Council tables proposed agritourism dairy ordinance amid questions about animal-unit limits

The Kamas City Council on April 14 tabled a proposed ordinance to add a new agritourism dairy definition and allow dairy-related tourism uses while asking staff and the planning commission to return with clarified animal-unit limits and acreage calculations.

Jill, city planning staff, explained the planning commission’s recommendation to allow an "agritourism dairy" in the agri‑tourism zone and to add dairy as a permitted use in the A40 zone. The draft definition described an operation where dairy animals are maintained for milk production and a significant portion of income comes from direct‑to‑consumer sales, on‑farm processing, education or agritourism activities. The staff packet listed illustrative caps—10 mature dairy cattle, 20 sheep or goats, and 20 other milk‑producing animals—based on options discussed with university and extension advisors.

Council discussion focused on whether to keep fixed numeric caps or to align limits with the city’s existing animal‑unit/point system used elsewhere in the municipal code. The city attorney recommended adding a clarifying provision that the ordinance should not be construed to prevent qualifying for the Utah Farmland Assessment Act (green belt), to avoid unintended tax consequences for property owners. Several councilmembers expressed concern that the draft numbers were ambiguous (for example, the category “other milk‑producing animals” could include species such as buffalo or camels) and wanted a consistent, acreage‑based point system applied to maintain predictability across zones.

Daniel, the applicant for the proposal (Ballerina Farms), described the plan as a small‑scale sheep dairy intended to produce and process sheep’s‑milk feta for on‑farm sales and educational visits, not a high‑density commercial dairy. He said the applicant’s site plan anticipates concentrating tourist activities into developed activity centers while preserving the majority of acreage in agricultural production.

After prolonged debate, a motion to table the ordinance to the next council meeting (April 28) passed. Roll call recorded Lesie yes, David yes, Monica no, Mike yes; Larry was recorded as abstaining because he had earlier recused himself for a financial relationship with Ballerina Farms. The council asked staff to return with recommendations that tie allowable animals to the municipal code’s animal‑unit/point system, clarify whether animal units are calculated on gross acreage or only on agricultural acreage outside activity centers, and include the attorney’s green‑belt clarifying language.

The tabling preserves the applicant’s ability to refine the proposal while requiring additional analysis and clearer numeric standards before any ordinance is adopted or amended.