Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning January 7 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee Public Hearing January 7, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Absent: Marlene Dawson None Kathy Sutter Other Council Members Present: Tom Brown Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner PUBLIC HEARING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBAREAS: LYNDEN/NOOKSACK VALLEY (AB96 -051G) Starkenburg gave background information on the work Council has done so far on the Comprehensive Plan. He then announced the format for the day's meeting. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney =s Office, gave background information on agricultural usage. Different studies show different current ag usage varies. Best estimates show approximately 120,000 - 125,000 acres are in ag usage. There is a large range of types of agricultural activity involving different acreage. The ag economy takes in more than farmers. The critical mass number necessary to maintain a vital ag economy fluctuates over time. Approximately 90,000 acres are zoned agriculture. Most of the land used for ag not in ag zones is in the rural zones: R10, R5 and R2. He stated the majority of ag activity is found on the undivided larger parcels. Approximately 24,000 acres in the rural zone are in parcels 20 acres or more. Approximately 31,000 acres are in parcels larger than 10 acres not zoned ag. Gibson also described soil types, stating that most of the rural zone is located in the area northeast of Bellingham in rolling terrain. The majority of soils are Whatcom LaBounty -type soils; sandy types are found in the Custer area, which are the Lynden Hale Tromp series of soils, which are used for berry farming. Gibson also explained clustering in R5 zones, which would be one means of maintaining larger parcels which have more potential for long -term ag production. Easements, covenants and set backs address compatibility. Residential living, along with farming, was discussed. He asked how property rights can be addressed at the same time as ag production. If there is a cushion of agriculturally protected land, greater flexibility is provided Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 1 regarding the necessary erosion of land base in those areas having no choice but grow into ag land. Most of aggregate deposits will be found in relationship to ag soils. Dawson commented the clustering concept is one she would like to follow through. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, gave background information on an overlay zone, which would be an agricultural protection district. He explained the protection of the farming activity when other non -ag activities are going on. The overlay zone would set aside a track which could be used for leasing, open space, etc. Using the overlay zoning plan would allow tracks to be set aside to preserve and protect the land. Unless the Comp Plan changes, the land will remain in a track. Voluntary ag farms would need protection. These are the farms which have historical growth and are surrounded by urban development. Techniques needed for farming include: fertilizers are needed to comply with instructional use by the Department of Agriculture; wells should be more than 200 feet deep; the house ought to be set back from the ag lands or, if the individual wishes his house to be closer- -e.g., view, etc. - -the individual needs to do a voluntary easement. The number of acres open to ag zoning are 110,000 to 120,000. Starkenburg requested Amy Mangum, Planner, city of Lynden, comment on the city urban growth area (UGA). Lynden--s UGA currently includes 490 acres zoned ag. Everything to the east of Lynden is zoned R5, R2A, and R4; to the west is zoned ag, of which 240 acres are intended for industrial growth, and 80 -plus acres are intended for ag- related business and industry. Several questions were brought forward regarding ag- related business. Starkenburg explained that he has asked Lewis Stremler to share with Council information on the implement business. Stremler, an agricultural implement business owner in Lynden for 25 years, stated his business is currently located on 9.5 acres. A local auction barn was next door; at their Burlington office, there are houses around the office. He stated the need for additional acreage and encouraged Council to be open, noting that farm trucks need to be warmed up at full throttle, etc. Point of order from Nelson regarding the day =s proceedings and the record: The record is open for public comment, and Council is requesting specific comments on the various subareas being covered. If comments have already been submitted, it continues to be part of the public record and carries forward, so it does not need to be resubmitted unless there has been a change. The public can submit written testimony on the subareas presented today, which are Lynden/Nooksack, as well as any of the subareas which are to be covered. Regarding the Comp Plan in general, the public could briefly testify at this time. On February 4, the public can again respond to the entire Comp Plan. Council member Brown questioned if there would be any evening meetings on the subareas. