Page 94 - Rural Tourism Report Washington County

CHAPTER 4: RURAL TOURISM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

that the proposed use at the proposed location Considerations for rural tourism in AF-5 and
will not adversely affect nor raise the cost of AF-10 areas.
operation of farm/forest operations. Type III uses In some ways, allowing rural tourism activities in

include campgrounds, golf courses, and living the AF-10- and AF-5-designated properties is likely
history museums. The requirements for Type III to be less invasive than on resource lands. Since,
special permits are even more stringent, requiring by definition, such properties are not high-value
compliance with the Type II approval criteria plus farmland, there may potentially be fewer impacts on
demonstration that the use will not interfere with farm/forest operations. However, because parcels
“accepted farming practices” on adjacent properties are generally smaller, especially in the AF-5 district,
as defined by ORS 215 or “materially alter the stability the potential for spill-over impacts on neighboring
of the overall land use pattern in the area.” properties, particularly rural residences, is more
likely, and the cumulative impacts on public facilities
Since the County has already “dipped its toe” into such as roads and water systems may be greater.
allowing some rural tourism and associated uses Moreover, such areas are often islands within
in the EFU and AF-20 zones, the question becomes EFU, EFC, and AF-20 areas and, therefore, may

under what circumstance and with what kind of potentially impose adverse impacts on farm/forest
restrictions might other such uses be allowed. By use. Although allowing an appropriate list of such
establishing clear and objective quantitative limits uses is consistent with intent of the districts, (i.e. “...
including size, frequency, and impact management, to retain an area’s rural character and conserve the
the County can permit an appropriate list of rural natural resources while providing for rural residential
tourism uses that are consistent with the intent of use in areas so designated by the Comprehensive
the two districts (i.e. “….to preserve and maintain Plan...”), impact management becomes an important

commercial agricultural land within the county…”). regulatory tool.

Consideration for rural tourism in the EFC district. Considerations for rural tourism in RR-5 areas.
Since exclusive forest districts are governed by As with AF-5 and AF-10 properties, rural tourism

Statewide Planning Goal 4 and related statutes activities conducted in the RR-5 district could
and administrative rules, the provisions of SB 960 create more potential for spill-over impacts
regarding agritourism do not apply. However, on neighboring properties, particularly rural
within the intent of the EFC zone, “...to provide for residences, and the cumulative impacts on public
forest uses and… for the continued use of lands for facilities such as roads and water systems may be
renewable forest resource production…”, there may greater. This may be why wineries are Type III uses
be a limited number of low-impact rural tourism in the AF-10, AF-5 and RR-5 districts. On the other
uses such as u-cut tree operations and recreation hand, because the requirements of SB 960 pertain
uses that are compatible with forest operations, only to the EFU and AF-20 designations, any use of

subject to appropriate impact mitigation. similar standards in other land use districts could be
adjusted by the County consistent with the status of

90 WASHINGTON COUNTY RURAL TOURISM STUDY