Goosepoint discusses expansion with Planning Commission

The Pacific County Planning Commission met Thursday, November 5 at 6pm, and first introduced themselves before calling the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda was a request for an Open Space Land Classification from the Columbia Land Trust, Department of Community Development Planning Director Tim Crose gave an overview on the matter: "The Columbia Land Trust is requesting an open space land classification for an 80-acre land parcel located in the central portion of Pacific county. The comprehensive plan designation is forest land with long term commercial significance, so it's commercial forest land," Crose reported.

Planning Commission Chairman Eric deMontigny spoke on the issue, "So what are Columbia Land Trust's plans for the land, are they deeming it as publicly accessible land, can you describe what their intent is here," inquired deMontigny.

The commissioners approved the request for the Open Space Land Classification, and moved to the next item on the agenda, the request for a zoning language amendment aimed to allow the Goosepoint Oyster Company to serve prepared food in a section at the same site that the cannery is at. "Kathleen Nisbet has requested to amend the language in zoning ordinance number 162," said Crose, "Part of section 7 in the zoning district allows as an accessory use if you have a processing facility to also allow the whole sale and retail sales of their products. What Kathleen has proposed is to add to that or expand on the retail sales of their products to allow for the preparation of foods, which is a different beast," explained Crose. Kathleen Nisbet was present at the meeting, representing Gooesepoint and Crose went on to explain that they have modeled a phrase that would suit Goosepoint's request. The phrase read as follows:
"The retail and wholesale sales of aquacultural products prepared either for on sight consumption with the end product being consistent and complimentary to the specific aquacultural products produced on sight."

Nisbet elaborated: "So we're looking for language that can fit that into the scope of what we'd like to do. Also, discussing this with Crose, we decided our company is a little bit different in that we value add some of our products where we are introducing some agricultural products like corn, potatoes and sausage into our shellfish dishes so something in the language that also allows us to be able to produce those value added products," said Nisbet. Nisbet then presented her model phrase for the ordinance:

"Retail and food establishment sales of any food or promotional for both on and off site consistent and complimentary to the specific aquacultural products produced on site.

That was our initial draft that encapsulates everything we want to do. I want your opinions if this would do that.

The council discussed the matter, evaluating what the repercussions of amending the ordinance would be, "This impacts all agriculture," said Vice Chairman Jim Sayce, "All it says is retail and wholesale sales of aquaculture products prepared either for on site consumption, but what you really want to do is a cafe, restaurant and if we write the language to allow that it will allow it in all of the county's agriculture."

Sayce went on to mention that he had dealt with a similar situation with wineries in Walla-Walla that wanted to do things that didn't fit their zoning code, and that the result of it was that the wineries had a hard time because the laws that they were trying to amend also impacted all of agriculture, and raised problems with other entities in the agriculture business. The council was trying to find some way to word the phrase that Nisbet presented so that it could be applicable to other forms of agriculture, and not just exclusively aquaculture, "My issue is discrimination, Kathleen for example could bring in halibut from Alaska, or oysters from puget sound, I as a cranberry grower could not. Sayce did go on to say that if this amendment can be worded properly that it could potentially be good for all of agriculture.

The council at this point decided to bench the request for the zoning language amendment until the meeting that is slated for December 3.

The planning commission had one item left on the agenda, which was a sort of "house keeping" update to a procedural ordinance that was not very user friendly. The council approved the amendment, and adjourned the meeting.

The next Pacific County Planning Commission will be held December 3 at the Pacific County Courthouse Annex at 6pm.