Commissioners debate 15% cap and 2‑acre limit for non‑ag accessory uses on farms

Planning staff presented proposed comprehensive plan language that would allow ‘‘non‑ag accessory’’ uses on agricultural parcels up to 15% of net property acres, not to exceed 2 acres in total, a sliding‑scale approach modeled on other counties. "So the idea was to take this and apply under the policy, 15% of net property acreage not to exceed 2 acres in total," staff said during the meeting.

Commissioners split on whether the sliding 15% cap or a fixed maximum would better protect small farms. One commissioner said the 15% rule could allow a 14‑acre farm to convert 2 acres to non‑ag use and called that "too high," adding, "2 acres out of that is a large amount." Other commissioners said 2 acres would be overly restrictive for large, established agritourism operations such as Finn River and noted the state RCW treats many farm‑adjacent commercial activities as agricultural accessory uses.

Several commissioners urged the commission to resolve definitional inconsistencies before adopting numeric caps. Staff acknowledged overlap between county code and the state RCW and recommended clarifying what the county will treat as "ag accessory" versus "non‑ag accessory" before finalizing acreage limits. Staff proposed beginning with consistent definitions in the comprehensive plan and later translating them into the zoning code.

Discussion also covered enforcement and practical effects: commissioners warned that without clear definitions and enforcement capacity, non‑ag uses could proliferate on small parcels and be grandfathered in. One commissioner urged a deeper review of accessory‑use definitions and suggested postponing numeric limits until the county aligns its code with state language.

Next steps: staff said they would draft clarified definitions and options for how percentage and top‑end limits could apply, and return the item for further consideration. No formal motion or vote was taken on a numeric cap at this meeting.