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that there were four night meetings held in October and November with a final meeting to be held in February. Written testimony can be submitted at any time. Discussion followed regarding what is ag- related business. Stremler stated that land unsuitable for agriculture should be used to cluster development in those areas; save the usable Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 2 ag land for ag purposes. There was discussion on the appropriateness of having the planning meetings during the daytime hours. Starkenburg noted the meetings are six hours, and it is too long to be held at the evening Council meeting. He reviewed the meeting schedule. There was discussion on terminology (Apublic hearing= vs Aopen public meeting2 ). Brown stated that a question has been raised regarding whether a "bed and breakfast" operation would be allowed in the ag zone. For example, a small dairy might want to open its operation to anyone who wants to come for a few days or a weekend to work a farm. Starkenburg replied that was a question that could be dealt with later. Stremler stated that another aspect of farming is "entertainment" farming, such as U -pick patches that attract out -of- area people to come to the farm and buy produce off the farm. Starkenburg opened the public hearing to those wishing to speak regarding agriculture, mineral and Guide Meridian corridor issues. AGRICULTURE John Gillies, natural resources /conservation service in Whatcom County: He supported the idea of the 120,000 - 125,000 acre base. He asked if agriculture is a viable economic entity. He then spoke to mineral overlays in agriculture. Agricultural soils are very unique. Once soil is stripped away to mine, that soil cannot be reclaimed. The quality will never be the same. There are other areas in the county were mineral resources can be extracted but not destroy prime soils. Agriculture activities have grown; the number of farms are smaller, but the farms are larger. A question period followed with Council members. Topics included: farm census; conversion of ag land into non - farming dwellings; and agricultural acreage needed for a viable ag economy. Gillies said that the draft Comp Plan protects 94,000 acres for ag use. John Toews, 333 Gladwin, Abbottsford, B.C.: The County's decisions regarding mining near the border will flow into Canada if those lands are designated mineral resources. Dust from mining activities will flow into Canada and damage their agriculture activities. There are two ways to solve the problem: discuss this with the Abbottsford City Council; and bond should be posted. Connie Hoag, 2633 Halverstick Road: The County is only planning ag for 20 years, whereas mineral resources is being planned for 50 years. She felt there needed to be a night meeting scheduled. The format of the meetings has not been clear to the public. Regarding policy 8A -4, please do not make the language change requested by Committee Chair Starkenburg at a previous meeting. She stated what has been set aside for ag needs to be preserved for ag. Dick Vellema, Lynden: The quantity of dairy farms in the County has been reduced in Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 3 the past 20 years; projections are that they will be reduced even further. He urged Council keep farming operations apart from non - farming housing. Jean Freestone, Vallette Street: She noted a decline in ag acreage. The federal program in the 1980's bought out farms. There is a pollution problem along streams with dairy farms, and solutions are very expensive. Ag- related activities occur in non -ag zoned land. For lands that are close to transportation routes, light impact industrial (LII) is a good zoning. The LII land is good for interim uses such as dairy farming. (Clerks Note: A brief break was taken) Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, 1401 Astor Street (handouts on file): He asked for an appropriate time to return (committee will get back to him) to clarify information regarding Goodman and Badger Roads, and Guide Meridian (information was submitted earlier to Council for review). He requested a few evening sessions to allow for other input from individuals who cannot attend daytime meetings. Almskaar discussed clustering; open space; two tier method small scale and/or hobby farming; Growth Management Act (GMA) definitions; the critical mass idea; the economic side of farming; boundaries; suitable farming areas; ag- related business; and federal monies to save farmland. Bob Grenzow, 3047 Halverstick Road. Sumas (testimony on file): There is a need to think about elected officials as public servants; he stated the need for more public comment. He discussed potential rewrites on the Comp Plan; new citizen input is needed. Prime ag soil must be retained. He urged Council save natural assets for our children and grandchildren. There is a need for a long -term plan, not just four years. Starkenburg commented on the previous written testimony, which will be read. If there are any changes, the public may resubmit testimony. (Clerks Note: Lunch break was taken until 1:10 p. m.) MINERAL RESOURCES There was some discussion regarding the format for continuing the meeting. Bruce Thompson, 333 Park Place, Kirkland, Sr. Vice President of National Energy Systems Company: His company will build a recycled paper mill in Sumas. One of the primary reasons is the available water supply. He was concerned with the rezoning of ag lands to MRL designation, which leads to concerns regarding impacts on the water supply -- either quality or quantity - -from the May Road well field. There is no other resource of water and if it is compromised in any way -- quality or quantity of water - -there would be devastating impacts to the company. He recommended retaining the existing K2 planning policies to protect existing uses of water; holding public hearings on each MRL rezone; and requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all MRL that will be converted into gravel mining operations. He introduced Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 4 Tom Pores, the company--s