Page 95 - Rural Tourism Report Washington County

CHAPTER 4: RURAL TOURISM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

these areas as exception lands. For example, a new Considerations for rural tourism in R-IND and MAE.
standard for an RR-5 site might be that the use is Allowable rural tourism uses are quite limited
related to and supportive of agricultural operations in both the R-IND or MAE, which are designed

in the surrounding area. primarily to serve the industrial needs of the
agricultural and forest industries. Specifically, the
Considerations for rural tourism in R-COM areas. intent of the R-IND zone is “...to provide areas for

In general, inns, rural restaurants, or tasting rooms industrial uses outside the Urban Growth Boundary
in non-farm districts may support nearby rural where an exception to Goals 3 or 4 has been taken
tourism uses on resource lands without displacing and where a full range of urban services will not be
high-value farmland. Potential to allow small inns required,” and the intent of the MAE zone is “...to
on R-COM sites, with slight amendments to the provide lands for land extensive industrial uses in
CDC, could do the same. Uses that cater to visitors the rural areas of the County...” However, under the
from outside the immediate community may not appropriate circumstances, allowed uses such as
meet the intent of the district, however, “...to zipline parks, filbert, hops, or marijuana processing
meet convenience goods and service needs of rural and related education and tours, may provide rural

residents while protecting the historic character tourism options that take pressure off farmland,
of rural centers and the agricultural or forestry even while serving as a draw to other attractions in
character of the area.” Reinforcing this intent, the the area.
approval criteria for a Type II permit in Section 352-
3.2 suggest that rural tourism or related commercial Considerations for Community Development
uses in the R-COM district must support the needs Code (CDC) Revision
of the rural residents, be small in size, rural in Following are some preliminary considerations

character, not require urban services, be limited to related to the modification of the CDC:
basic convenience and service needs of the rural • In 2014, County staff researched potential
and natural resource community, and not cause implementation of ORS 215 as amended by
adverse impacts on surrounding farm and forest SB 960’s agritourism provisions. The County
activities. On the other hand, the County currently undertook an outreach effort, including
does allow wine tasting/sales and restaurants/bars participation by a work group of interested
in the R-COM zone that serve both the immediate parties and briefings with the Planning
rural community and visitors. To promote more Commission and Board of Commissioners.
rural tourism in non-farm areas, the County could Staff prepared its Long-Range Planning

consider modifying the R-COM intent statement and Issue Paper No. 2014-12 (1/31/14) and began
approval criteria to recognize the broader user base development of potential revisions to the
that appears to be a current reality.
CDC. The effort would have codified most of
the regulations in SB960/ORS 215.213 for
the EFU and AF-20 districts, and established
standards for review of applications.

WASHINGTON COUNTY RURAL TOURISM STUDY 91