I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to order the April 24th, 2025 transportation and land use committee special meeting. This room has a hearing loop. If you need hearing assistance, switch your hearing aids to teleglow mode. If you need a headset, we have those available as well. Please see the clerk to request them. For this special meeting committee members, we'll be allowed two minutes each for questions. And we will first address the action item on tonight's agenda. So I have staff here. I think Mr. Wilson will start us off with a presentation and then we'll start with then we'll go to questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Tachroni. We are here to discuss the Western Loud and Rural and standards. Meeting tonight, however before we get into the stakeholder meeting, we did have the one action item that we wanted to have addressed. Looking at the schedule, obviously there's seven stakeholder meetings planned for this project. At this time, we have established dates for future meetings number 4, 5 and 6, being June 18th for wineries, limited breweries and limited distilleries, September 30th for the mountain side overlay district and signage, and November 5th for food trucks, food service, and rural restaurants. we would ask that the Tee-Lock recommend those dates to the board for official adoption into the calendar. Thank you. Some of these meetings are going to be, some of them are going to be able to be like tonight, right? 330, some action items and then five o'clock, the rural uses. Yes. Okay. The first meeting, the June 18th. The June 18th meeting, there's the regular T-Luck meeting, then the Western Loud and T-Luck meeting. The September and November meeting are standalone meetings, I believe. believe Okay, September all right any any discussion on the schedule Okay, so do I do I need to make a motion or can we just yes, please? Okay, so I'd like to make a motion to adopt the calendar For the remainder of the year for T-Luck. Second. Okay. Okay. All those in favour? Please say aye. Oh, what, what, what, what? Discussion on the motion. Chair, I'm just using me. Discussion on the motion. Okay. All those in favour? Please say aye. All right. Okay. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes 520. Thank you very much for that. And now we're going to go into our item for tonight. The Western Loudoun. Thank you, Madam Chair. As stated previously, this is the Western Loudoun rule uses and or meaning number three. Tonight we are going to be focusing on agritors and agritainment lodging uses, conservation, easement, density issue, as well as an issue regarding saw mills and the location of agricultural structures when they're nonconforming the opportunity for them to be rebuilt. This is the third meeting. The first two meetings were held. The first one being in November of 2024, second meeting in January. Last meeting we discussed to agricultural processing as well as various lodging issues related to farm housing. And essentially this is a continuation of the issues that we had adopted in the original project plan. The third meeting tonight is going to entail several issues that may lead into other issues in the future. So I would like to point out to T-Lock that we want to stay on track. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss these specific items regarding the agritamin, agritourism, bed and breakfast consistency, definitions, saw mills and conservation, easement density, but things like definitions, as well as the lodging discussion, as well as events, may have ramifications going forward for some of the other discussions. So we wanna make sure that, we do recognize that that occurs. We can staff as taking notes and we're going to ensure that we keep these discussions consistent. And the issues heard tonight will be logged for the future future discussions. So even though there aren't overlapping issues, we want to make sure that everybody stays focused on a topic tonight. We will revisit any of those issues that are relevant to the future meetings at that time. With that, I would like to turn it over to Dave Siongenberg, who will talk about some of these zoning ordinance standards that we are going to be discussing tonight that are relevant to the topics on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. So as with the previous meetings, I'm going to cover some sections that I've been identified to be the most relevant in regarding the concerns and issues that were raised forward to staff, and ultimately they'll serve as the focus for any revisions made to the zoning ordinance. So I'll provide a brief overview of each section, and of course more detailed information can be found in the staff report and within the zoning ordinance. So the specific sections that we'll be looking at tonight are chapter one, the introduction section to the zoning ordinance but more specifically we'll be focusing on section one, oh three, oh three for nonconforming structures. So currently replacement repairs, restoration and maintenance made to a nonconforming structure except for structures within the floodplain overlay district may be made if a legally nonconforming mobile or manufactured home removed by the owner for the purpose of replacing it with a comparable manufactured home or if the structure is damaged or destroyed by a casualty or event beyond the owner's reasonable control and if the degree of nonconformity is not increased and if permits are obtained and construction is completed within two years of the removal of the or destructive event. with an additional two years granted, if the destruction was due to a federally declared disaster. So a replacement structure must occupy the same footprint of the replaced damaged or destroyed nonconforming structure unless the new footprint complies with the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. And the replacement and of nonconforming structure cannot include increased floor area either through expanded footprint or additional height or stories. The zoning ordinance currently allows for the removal of a nonconforming status of a structure through board approval of a special exception. Chapter two zoning districts and more specifically the dimensional standards for the cluster subdivision option in the AR1 and AR2 zoning districts are also relevant for today's discussion. The density requirements for the cluster subdivision option in the AR1 zoning district include a maximum lot yield of one lot per five acres and an original in tract with a minimum of 20 acres required prior to development. And the density requirements for the cluster subdivision option in the AR2's undisturbed include a maximum lot yield of one lot per 15 acres and an originating track with a minimum of 40 acres required prior to development. We'll also be looking at the use specific standards for in chapter four for bed and breakfast home stay bed and breakfast home stay, bed and