Planning commission recommends changes to agritourism overlay zone, backs Staley Farms application

The Washington City Planning Commission on March 19 recommended that the City Council consider amendments to the agritourism business overlay zone (Title 9-12-D) proposed by Staley Farms, forwarding the ordinance with changes that aim to preserve an agricultural character while easing some application requirements.

The commission voted to recommend approval of the applicant’s proposed revisions with specific edits: change “family activities” to “agricultural family activities,” delete the codified 30% land-coverage limit for agritourism uses while retaining the provision that the remaining acreage be maintained in a manner consistent with the farm’s primary agricultural uses and historic condition, and align acreage thresholds for wedding venues and family activities so they match. Commissioner Anderson moved for the recommendation; Commissioner Mitchell seconded. The motion passed on an affirmative vote from Commissioners Shield, Mitchell, Tupelo, Davis and Bullock; the item will go to City Council with a recommendation of approval.

Why it matters: The ordinance governs how working farms that host tourism and events — such as corn mazes, farm camps and wedding venues — are treated under the city’s zoning code. Supporters said the current code’s requirements have discouraged applications and that modern agritourism operators need flexibility; opponents and some commissioners urged guardrails to keep properties agricultural in practice.

Staff presentation and proposed changes Drew (planning staff) summarized the request from Staley Farms and walked the commission through the redlined changes in the proposed text of Title 9-12-D. Key staff-noted proposals included adding “wedding venue” and “family activities” to the permitted-use table, removing the code requirement that an agritourism operation show a minimum percentage (30%) of the property remain in active agricultural production, and removing the requirement that an applicant submit a development agreement with a zone change application. Drew also explained proposed site-development plan additions (setbacks, locations and dimensions of existing/proposed uses and access) and a suggested change to approval-process language.

Staff identified two principal concerns: the removal of the development-agreement requirement and the elimination of the codified acreage limit. Drew advised the commission that the city attorney had provided the editable document to the applicant and that the development-agreement language is often used for infrastructure commitments (roads, sewer) that typically do not apply to agritourism sites.

Public comment from Staley Family Farms Several Staley family representatives and farm operators spoke in support of the proposal during the public hearing. Mike Hage of Veil (Staley) Family Farms described the operation as a working farm that also provides educational and tourism experiences, saying, “we will always be a working farm. . . . To my wife’s dying breath, it’s gonna be Staley Family Farms.” Catherine Staley recounted the farm’s history and community programming, and Sherry Tate described long-running farm camps and school field trips that bring city children to the farm to learn about agriculture.

Speakers and commissioners debated how to define an agricultural “niche” in the code. Several commissioners and members of the public suggested alternatives to a rigid acreage percentage, including (a) tying the requirement to agricultural activity on the property, (b) defining “agricultural family activities” to emphasize farm-related programming, or (c) adjusting the numerical percentage to reflect modern agricultural practices such as greenhouses or vertical production. Drew told the commission that the existing code already requires demonstration of agricultural production for agritourism uses and that the 30% figure had been a particular hurdle for applicants.

Commission discussion and final recommendation Commissioners repeatedly expressed a desire to preserve the agricultural character of properties that use the overlay zone. Several suggested keeping a clear “teeth” in the code so a property could not be converted purely to commercial uses (concerts, rental fields) while using the agritourism label. After extended discussion and considering public comment, the commission’s motion instructed staff to forward the proposed ordinance to City Council with the edits described above — principally, convert “family activities” to “agricultural family activities,” remove the explicit 30% acreage cap but retain the sentence requiring that the remainder of the acreage be maintained consistent with the farm’s primary agricultural uses, and match acreage provisions for wedding venues and family activities.

Formal action The commission’s recommendation was made by motion of Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Individual recorded affirmatives during the final vote were Commissioners Shield, Mitchell, Tupelo, Davis and Bullock. The motion carried and the recommendation will be considered by City Council in a future meeting.

What remains unclear City staff and several commissioners asked City Council to consider the precise numerical threshold (if any) or alternative definitions that will best protect agricultural uses while making the overlay usable for property owners. The commission did not adopt a specific replacement percentage; it asked the council to consider the percentage or an activity-based metric and to clarify the definition of “reasonable” where that word was proposed to be added to approval conditions.

The matter will return to city officials with the planning commission’s formal recommendation and the redlined ordinance language.

Ending: The commission closed the public hearing after roughly an hour of testimony and debate and sent the item to City Council with the recorded recommendation and the public record from March 19.