HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Planning March 22 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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Planning and Development Committee
March 22, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Connie Hoag None
Sam Crawford
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.40, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT (AB2000 -342)
Kraig Olason, Senior Planner, stated he added a definition for farmstead
cluster, which had caused some confusion in- house. The term "farmstead cluster"
would be defined to include the primary residence and its accessory structures, but
not necessarily the farm buildings, depending on how close they are to the
residences and the commercial value in them for farm use. The definition would go
in Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.97.
They've found that most farms can't comply with the provision WCC
20.80.255(2) as written. They don't have the distance. He suggested adding
language to that section, "(2) The separation between new residences not
located..."
Hoag asked if that would cause a problem with future farms. Olason stated
the reason the existing farms don't meet the provision is because they are trying to
comply with the setback requirements on the lot. That is not a new house. It is an
existing house. The original idea would be that this provision would provide
additional buffering and mitigate nuisance problems for new structures going in, in
farm areas.
Hoag asked how large a lot would have to be to meet the requirement if a
neighboring barn were right on the property line. Olason stated that a five -acre lot
is 330 feet by 660 feet. A one -acre lot is about 210 feet by 210 feet. Generally,
they see five -acre lots out there. The requirement to be 300 feet away is in the
existing code. They are not changing the requirement for new structures. They are
only changing the requirement to limit it to new structures. It essentially creates
an easement over the farm.
Hoag stated they should include language to include the construction of new
barns. Olason stated they would need to discuss expansion if they include a
provision for new structures. He didn't want to go that far with it, but they could.
This language puts the flexibility back into the agricultural enterprise at the
expense of the neighbor. It is a question of how much restriction the County wants
to put on those existing farmers.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
Hoag stated she wanted something protective for the farmers, but not 300
feet. Olason stated the manure ponds have to be 150 feet from the property line.
Hoag suggested amending the language from 300 feet to 150 feet, for
consistency.
McShane stated that would have to be a third subsection. The second
subsection addresses the construction of residences. A third subsection would add
construction of new barns, pens, and milking sheds. He supported the concept.
Crawford suggested adding the word "minimum" because the separation
between new residences won't have to be exactly 300 feet.
Hoag moved to add language to 20.80.255(2), "The minimum separation
between new residences... shall be 300 feet. New farm uses such as; barns, pens,
milking sheds, or areas used to contain, house, feed animals, or store manure or
feed shall be situated at least 150 feet from existing residences not on the same
property. Pastures are... section's requirements"
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked if they want to exclude cornfields in addition to pastures.
Olason stated they are talking about non - structural uses.
Hoag stated one could construe areas for feeding animals as areas where
animal feed is grown.
Olason stated there was a discussion about excluding chemical processing
related to wood lot management in agriculture in WCC 20.40.052. He didn't get
any final word on what to do with that.
Hoag moved to amend section 20.40.052, "...or processing equipment
excluding chemical processing equipment." She asked if it would exclude farmers
from using fertilizer or weed killer. Olason stated it would not.
Crawford suggested a friendly amendment to add language to exclude
fertilizers and weed killers.
Olason stated they should explore the definition of chemical processing
equipment. The use of fertilizers and weed killers are ancillary to tree management
and forest growth. Do not get chemical processing equipment tied up with
fertilizers. It should have to do with something beyond growing, cutting, and
hauling the logs.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, suggested not including the word
AA equipment" for chemical processing. She suggested excluded any onsite chemical
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
processing of finished wood processing. They are worried about the chemicals, not
the equipment.
Crawford stated the lumber industry calls it lumber treatment, not wood
treatment.
McShane offered a friendly amendment to add language, "...processing
equipment excluding chemical processing, such as lumber treatment."
Hoag accepted the friendly amendment.
Olason questioned why they included the term "management."
McShane offered a friendly amendment to remove language, "...portable
rnanagengent harvesting..."
Hoag accepted the friendly and amended her motion, "...portable
managengent harvesting or processing equipment excluding chemical processing,
such as lumber treatment."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that the existing WCC 20.40.102(9) was stricken. Any use
should not be hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses. This is
accessory uses.
Hoag moved to reinstate language with amendments, 'The use will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses."
McShane suggested a friendly amendment to remove "disturbing."
Hoag accepted the friendly amendment and amended her motion to add
language between WCC 20.40.132(7) and (8), and renumber the remaining
subsections, "(8) The use will not be hazardous to existing neighboring uses."
Olason stated that this section is for temporary, accessory housing.
Hoag recommended adding the word "disturbing" back into the language.
When people are siting these, she would like people to take the neighboring uses
into consideration. She amended her motion to include the word disturbing, "(8)
The use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Olason stated that there is no section WCC 20.40.255(4).
McShane moved to amend language in WCC 20.40.133(4), "...with siting
criteria found in WCC 20.40.255{4}."
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
Olason stated they want to have some kind of length -to -width ratio so there
wouldn't be any odd -sized lots coming in.
Crawford moved to include a sentence to section 20.40.250(1), "...is 5 to 1.
