2017-01-05 Hearing Transcript - County Council Bill 227 Draft 2

Home

The Planning Director has reviewed Bill 227, Draft 2, and is forwarding an unfavorable recommendation. The Planning Director is generally in favor of the overall direction of Bill 227, Draft 2 in attempting to be defined by the bill which is to make the permitting process less restrictive and less burdensome for the agricultural tourism operations, but issues this unfavorable recommendation based on the need for further clarification and changes within the bill that are structurally significant from that represented in the bill. Basically, what that means is we could have requested an amendment to Bill 227, Draft 2, and sent it up as a request to amend that bill. Our alternative language is so significant that it would actually require to be a new bill. We struggled whether or not to send up a new bill, but we decided not to because of the fact that when we look back at our history, our chronological history of ag tourism, there's been such a difficulty in passing an ordinance because they're having a hard time finding a middle ground to be able to create a new ordinance. So, what the Planning Director is proposing is sending up alternative language in the form similar to a bill as a starting ground. Look, we like the way this is going. Here's some proposals. This is, we think this is a good start. As you go through the process maybe those changes can be added in, and a new bill can be created so it may not end up with five drafts or whatever happened previously. Additionally, the Planning Director, again, is offering alternative language and is suggesting even to further simplify the process by deleting all together the requirement for Plan Approval and to have agricultural tourism operations be required to register one time instead of a yearly registration. When we look back on, since 2008, there's been a requirement in place for all ag tourism operations to either submit Plan Approval or if they've exceeded those limits, to come in before the Planning Commission with a Special Permit or a Use Permit. We've had two people come in in eight years. So, obviously, what we're doing isn't working. So, and—and some of the feedback we're getting is that the Plan Approval process is just too difficult for the average ag tourism operation, especially the site drainage plan. And, that's why this request for the waiver, but there are other portions that are also difficult for them. We think the registration process is a good idea. If we try to get them to do it yearly, we don't think we're gonna have any more success than we did previously. But, if we have them come in simply one time a year or once and then possible propose that if there's any significant changes, they come back in, then we think that might have better success. This registry form that we're talking about will have questions to verify compliance with the standards and guidelines of the agricultural tourism operation as listed in 25-4-15(d) but will also have questions currently listed on the Department's Agricultural -Based Commercial Operation Certification Form and that is our Planning Department's Exhibit 6 for reference. So, again, we're going to be trying to get all the information that we can relative to these agricultural tourism operations through this registry form. Similar to the current permitting process, if an agricultural tourism operations goes beyond the limits, the operations will need to submit for a Special Permit or a Use Permit, which can be determined through the information submitted in the registration form, or a complaint is received EXHIBIT C