the size of their retail building.
Hoag questioned what would happen if a building that size would no longer
be used for selling products on the farm, and if the building would be allowed for
other uses. Olason stated it depends on what happens with the cottage industry
ordinance.
Hoag questioned sections 20.40.152 through 20.40.154 that were removed
from the top of packet page 198. Olason stated those uses are gone. They were
trying to minimize other types of uses that don't need the big acreage.
Hoag questioned language on packet page 199 regarding public outdoor
recreation in section 20.40.159. Olason stated that language is also gone. They
talked about hunting clubs. It didn't seem to be something that is essential for an
agricultural district.
Hoag questioned the problem that they were trying to address. Olason
stated it was to address commercial structures from a non - agricultural activity with
commercial interests that might create impacts to neighbors.
Hoag questioned subsection .251 on packet page 204. She didn't
understand it. She asked what the exception is that they are spelling out. Section
20.40.251 doesn't say one could have something smaller than 40 acres. It just
says how a boundary line adjustment is done and what sort of deed restrictions
need to go on there. She questioned what criteria have to be met if it is going to
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 10
1 be less than 40 acres. Olason stated the concept is that subsection .251 would set
2 the guiding parameters, and subsection .252 would be the specific guidelines staff
3 would look at when the application came through the door. They added subsection
4 .251 to clarify what follows in subsection .252.
5
6 Hoag suggested adding language to section 20.40.250(3) at the top of page
7 204, "Boundary line... in 20.40.251 and 20.40.252 of this chapter." Olason stated
8 that change would clarify it. They want to set the basic parameters in subsection
9 .251. Subsection .252 is essentially what has to accompany those applications for
10 approval.
it
12 (Clerk's Notes: End of tape one, side B.)
13
14 Hoag stated subsection .251 doesn't talk about what kind of density is
15 allowed.
16
17 Olason suggested amending subsection .251(1) "...in allowable density a�s
18 , and"
19
20 Crawford asked what is meant by the term "density." To him, density means
21 that there is a maximum of one house per 40 acres. He asked what they are
22 talking about when they talk about increasing density. Olason stated that here,
23 they are talking about the rules of the existing code that allow adding a house with
24 the provision that they can't build for another 15 years or can divide it off for the
25 purpose of building a new house. The overall guiding principle is to not add
26 density. The test in any of these proposals is whether or not density is added.
27
28 Crawford stated he was confused about why they are even saying this.
29 Olason stated that if they work boundary line adjustments correctly, if this isn't the
30 paramount directive, one could end up with an extra lot by adjusting the boundary
31 lines.
32
33 Hoag questioned section 20.40.651 on packet page 206 regarding feed lot
34 limitations. She questioned whether they are now allowing any size feed lot and
35 the reason for getting rid of the limitation. Olason stated feed lots are regulated
36 through farm plans if over 750 animal units. There are also requirements to
37 maintain water quality through the farm plan best management practices (BMP).
38
39 John Gillies, Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Administrator,
40 stated some of the language further down talks about feed lots being located above
41 the 100 -year flood plain. There is a big effort going on between the Environmental
42 Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to redefine
43 confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), which is synonymous with feed lots.
44 His fear was that they would put most of animal agriculture in Whatcom County out
45 of compliance with the zone if this language was left in. There are many dairy
46 farms that would qualify, by definition, as a feed lot that exist in the flood plain
47 today. There are a lot of rules and regulations external to the County Code that
48 control feed lots.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
47
48
Hoag questioned whether dairy farms are considered a feed lot. Gillies
stated they already are, by definition. The average size dairy is about 300 milking
cows, which fits the definition of feed lot. They are confined for more than 45 days
and they are concentrated in barns.
Hoag questioned whether there is a way to add language to distinguish the
County Council's definition of a feed lot from the federal government's definition of
a feed lot. Gillies stated they would run amuck of the federal regulations.
Hoag suggested that they could use a different word for it. They don't have
to call it a feed lot. These protections that exist about not being located closer than
1,000 feet from a residential, resort commercial, or industrial zone is important.
It's a problem. She questioned whether the federal regulations cover the concern,
and they won't be allowed within 1,000 feet of the zones. Gillies stated he couldn't
say that. He didn't know if it would get to conflicts with existing and adjacent land
uses. His perspective is that they would put a lot of existing agricultural operations
out of compliance if this language were left in.
Hoag asked if this is language that is already included in the code, so they
would already be out of compliance. Gillies stated that is the point, and the reason
it is being taken out.
McShane stated that section 20.40.662 regarding the use of natural
resources references 300 feet in an area designated for mineral resource land in the
Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. He believed that number is going to have to
be changed. He tried to find it. He suggested that staff ask Matt Aamot. He
invited the public to speak. They would not complete discussion of this item, and it
would be held in committee.
Hoag stated she believed that the 300 feet is the Right -to -Mine Ordinance.
She believed Councilmember McShane is talking about the notice within 1,000 feet
that people are required to give if they are applying for something. She believed it
was two different things.
McShane stated it was a change in the state law for distance of notification
since the Comprehensive Plan came out. Goodwin stated it is the notification on an
administrative approval for a mining application. She would check it out.
Darlene DelBoca, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated she submitted her comments
on October 16. She would be available for any questions.
McShane thanked Ms. DelBoca for the information she sent. He went
through it recently, and it raised some questions that he would ask.