The terms "length" and "width" refer to the average length and average width of
the parcel."
Motion carried unanimously.
Olason stated the committee previously discussed the section headers. The
header section is a confusing placeholder. He suggested listing them out.
McShane moved to amend sections:
• 20.40.250(1), "...as provided in sections 20.40.251 and .252 of this
chapter."
• 20.40.250(3), -...as provided in sections 20.40.251 and .252 of this
chapter."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend sections:
• 20.40.251(1), "...allowable density as pFevided On this seetien, and"
• 20.40.251(3), "...of land provided for in this section .252 of this chapter:"
• 20.40.251(4), "...allowed under this section .252 of this chapter."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated that Mr. Almskaar made a comment regarding section
20.40.252, Maximum Lot Size Exceptions, that 30 days was not enough and wanted
it to be 60 days. He moved to amend WCC 20.40.252(1)(d), "...not less than y
sixty (30 60) days through deed restriction...."
Hoag asked if it is too much to ask of the person selling the house. Olason
stated most are on the market for 60 to 90 days.
Hoag asked if first right of refusal is done after an offer is made or after the
house is listed on the market. Olason stated he thought it was from the time the
house is put up for sale.
Hoag stated that requiring more than 30 days puts an onus on the seller if all
that a right of first refusal consists of is an offer.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Crawford stated that in a situation of a retiring landowner, the landowner has
to grant a future right of first refusal of six months to the purchaser of the farming
land before they are offered on the open market. That language is in section WCC
20.40.250(4)(d).
Hoag stated she preferred that language. She asked for clarification in the
future on when the timeline begins.
McShane restated the motion to change the timeline from 30 days to 60 days
in sections 20.40.252(1)(d), "...not less than y sixty (30 60) days..."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Olason stated legal counsel made a suggestion to amend WCC
20.40.252(1)(g) and (2)(g). The term "et sequence" means that it includes the
subsections within the section.
McShane moved to amend 20.40.252(1)(g), "...comply with 20.40.250 et
sequence."
3.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend WCC 20.40.252(2), "... provided by 20.40.2500
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
McShane moved to amend WCC 20.40.252(2)(d), "...not less than y sixty
(30 60) days..."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Hoag opposed.
McShane moved to amend 20.40.252(2)(g), "...comply with 20.40.250 et
sequence."
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to amend section 20.40.252(1)(c), "If Tthe remainder parcel
is less than forty nominal acres, then it shall have no development rights..."
Olason stated that is a problem. It adds density. The goal is to not add
density. Someone should tell the landowner that an option is to break the forty
acres into two 20 -acre parcels. They talked about this at the Planning Commission,
but didn't come up with a good solution.
Crawford amended his motion to include a qualifying sentence such as "The
result of future development will not create a net result of higher density." Olason
questioned what would prompt someone to do 80 acres. A landowner has to have
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
80 acres to get two, under the scheme. He didn't know why a landowner would
want to do that if he or she recognizes that they can file for a 40 -acre parcel. If
they are not careful, they will get back to the density - building problem.
Hoag asked if this language prevents one from carving off one- or two -acre
parcels. Olason stated it does.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
Crawford asked why qualifying language about aquaculture was removed
from section 20.40.154. Olason stated they wanted to be as generic as possible.
Aquaculture is the overriding term for any water -based production. They want to
get away from listing the uses that one could have.
Crawford stated he wanted to protect neighboring farmers, and aquaculture
farmers should have a big enough parcel to have a buffer from the farmers of the
land who would use pesticides and weed killers. Olason they were just trying to
make things more generic. They have to revisit conditional uses, which is
docketed.
Crawford moved to reinstate a portion of the language from 20.40.154,
" Aquaculture, provided that aquaculture activities are not located within 1,000 feet
of agricultural operations requiring pesticide, weedicide, and /or herbicide
applications as part of their normal farm practices."
Hoag asked for friendly amendment to include "...Aquaculture, provided that
no new seafood or fish raising facilities or ponds shall be located within...."
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment.
McShane suggested a friendly amendment to remove aquaculture as a
conditional use in the agricultural zone altogether.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
McShane moved to remove aquaculture in from a conditional use in the
agricultural zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag asked if the committee would consider deleting section 20.80.106
regarding bio- solids. She would rather it be a conditional use instead of an
accessory use, but she wanted to make sure they were talking about bio- solids
from sewer treatment plants.
McShane stated the bio- solids would not necessarily be from sewer treatment
plants, and could be from an agricultural processing plant.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
Hoag stated she didn't have a problem with that. She asked to distinguish
the two. Olason stated the problem has been from the sludge from the larger
cities, where there is a lot of industrial waste. Many of the smaller towns look to
those sites as a cost - effective way to get rid of their sludge, which is three to five
percent solids. If there was a change to the ordinance, there would be
ramifications, and the cities would have to change their budgets and planning.
Hoag stated that if the Council changes it to a conditional use, then the cities
could still do it, but with more scrutiny.
Goodwin stated the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) cited is pretty
specific about municipal waste, and there was a recent lawsuit about that. The
WAC limits what can be in the sludge.
