Jefferson County council members pushed planning staff to clarify how the draft master plan classifies agriculture on the land-use chart on page 36, saying the chart appears to show agriculture as a primary use only in rural areas even though planning-and-zoning discussion indicated agriculture is allowed countywide.

The issue arose when Councilman Tulloch and other council members reviewed a map and a table intended to depict “primary,” “secondary” or “conditional” uses by area type. Councilman Tulloch said comments at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting described agriculture as “allowed anywhere,” and asked why the chart did not reflect agriculture as a primary use in suburban and urban areas as well.

Councilman Brown said the chart “only reflects primary only in the rural area,” and asked whether the county should mark agriculture as primary in suburban and possibly urban areas. Tulloch asked that the suburban column be changed to show agriculture as a primary use in at least some sub-areas; he suggested selectively marking letters or zones (for example D, E and G) where farm activity is prevalent.

Council members debated whether agriculture should be designated primary in all suburban areas or selectively by planning sub-area. Tim (council member) said he could “potentially see it maybe as a primary in the suburban area” but expressed reservations about applying a blanket designation in urban zones where residential uses predominate. Councilman Brown recommended flagging the discrepancy and sending the question to Department of County Services and the staff who prepared the plan so consultants can explain why the chart and the Planning and Zoning discussion appear inconsistent.

The council did not change the plan at the work session; instead members agreed to mark the chart as a question for the planning department and to ask consultants to provide the data and rationale used to place nodes and to explain the primary/secondary designation in each area.

Council members noted the change is intended as a clarification request, not a policy decision; they asked staff to return with justification if the current charting is intentional.

The matter will be included in the packet of questions the council forwards to the Department of County Services and plan consultants for answer prior to the next review.