Page 83 - Rural Tourism Report Washington County
P. 83
CHAPTER 4: RURAL TOURISM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Counties are required to adopt the provisions of Other provisions of SB 960:
SB 841 related to wineries in their entirety. It is • The regulations provide for different approvals
the consultants' understanding that Washington for discrete events, from a non-land-use
County plans to undertake a revision of its CDC license for a single event, to land use permits
to implement these provisions in 2016. The CDC’s for one event, two to six events, or seven to
special use standards for Wineries (Section 430- 18 events. Slightly different standards/criteria
145) do not yet include most of the accessory for approval are laid out for each, generally
event-related provisions of SB 841-B. Where such increasing as the number of events increases.
discrepancies exist, the County currently applies
state statute directly. » For an expedited single-event license [ORS
215.213(11)(b)], there are a set of clear and
As an alternative to winery-specific “agritourism” objective requirements meant to keep
provisions of ORS 215.452 and .453 as addressed in events/activities incidental/subordinate
Senate Bill 841-B, wineries could take advantage of to farm use: site size, limits to event
opportunities under provisions of the agritourism/ duration, number of participants, limits
commercial use regulations in ORS 215.213 on sound amplification, prohibition of
contained in SB 960, should the County adopt construction of permanent improvements
these. However, wineries must choose one or the related to the event, and compliance with
other of the regulatory options. Because SB 841- local health, safety and fire regulations.
B is more generous in its provision for secondary » Land use permits for a single event,
uses, it would appear that wineries eligible to take two to six events, or events that occur
advantage of ORS 215.452/-.453 would choose that more frequently (up to 18 in a calendar
alternative, but EFU and AF-20 wineries not defined year) or for a longer period of time, are
by 215.452 or .453 could benefit from County governed by ORS 215.213(11)(a)(c) and (d),
adoption of SB 960 provisions.
respectively, and require “impact findings”
Senate Bill 960 to be made. These sections provide
Adopted in 2011 and subsequently codified into ORS detailed and robust standards against
215.213, this legislation authorizes marginal lands which the proposal must be judged in
counties to allow on AF-20/EFU land, “agritourism the discretionary review process. Impact
and other commercial events or activities related to findings, as required by ORS 215.296,
and supportive of agriculture” that are “incidental and require an applicant to show that the
subordinate to existing farm use” [ORS 215.210(11)]. activity will not “(a) force a significant
Adoption is not mandatory. Rather, marginal lands change to accepted farm and forest
counties may opt to adopt these provisions in full, in practices on surrounding lands devoted
part, or not at all. Following completion of this study, to farm and forest use; or b) significantly
intended in part to gauge the level of community increase the cost of accepted farm and
interest and desired parameters for agritourism, forest practices on surrounding lands
Washington County plans to revisit potential adoption devoted to farm and forest use.”
of elements of SB 960.
WASHINGTON COUNTY RURAL TOURISM STUDY 79