McShane stated that the WAC requires public hearings, and may take care of
Councilmember Hoag's concern.
Olason stated the language is the same as in the Rural zone.
Hoag asked if moving the use to a conditional use would cause a problem for
farmers who are applying their own cow manure. Olason stated the bio- solids are
included in the WAC and don't include animal waste solids.
Hoag moved to move section 20.40.106 to conditional uses.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Goodwin suggested changing that section in the Rural zone as well. It would
have to be docketed as a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment.
McShane stated he would not support it because the WAC was restrictive
enough.
Hoag withdrew her motion.
Crawford stated that WCC Chapter 16 also addresses the restrictions on the
content of the manure.
Hoag stated manure is different from bio- solids.
Crawford stated that there is a difference in wording from the proposed
ordinance and the codebook for section 20.40.106. Olason stated he would check
into it.
McShane moved to amend section 20.40.103, "...agricultural purposes to
limit to 500 cubic yards per year." He didn't want people to go overboard on
removing gravel. That volume could cover 5,000 square feet with sand and gravel
two feet deep. It would cover about one - eighth of an acre.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
Crawford stated he would have to hear some debate before approving it.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
McShane moved to strike language in WCC 20.40.107, "On -site treatn92n
af�d storage...." Olason stated he couldn't give good advice on this. It is in every
code. It is based on a state law that has definitions that may constitute that
treatment or storage, which would be typical business activities.
McShane stated farmers would need to store, but not treat, hazardous waste.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a five - minute break.)
McShane moved to include language to WCC 20.40.108, "...primary
agricultural use in the area, when...." It would encourage those activities that can
be transferred off the farm.
Hoag asked the definition of ancillary. Olason stated it is to be subordinate
to the primary use.
Hoag questioned whether mushroom composting would be outright
permitted. Olason stated it would be.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Hoag stated she wanted to exclude mushroom composting. There are many
associated problems. She suggested language to exclude mushroom composting in
WCC section 20.40.108, "...facilities, other than commercial mushroom composting,
if the use...."
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Hoag stated she wanted to move WCC 20.40.135 to the conditional use
section. When it was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan process, they
decided to make it an administrative use for "no- brainers," but that is not
happening in practice.
Goodwin stated that there is an amendment before the Council about this
very thing; how to treat mining in the agricultural zone.
Hoag moved to move WCC 20.40.135 to a subsection of WCC 20.40.150.
Crawford asked if the Agricultural Advisory Committee discussed this.
Olason stated they did not deal with it because it will be dealt with in the future. It
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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
48
is an area that has a lot of controversial items, and they wanted to focus just on
this section.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Hoag moved to reinstate the section that was stricken, WCC 20.40.159, and
renumber it to WCC 20.40.156. There are a lot of stables in the agricultural zone
that don't take away from the agricultural zone.
Crawford asked why that section was deleted. Olason stated they were
looking for activities that would interfere with ongoing farming activities. They felt
that the use was not necessarily compatible.
Hoag stated that removing the section may hurt a segment of the
agricultural community.
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Hoag stated that WCC 20.40.163 was an item of considerable controversy in
1997. At that time, there were only two batch plants and many viable operations.
These items are the source of the majority of the complaints she gets from people
in the agricultural zone. This isn't appropriate in the agricultural zone. The uses
were in industrial zones previously.
Hoag moved to change language in WCC 20.40.163, "Reek
Aasphalt and...." It will at least address the dust mite issue for the farmers.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Hoag in favor.
McShane suggested adding two conditions for the Hearing Examiner to use in
the surface mining section, WCC 20.40.135, which was moved to conditional uses
in WCC 20.40.150:
• Site reclamation must be for agriculture, and
• No generation of off -site dust from operations.
Motion carried 2 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Hoag moved to amend the language added to the Hearing Examiner
conditions just added, "Site reclamation must be for agricultureal use."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Crawford abstaining.
Hoag asked if the added language to subsection .251(3) is a problem
because all the owner would have to get is a rezone. Goodwin stated the owner
would not get a rezone.
Olason stated they wouldn't rezone from agriculture to rural in the middle of
agriculture zoning.
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, 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 stated it has happened before many times. Nothing stops it from
happening.
Olason stated that Skagit County required a conservation easement. That is
the only other alternative. It is tough to sell.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Crawford stated this is a plat restriction. It is stating the fact that, if the
property is no longer zoned for agriculture, the plat restriction is removed. He
would not want to take away anyone's right to apply for a rezone.
Hoag asked if there is a way to not allow rezoning out of the agriculture
zone. Olason stated they would have to change the Comprehensive Plan first.
McShane moved to recommend the ordinance to the full Council as amended.
Olason stated part of staff's goal is to create something the committee
agrees with. There have been changes.
Hoag asked if the committee would agree to ask staff to create criteria to
support prohibiting agricultural rezones, and send it to the committee.
McShane stated the Planning and Development Committee could have more
discussion on this issue.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Special Planning & Development Committee - Ag District, 3/22/2001, Page 10