DelBoca stated the area of extreme concern is the section on surface mining.
Hoag questioned whether surface mining is going to be covered separately.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 12
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
48
McShane stated that is something they will need to discuss regarding this
particular item. He read through what the Planning Commission came up with
because it was an Introduction Item some time ago. He didn't think
Councilmember Hoag would be happy with it.
Henry Bierlink, Ag Preservation Committee, stated this is something his
committee has been monitoring and participating in. They appreciate the County's
help in providing staff time. They fully support the changes. It is not perfect, but
it's the best thing that can be presented. He urged the committee to move forward
as soon as it can.
Brenner stated she was concerned about the 1,248 square feet allowed for
temporary worker housing. She questioned whether the Ag Preservation
Committee discussed that limit and if they could have a more flexible amount of
square footage allowed only in agricultural zoning. Bierlink stated he couldn't
recall. They had people who had housing concerns express those concerns. He
couldn't remember the details.
Olason stated the Planning Commission discussed it. It could have gone
either way. Since it's temporary in nature, staff recommended allowing additional
square footage or remove the limitation, and require that the housing be removed.
If it goes away, they didn't think it would matter what size it was. The Planning
Commission was not adamant one way or the other.
Roger van Dyken, Agriculture Advisory Committee, complimented the Council
on its studious approach of this. There is gravity and importance in the situation.
In the last 50 years, they've lost half of the greatest economic industry in this
community. The industry provides $250 million per year circulating through the
local economy. It also has a significant influence on the family life, aesthetics, the
joy of living in Whatcom County, and the character that makes up their
communities. He encouraged the committee to look at this as expeditiously as
possible, and make one step in protecting a very essential part of their community
for generations to come.
Dave Ernst, 7208 Lankhaar Road, stated he provided a draft of the statement
text he prepared for the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC). In it, he laid
out the argument that the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for no
mining in the agricultural zone, on agricultural lands, or on prime agricultural soils
outside of the agricultural zone. If they are going to have to talk about mining at
another time, then he wanted to make his remarks when they are having that
discussion. Read his material to see the logic of why mining should not be allowed
in the agricultural zone or on prime agricultural soils. Look particularly at policies
8L -1 and 8L -2, which require enhancement and restoration. There is no definition
of enhancement or restoration in Title 20 or the Comprehensive Plan. Those two
words are key to whether or not one can actually mine in the agricultural zone and
end up with an enhanced agricultural zone. Recreational lakes are not the end
result of a mining operation in the agricultural zone. The Comprehensive Plan is
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
clear in its intent that there be no mining allowed in the agricultural zone or on
prime agricultural zone.
Crawford moved to hold in committee for two weeks.
McShane stated they would continue the discussion.
The committee concurred.
Hoag thanked the members of the Advisory Committee who attended the
meeting.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.38, AGRICULTURE PROTECTION OVERLAY, TO
ENHANCE THE APO COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ACT, THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES; TO CLARIFY; AND TO ENHANCE
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS (AB2000 -356)
This item was not discussed, and would be held in committee.
3. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL (ON REMAND) OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED
BY ALLIANCE PROPERTIES INCORPORATED FOR " "WILD ROSE HILLS"
(PUD00 -0002 AND LSS00 -0003) (AB2000 -432)
McShane stated one of the issues has been resolved regarding the traffic
study versus opening up the left turn lane.
Martin Kjelstad, Project Engineer, stated there was a memo that went from
the Hearing Examiner to Roger McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy responded by saying they
reviewed the plans and didn't want the turn lane on Lakeway. The Hearing
Examiner responded by clarifying the staff recommendation that said staff received
the traffic report and were studying it. The traffic report had been reviewed. They
will have one lane of traffic into the site and two going out for a right and left turn
out of the site. There will be no turn lanes on Lakeway. Most of the people coming
from Bellingham turning into the development didn't need a right turn lane. Few
people would be coming from the Sudden Valley area. Having people in the middle
is a target zone.
McShane stated that made sense. His only question was about the one lot
that they might need to give up temporarily. Kjelstad stated that is still as is.
McShane questioned whether the time frame is 18 months. Kjelstad stated it
is.
McShane questioned whether the lot goes back to the developer if the road
doesn't go in within the timeframe, and the developer would be able to build a
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, 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
48
home on that particular lot. Kjelstad stated he expected that they would come
back to the County Council to vacate that right -of -way because they are going to
have to dedicate it up front to get the plat through.
McShane questioned whether the wetland issue is on or off the lot. Kjelstad
stated it is off the lot on the adjacent properties to the west.
McShane asked if they are optimistic about ever being able to use this.
Kjelstad stated he was not very optimistic.
McShane agreed. He moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Hoag questioned whether all the traffic concerns were addressed. Kjelstad
stated the traffic report that was written offered the left turn lane as mitigation for
the traffic. However, Roger McCarthy and the traffic people in the Public Works
Department didn't like the idea because they felt the turn lane in the middle of
Lakeway Drive is more of a target zone. He would provide a right and left turn out
of the subdivision. They only have 33 lots. If there is an expansion to the west,
they would be connected through the Birch Street development, if it ever goes
through. At some future time, there will be a second way out of this site.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane urged the committee members to review the proposed mining in
the agricultural text to compare it with what is currently in the text.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/6/2001, Page 15