Board keeps hearing open on Don Johnson zoning change to allow RV sales, service and storage; opponents warn of scale creep

Walla Walla County commissioners on Oct. 21 kept the public hearing open for a zoning‑code text amendment (ZCA24‑1) that would modify the definition of livestock‑trailer sales and service in the AR‑10 zone to explicitly permit RV sales, storage and service as accessory uses. The board voted 3‑0 to accept further written comments until 4 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 23.

Community Development Director Lauren Prentice told the board the proposed amendment would not change the comprehensive plan; it would only alter the county development code to list RV sales, storage and service as accessory uses to an existing livestock‑trailer sales/service business where that primary use is permitted. Prentice emphasized the county’s accessory‑use standard: an accessory use must be subordinate to and incidental to the primary use, and staff, litigation and state review make the scale and definition of accessory uses important.

Applicant representatives said the amendment is narrow in scope and would apply only where livestock‑trailer sales/service is already permitted (largely a strip in the AR‑10 zone within a half‑mile of Highway 12). Planner Andrew Levins told commissioners the proposed change would help keep economic activity and tax revenue in the county by allowing an existing, long‑running Don Johnson Trailer Sales business to formalize occasional RV sales and to offer storage and service to local residents, rather than forcing customers to cross county lines.

Nicole Kallstrom and Gary Eichle of Don Johnson Trailer Sales described existing overlap between trailer and RV service work and said storage would use existing hard‑surface yard and infrastructure; the family said storage would represent a small portion of revenue and would be subordinate to the primary livestock‑trailer business. Gary Eichle provided business context and said Don Johnson’s revenues have increased in recent years.

Several employees, family members and customers testified in support, saying the company is a longstanding local employer and that on‑site service and storage fills a county need. Opponents, including nearby residents and a member of the public, warned RV storage is not an agricultural activity and could lead to “scale creep” — using the metaphor that allowing a small non‑agricultural accessory could be the “camel’s nose under the tent” that leads to larger non‑ag uses. The Department of Commerce was cited in staff materials as concurring that RV sales and service could be non‑agricultural accessory uses under the Growth Management Act, but that storage in particular raised policy questions about conversion of agricultural land and consistency with state rules.

Commissioners discussed whether accessory uses must themselves be agricultural in character or simply subordinate to an agricultural primary use. Staff noted that Growth Management Act rules limit conversion of farmland and that the county’s code currently lacks a numerical limit on accessory‑use footprint; commissioners asked whether a code amendment could separate service and storage components or specify size limits. No change to the code was adopted on Oct. 21.

Action taken: commissioners voted 3‑0 to keep the record open for written comments (in person or by email) until 4 p.m. Oct. 23. The board said it expected to review the record and may make a decision at a subsequent meeting (the board indicated a decision was likely on the following Monday).