COM 0073.004 2012-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

decided to basically postpone that bill indefinitely. They sort of like tabled it because they knew it just started evolving into something that wasn't originally intended. The Council then crafted a new version of this bill which they submitted to you as Bill No. 25, Draft 2, which is currently before you. It accomplished basically a lot of the things that the Planning Director wanted to do, but there are some further refinements that the Council made to the bill. So instead of trying to compare the two, because if you look at page 5 of your recommendation report we tried to do a quick comparison between the old bill versus the new. But I'm really going to try at this point to focus on what's currently before you so I don't confuse you all too much. The current bill includes the definition of activities that can be defined as ag tourism. It provides additional clarifying definitions such as one's value-added agricultural products and as well as agricultural operation, among other definitions. It defines major versus minor agricultural tourism operations. I should note and compare this one. I think the Director's proposed bill had it at 30,000 visitors annually and 350 visitors max per week. The current bill basically splits it up and says,well, major is up to 30,but there's a minor component now that says 15, I'm sorry the Director was previously 15,000 for minor. The Council bill now drops it down to 5,000 for a minor, so kind of a significant difference in the current version that you have before you. It requires plan approval for new structures and additions as for major ag tourism operations. The Planning Director's version was plan approval required for all major ag tourism operations. Again,here is where they define the maximum number of visitors. The difference being 5,000 now versus the 15,000 originally proposed last year by the Director. Elimination of the current restriction that limits gross revenues for ag tourism operations. That way the tourism operation doesn't generate more revenue than the ag, you know,because the whole point is to support ag. Right? And, finally,to remove the need for the Planning Department to conduct a site inspection prior to issuing plan approval. Oh, I'm sorry, one more item, and defining the types of ag tourism transport vehicles when it is permitted. In a nutshell that component is basically saying no more than a 15-passenger bus. Because I think you've heard concerns about taking the big buses up narrow rural roads where a lot of these operations occur. So it's to keep it down to just a small 15-passenger vehicle. So the Director is recommending that the Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on Bill 25, Draft 2 regarding amendments to the Zoning Code related to ag tourism. However, there is a component in the Council's bill that wants to limit the operational hours of ag tourism to 20 minutes after sunset. And if you watch the calendars the time, the official time of sunset changes by minutes every single day. So it's going to be a regulatory nightmare for us as the Planning Department if we get a complaint. And how do visitors know to always check every single day on when sunset is? So I think you get the message of why. 2