legal counsel. Questions followed with Council members. Topics discussed included potable water and recycling. Tom Pores, Foster, Pepper & Scheffelman, legal counsel for NESCo.: Pores stated that the Department of Ecology (DOE) has closed all ground and surface water to new appropriations for consumptive uses. There may be no additional water supplies granted in the future. DOE denied over 600 water rights applications since the beginning of 1996. There is no certainty Ecology will be granting additional water rights for more capacity. The County must be very careful and cautious in protecting the water supply. All growth is dependent on the availability of water. There will be increased competition for water capacity among cities unable to obtain additional sources of supply. The County, working with the city of Sumas and other utilities, needs to protect water supplies through a wellhead protection program. NESCo. recommended not changing anything in the Comp Plan that would dilute protection of water supplies. It also recommended full Council have a hearing on this subject after the present meetings have been completed. There is no new resource available. One topic of discussion between Council and Pores was the lack of water rights permits contributing to ag uses. Roger Ellingson, P.O. Box 1258, Blaine, representing the city of Sumas: For clarification, the city of Sumas already provides water to users outside the city. The existing Lynden/Nooksack Valley Subarea Plan has some language in it that is critical. Policy 10.01.2 contains critical language. Columbia Aggregates, which would have been the largest gravel mine in the County =s history, was stopped by this language because it was not "limited ", not compatible with continuing farming. This language should not be removed. Kickerville loam is the best soil there is, which should not be destroyed. If the MRL designation is allowed and the Kickerville loam area opens, a door opens to allow mineral resources to anyone who wants to mine. He introduced Mark Shaffer and Dr. Mulnar. Mark Schaeffer, 179 Madrone Lane, Bainbridge Island, professional geological engineer and a hydrologist, Bainbridge Island, represented the city of Sumas: He gave a professional background. One measure of the Sumas aquifer is that the wellfield supports several dairy operations. At present, water flows southeast from Canada across the border and discharges in the Sumas Valley. It is important to not make too great a distinction between those sections of the aquifer that have high nitrates and sections that have normal levels. Gravel mining may be a factor in degrading the water quality. There is the potential of direct introduction of contaminates, which is uncommon. Fuel spillages have the potential to contaminate groundwater. One gallon of spilled gasoline can contaminate one million gallons of water. Removal of the buffer zone jeopardizes the area of the aquifer that intervenes between the soil and the top of the water table. Once this area of protection has been removed, the aquifer has been exposed. In the future, gravel mines will become derelict. People will dispose of their trash if it is not maintained. If it is returned to agriculture, the buffer is removed. If it is urbanized, then people will be exposed to contaminates. Something will happen to contaminate the aquifer. The cost of correcting such a problem is very expensive. A question period took place with Council members. Topics discussed included: regulatory rules protecting the aquifer in excavation areas; the depth of the May Road well; the water table; well water turbidity; Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 5 adequate protection for a non -clay layered well; and removal of top soil for later reclamation. Peter Willing responded to a question regarding May Road well #3. He referred to his November 21, 1996 testimony regarding details of the regulation of the sand and gravel industry. Dr. Joseph Mulnar, agriculturalist, representing the city of Sumas: He gave committee his professional background. He noted the Sumas aquifer site has been cited prime ag land. The air circulation would be affected, which could create problems with plant diseases. Dust is conducive to mite development. He was also concerned with the proposed mining site affecting the pollution of the aquifer and the quality of life regarding noise level, the dust and run -off. Drainage problems can easily result. He was not against gravel mining but thought it was a mistake to use good ag land for this purpose. Questions followed; topics discussed included the Butchart Gardens as a reclamation site and the minimum size of an excavation regarding minimum ag industry near a residential area. A minimum size excavated land should be zero but the least amount used would be the best for this area. Air circulation changes can be non -, as well as, conducive. This all depends on the typography. He did not examine mineral resource lands, which are mostly in prime ag resource lands. Soil reclamation was examined north of the border but not in Whatcom County. He has not seen any successful reclamation. Nate Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson: He was discouraged to see the gaping holes of gravel pits in the County. The MRL is seriously flawed, in his opinion. