Agritourism code changes will be a multi-year process

Nearly 1,400 individuals and organizations from inside and outside Skagit County submitted comments on proposed changes to county code regarding agritourism last summer.

During its Oct. 10 meeting, the Skagit County Planning Commission reviewed 1,367 written and oral comments (493 from people who do not live in Skagit County, 36% of total) and discussed next steps of the process.

Twenty five comments supported the county’s Agricultural Advisory Board’s recommendation to clarify existing restrictive code rather than open new allowances or new uses for agritourism. Among the clarifications: event businesses that go forward in Agricultural-Natural Resource Lands are intermittent and cannot operate as full-time event centers.

Friends of Skagit County submitted the most comprehensive comments in support of the AAB’s proposal.

“Non-farm accessory uses threaten farming and farmland in Skagit County,” said Ellen Bynum of FSC in nine pages of line-by-line explication of county code and the Growth Management Act. “It’s the responsibility of [Commissioners] to explain to the public how the code was written to conserve farmland and how it continues to do so .... the code is complicated and yes, the GMA and Comprehensive Plan (which reflects the local planning policies and decisions of the people of Skagit) was written 30 years ago, but this is the current law under which we operate.”

Save Skagit Venues provided 973 comments (342 out-of-county) and 57 others opposed the AAB’s changes and touted the economic benefits of existing venues.

Listed in the “opposed” category are the 5,641 people who signed the online Save Skagit Venues petition, 3,507 of them from outside the county.

Thirty six comments expressed multiple viewpoints. While Jenn Smith of S&B Farms wants to see existing code enforced, she would like to “allow some venues to operate if they meet specific criteria for permits.”

“Skagit County should be encouraging and supporting all farm operations, large, small and everything in between,” she noted.

Smith and 39 others asked the county to take more time to engage stakeholders and find ways to help businesses coexist. “These issues will affect generations to come” and “the volume of comments indicates that this proposal misses the mark,” were among comments Senior Planner Sarah Ruether summarized during the meeting.

Chris Dariotis of La Conner Gardens on Chilberg Road was among them. The proposed changes discourage rather than attract customers, he said and would prohibit activities like farm to table dinners, which he would like to host.

Those changes will “significantly diminish the value of my property and my ability to obtain the income required to maintain my property and to continue to live on it,” he said.

Dariotis was among many at the July 25 public hearing who expressed surprise that the results of the January 2021 public survey conducted by BERK Consulting seemed to have been set aside. Many of its 600 responses supported expanding agritourism activities.

Commissioner Joe Woodmansee wanted to know why that was during the October 10 meeting. “[It] just struck me like we’re just writing off all this effort and like it has, you know, very little meaning to the process. And it was quite a bit of effort and it cost a few dollars.”

“It was not statistical,” replied Ruether, hired after the survey was conducted. She said the “planneresque” survey was a tool for public outreach, meant to raise awareness and start the conversation.

The Skagit Agritourism Stakeholder Group’s four-page counterproposal was developed collaboratively by 15 groups, including Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland, Christianson’s Nursery, Gordon Skagit Farms and the county Farm and Tourism bureaus.

It would add new definitions for agritourism and farm event venues to county code and make agritourism a permissible agricultural accessory use. It recommends a permitting process for large event venues and a path for small farms to offer on-farm classes, workshops and training without a permit.

Ruether clarified that because the counterproposal entails making changes to the County’s comprehensive plan, it must be submitted to the annual docket, through which Skagit County accepts petitions for amendments or revisions to its plan. The 2024 docket deadline has passed.

In other words, this proposal and any other alternative to the Agricultural Advisory Board proposal now on the table, would not be considered until 2025.

Meanwhile, planning commissioners “would move forward with what’s already been proposed or minor changes to that,” said Ruether.

Woodmansee replied that he was “having a hard time grasping the fact that we’ve got everybody at the table now, the discussion’s happening and that we would actually finish one that a lot of people are unhappy with and then ... start the process over again next year. That doesn’t make sense.”

It may not, but making policy “is an iterative process” that takes place in small steps, Ruether explained. “It’s something that’s always refined and changed so that’s why we make changes to our code and comprehensive plan every year. It’s not written in stone ... . Things come up time and time again ... . It’s just the nature of the beast.”

Commissioner Kathy Mitchell confirmed that the county must abide by state regulations and deadlines when making changes to its comprehensive plan.

“If I was one of these people, I would say, you know, well, we’re too late to the party so we’re going to have to start this process all over again if we want these thoughts to be entertained,” said Woodmansee.

The planning commissioners will meet December 12 for deliberations on the proposal.