2017-01-19 Leeward Exh A (Bill 227 Draft 2 re Agricultural Tourism)

Home

would be a big step there; at least at that point we know there is an operation in this location. We would have a certification that verifies that they have said they’ve met the standards and they understand in the process that if they don’t meet the standards, they are going to need a Use Permit or a Special Permit. This comes with a 100-dollar processing fee, and they would need to submit financial records and a daily visitor count record annually. And then, again, that section where the Director could conduct site inspections at any time prior to notification, and a section for enforcement of the violations. As mentioned, going through the bill the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send up an unfavorable recommendation with this bill, but is recommending that the County Council consider alternative language that the Planning Director is sending up. These are the reasons: The Planning Director is generally in favor of the direction of this 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. If there was minor changes that the Planning Director was suggested, we could send it up with a favorable with a request for minor changes, but the changes that the Planning Director is recommending are significant, so at that point we need to recommend unfavorable for this particular bill. And again, rather than send up a new bill we send up alternative language and allow the Council to be able to determine which way they would like to go as far as direction with the agricultural tourism ordinance. The Planning Director is offering alternative language and suggesting to simplify the process even more by deleting altogether the requirement for Plan Approval and to have all agricultural tourism operations be required to register one time instead of a yearly registration. The registry form 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, again, I think was Exhibit 6 in your background. Similar to the current permitting process, if an agricultural tourism operation goes beyond the limits of Section 25-4-15(d), 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 if a complaint is received and the Planning Department conducts a site inspection and observes the operation is operating beyond the limits of 25-4-15(d). These are some of the changes that the Planning Director is proposing. We agree with the change of the adding in the agricultural-based commercial operations but the taking out the reference to the agricultural education tours. We’ve added in a new definition so that people understand the definition of what an “agricultural-based commercial operation” actually is, as well as “agricultural products.” We’ve deleted in its entirety the Plan Approval section for agricultural tourism. And then in the Agricultural Tourism, we have also removed the requirement to provide evidence of the minimum 10,000 in verifiable gross sales, exclusive of any income from agricultural tourism activities or any other non-agricultural tourism \[sic\] activities for the year preceding the commencement of the agricultural tourism. We are suggesting instead of 10,000 as the maximum, we feel 15 \[000\] might be more appropriate. There might be a number of these agricultural tourism operations that are operating right around 10,000 or maybe a little more, which would require them to have to go through this, the Special Permit or Use Permit process. So 15,000 seemed a bit more reasonable. We would suggest keeping the hours of operations the 17 EXHIBIT A