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) has had problems from the beginning, namely internally. It was flawed by conflict of interest. Proposed changes threaten ag land and drinking water. Specifically, Chapter 8, Goal 8J, affecting the quality of life in the County, provides no protection for dust, noise, citation, monitoring and permitting, among others. Policy 8J -3 regarding water quality has no protection for groundwater, wellhead protection plans, etc. He quoted from the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). There needs to be more involvement by landowners; special interests have been able to influence the planning process. Phyllis Kronenberg, 2351 E. Pole Road, Everson: She commented regarding water resources and MRL designations, specifically referring to Townships 12 and 1. She cited the lack of public hearings regarding this matter. Also, the County should designate water resource protection before designation of MRL, and she worried about the quality of water in her area. She suggested specific language changes (she will provide committee her written comments). Water quality and quantity should be given equal importance. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be mandatory for all MRL designations and all existing pits. Starkenburg asked for the number of people wishing to speak to the Guide Meridian corridor to determine the remaining time. Most people wished to speak on the MRL issue. Gibson suggested anyone wishing to speak should remember that what has been already said is on the record. Someone in the audience requested the public be allowed to speak. David Davidson, representing Sumas: He commented about surface mining. Sumas Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 6 opposes the changes made by Planning and Development Committee because of the risk of groundwater quality in the discussed areas. This creates a severe problem for the city. Tests have been done on its water supply. He asked what an alternate supply is (May Road field, possibly) and if one should drink water high in nitrates or a pesticide (EDB). Sumas now has flexibility, being able to use either the city water or the May Road field. Water is important for citizens, dairy and industry. The wellhead protection study has been completed. Sumas is requesting reinstatement of Policy 8 with a modification regarding no new designations within recharge areas of public systems of greater than some number of connections. He reiterated a proposed new policy in the land use chapter (on file) regarding the recharge area. The County's zone ordinance can control this. The city of Sumas faces current risk, which is increased by the changes made by the Planning and Development Committee. Davidson suggested language regarding mitigation consequences be put in the plan. Questions followed. Topics discussed included: May Field as a potable water source (industrial) and its capacity and mitigation consequences. Geraldine Pogue, representing the city of Everson: She addressed Policy 8P -3 regarding Interlocal Agreements, which she felt should remain. Also, she spoke to Criteria 8 regarding no MLR in the wellhead protection area by stating Everson has this wellhead area and must protect its water. Council should provide the protection of this wellhead area. Rick Benner, 4406 Minaker Road, Sumas: He spoke to the area south of the Telegraph Road adjacent to an existing MRL designation which has not been used much at all over the last 20 years; the expansion is into a prime ag soil zone, and there is no plan for protection of the aquifer recharge area, which feeds salmon spawning creeks. Gerald Holmquist, representing Holmquist Hazelnut Orchards: He is opposed to the proposed mining and in favor of long -range planning. Connie Hogue, 2633 Halverstick Road (documents on file, along with a handout regarding the November 26, 1996 meeting): She stated this is the first time the public has had to comment on the Planning and Development Committee =s changes. Contamination cannot be prevented to the aquifer, according to Dave Garland from the DOE. She requested Council not change the current criteria for MRL designation and spoke to the need to preserve ag lands. She noted there is sufficient gravel present now. Also, she opposed the proposed language changes by Brown and Sutter. Policy 8L -3 should not be County policy but reviewed per site. There are many interest groups involved. She spoke to dust, noise and the quality of life. Joshua Craft, 3550 Alm Road, Everson: There will be increased demand for resources in the County. He is the future (being young), and Council's decisions will affect his generation. Gary DeBones, 3678 Newman Road, Sumas: He is a commercial pilot photographing strip mines. He enjoys living here and urged Council not to destroy the countryside. (Clerks Note: A brief break was taken) Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 7 Bob Grinzel, 3047 Halverstick Road, Sumas: He worked on the SMAC and was concerned about wellhead protection and agriculture. Ben Craft, 3550 Alm Road: He commented on the aggregate land. He asked what would happen if two of the three life - giving ingredients (air, water and food) were taken away by major disasters. Future generations will judge us on our decisions now. Farmland and water must not be destroyed. Destin Westoff, 8381 North Telegraph Road: He submitted a petition (on file) regarding the wellhead and farmland protection. He read a document (on file) regarding same urging Council reject Planning and Development Committee =s proposed changes. Ken Nickel, 32869 Huntingdon Road, Abbottsford, B.C.: He lives one mile north of the property in question. This impacts his family and the area. His city decided not to approve a gravel pit in its area because Abbottsford was concerned about the aquifer. Even small scale mines have affected the wells. There is much noise, and the dust affects crops. Wendy Nickel, 32869 Huntingdon Road, Abbottsford, B.C.: She was concerned about the aquifer and does not want to lose the water. Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, representing the Sand & Gravel Association: Mineral Resource Lands provision must be done for the GMA. The mixed sand and gravel areas are where the people live, as everyone uses mineral resources. The Council must determine the MRL areas. She noted regulations are not being dealt with here; they come after the Comp Plan has been adopted. She also spoke to permitting, noting corrections regarding the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which regulates the reclamation, and the DOE, which regulates water quality. She urged Council approach this globally and look for solutions. What applies for one should apply for all. She hoped to be able to move forward from creating fear and controversy to creating solutions. Questions followed. Topics discussed included gravel extraction standards and turbidity in mineral extraction. Darlene Del Boca, 7208 Lankaar Road, Lynden: She was confused about today's hearing, thinking it sounded mostly like a Conditional Use or rezone hearing. She spoke to the economic impacts of MRL designations. The Council's responsibility is serious, and it has destroyed the vision in response to the GMA's Visioning Committee and the Ag Resource Committee, which language has been stricken. She understood that it is not necessary to set aside MRL (document submitted). Connie Hogue wanted to make a clarification regarding a previous statement. Rebuttal was not allowed by Chair. Serge Slagle, representing Mile Sand & Gravel: He spoke to a specific site in prime ag soil, the northeast corner of Siper Strip (the entire length of Siper Road), which should be Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 8 designed MRL, specifically to criteria 1 and 4. He thought Council should be more familiar with criteria 4, which is difficult to understand. Questions followed to discuss the quality of prime ag soil relating to aggregates. Gibson put this next section into context, which is the Lynden/Nooksack Valley Subarea. In the southwestern portion of this is where the Guide Meridian Corridor is located, which is north of the Smith Road to Wiser Lake Road. Over the years and because of the heavy traffic on the Guide, much commercial and, to some extent, commercial development, has taken place. He asked what should be done in the future regarding commercial and industrial growth in this area, as well as about fire suppression capabilities. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, introduced Warner Webb, County Fire Marshall =s Office. The plan his office has is based on occurring development and proposed developments on a case by case basis. The Deer Creek and Pole Road Associations are along this section. Sandy Mackie stated the question in growth management is concurrency; that is, are facilities available at the time the development occurs. Adequate water, fire and sewer facilities must be present in order to obtain a permit. He asked about a special need; e.g., a building taller than the fire department =s ladder. There are no provisions in the building permit, Webb said, so there is no impact fee. Starkenburg inquired if there have been any permitting problems along the corridor. Webb replied the only ones have been limiting square footage for certain businesses. Brown asked if on -site water storage for fire protection was an option. Starkenburg asked how large a radius the fire marshall is accepting if the on -site water storage is provided. Webb replied that much of this is set by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. Mackie stated that as this area exists outside urban areas, one of the major concerns was the adequacy of facilities. Mr. Whitney, Chief, Fire District #3 (Laurel) reviewed present facilities for fire protection in Laurel. North of the Hemmi Road has minimal fire flow. Equipment and manpower is present now. HazMat is not available now, but they are in the training process for later in 1997. Starkenburg asked about the Draper Valley tower. Whitney stated there is a non - written agreement for more water if needed for fire suppression. Tanker operations were never designed for commercial operations. Mackie responded to inquiries from Starkenburg regarding the issue of covering the adequacies of facilities and services; appropriate size; and potential impact on other uses. He spoke to downzoning by stating that nonconforming uses can have a negative impact on businesses. He asked what should be done with the Laurel area. Gibson also commented. Mackie stated the recommendation is that Laurel not be designated an urban area, which assumes a mixed residential /commercial development, among other items. This area provides commercial services, as well as also not detracting from the ag land. Gibson stated "hamlet" has been used as terminology. Discussion took place regarding terminology -- perhaps a "service center "? Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 9 Gibson asked about a work session, due to the time. Discussion followed. The committee will meet January 14 from 8 -9 a.m. to give direction and then continue with open dialogue. A conflict with the regularly - scheduled committee meetings would occur; committee settled this issue. Gibson noted he would make himself available for staff at 8 a.m. on that morning. Gibson stated a quorum must be present for the Planning and Development Committee. The next meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on January 14, discussing in an open work session today--s matters and then beginning the hearing as shown. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Alvin Starkenburg, Council Member Planning Minutes, 1/7/97, Page 10