|
meetings with other counties, they did say that one of the most difficult things for them to enforce
<br />was determinations regarding tax records or financial records and making those calls. They just
<br />felt like they weren’t able, it was just too much for them, as far as the planning departments; it was
<br />almost as if you had to have a tax person or somebody that was more experienced in financials to
<br />be able to make those determinations. But regardless of that, the change in the bill is that they
<br />have to be able to show proof, if requested — okay, that’s the key there. If there is a clear
<br />indication that there’s, it’s lopsided, the agricultural tourism is beyond the agricultural uses on the
<br />property, the Planning Director, and this gets to Commissioner Shimaoka’s question, there is a
<br />provision under (k), which is on Page 8, that says —
<br />
<br />SHIMAOKA: “May.”
<br />
<br />DARROW: — yeah, “may conduct a site inspection for any proposed agricultural tourism
<br />\[operation\] and may make periodic inspections on any agricultural tourism operation without prior
<br />notification.”
<br />
<br />Now, in getting to Commissioner Church’s question regarding enforcement, this is a difficult
<br />issue, because as mentioned, and this was mentioned at the Council hearing, is that without
<br />receiving complaints or without any indication other than somebody driving around and actively
<br />looking for this, there is no real way to be able to know that these activities exist, without us
<br />being, without us receiving some sort of Plan Approval or Special Permit, or this proposal is for
<br />registry form that would be filled out. And so that’s the difficulty that even the Director had
<br />mentioned at Council.
<br />
<br />CHURCH: Jeff, let me ask you. Do you think that if you had somebody driving around, you
<br />would find violators?
<br />
<br />DARROW: Well, I’m sure that you could. And, you know, there are means to do it; there could
<br />be sweeps, sometimes just going on the Internet and looking for agricultural tourism operations, a
<br />lot of these operations that aren’t permitted are most likely doing other unpermitted things as well.
<br />So it wouldn’t just be the ag tourism. As mentioned, some of these hold weddings. In our current
<br />code now, if you do certain activities even with the agricultural tourism, it triggers a need for a
<br />Special Permit; overnight accommodations, weddings, these parties, those kind of things currently
<br />require a Special Permit beyond that. But, yes, it could be done.
<br />
<br />Now, in regards to the question of how much to enforce, we’re, we’re again, there are certain laws
<br />in place, and unless we change those laws, we are kind of stuck to having to deal with those laws.
<br />Right now there’s, most of these, if not all of these, agricultural tourism operations are located
<br />within the State Land Use Agricultural district as well as the County Agricultural district. Before
<br />the County can issue a violation in the County’s Agricultural district, if the violation is in a State
<br />Land Use Agricultural district, there is a code, there is a law that states we have to send out a
<br />warning letter first, we have to give them 60 days to comply, and if they don’t comply, at that
<br />point we can issue a small fine, and then we can issue our notice and our fines apply. And so
<br />that’s why in our proposed language we made it more general so that we just have, we just utilize
<br />the enforcement procedures available.
<br />
<br />13
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|