breakfast in country in row resort, row resort and cultural tourism and agricultural support uses which are listed on the following slide. So the use specific standards for the lodging uses in section 40301 include maximum daily attendees, private parties, hours of operation, landscaping, buffering and screening, setbacks, number of guest rooms, food service, exterior lighting, noise, and roads and access. The use specific standards within the cultural tourism section focus on the scale of the use, which will limit the number of vehicles allowed on site and also requires a minimum lot area depending on the scale of the use. Additional use specific standards for cultural tourism include maximum structure size, set backs, and hours of operation. The use specific standards for agricultural support uses with direct association with on-site agricultural activity focus on the scale of the use, which again limits the number of vehicles allowed on site and requires a minimum lot area depending on the scale of the use. Additional use, additionally the different scales of the use limit the maximum structure size of all structures on the site, storage areas and setbacks, and additional use specific standards include hours of operation, landscaping, buffering and screening, roads and access, and exterior lighting. And lastly, the chapter 12 definitions. So the cluster subdivision option, originating track, bonafide agriculture and agriculture are all relevant terms for the purposes of this discussion. But I do want to point out that we, a lot of our discussion will be focused on the cultural tourism and the agritainment and also agritourism. And to define those terms, cultural tourism is defined as the land area used for visitation, for cultural natural or agricultural education. The cultural tourism definition also includes a definition for agritourism or farm based tourism, which is defined as a commercial enterprise that links agricultural products and or processing with tourism in order to attract visitors to a farm, ranch, or other agricultural business for the purpose of entertaining and or educating the visitors and generating income for the farm, ranch, and or business. And lastly, agriculture, I mean, agritainment, which is defined as events and activities that allow for recreation, entertainment, and tourism that are in conjunction with ongoing agricultural activities and on-site, and that includes like corn mases and hayrides. And with that, I'm gonna turn things back to Brian. Thank you, Dave. Just to give you a brief summary of the issues tonight, we will dive a little more deeper into these when we get onto the floor and have our roundtable discussion. But looking at the general issues, the main issue for the agritainment and agritourism discussion tonight will be, you know, the staff has found that there's truly not a large distinction between what is agritainment and what is agritourism. However, agritourism is regulated by the cultural tourism requirements in section 4.0510. And the agritainment use is regulated by the agricultural support uses in section 4.0803. So essentially the discussion in the debate we wanna have is should these uses be separate? Should they be combined? What is the difference between agritainment and agriturism? Should they be two different uses? Maybe they could be one. We'll let everybody have a discussion on that and provide us with some direction. The next issue would be regarding consistency between the different bed and breakfast type uses, bed and breakfast home stay, bed and breakfast in, country and in rural resort. Obviously those four distinctions exist due to the different scale of those uses. However, some of the regulations associated with those uses are different. We want to have a discussion. Do we essentially believe that the distinctions are appropriate or if there should be more consistency between the different requirements We're gonna look at things such as the noise standards related to outdoor music Permanent number of guest rooms the yards the maximum number of attendees for a party allowed on a daily basis and the number of times per year That parties may exceed maximum daily attendees, aka events. So in addition to that, we did have, we will add to the discussion a talk regarding country ends and the number of buildings that are in existence on those sites if we would allow for multiple buildings to be on that site Which is what the current ordinance allows or if you would like to further restrict the number of buildings that are permitted to be Constructed for the country and use Moving on to the next issue which is fairly straightforward the question in front of us tonight will be an issue of the sawmill. Should it be moved from special exception, where it is located right now to a minor special exception, essentially, reducing the amount of time it takes to get a sawmill approved, as well as decreasing the fees associated with a Somal. The next discussion will center around definitions. The driver, I would say, would be the question on should we have a definition for a farm? We will have that discussion tonight. If everybody feels we should have a definition for farm. The hope is that we would discuss that at the seventh meeting. If the decision is that we do not have a definition for farm, that's something that we could leave. County Attorney's Office has provided a, what they feel is a good solution, compromised to this issue. We will discuss that and that would include adding a definition for agricultural product, as well as a new definition that would include agricultural operations. So that is, we'll get further into that when we get on the floor to discuss the issue as a whole. But I'd also like to say the definition discussion as a whole, you know, is a robust one and there's quite a quite a number of issues that go into that. We are going to have another discussion on definitions at the next meeting regarding farm farm wineries, limited breweries and distilleries, where definitions will also be discussed. So I want everybody to keep that in mind, because the discussion as a whole for all of this, is they're all going to impact each other, and we need to just keep that in the back of our mind as we're having this conversation. The next question regarding agricultural structures is associated with the non-conforming issues. The question that we've raised is if you have a nonconforming agricultural structure and you would like it to not be nonconforming, it requires a special exception approval from the board. That is somewhat cumbersome if you were, say, rebuilding a structure that was damaged due to natural disaster or whatever. and you didn't want it to be non-conforming, which could have impacts based on your financing, things like that. So the first question is, do we still want to require someone rebuilding an agricultural structure to go to the board for that special exception to have it removed from the nonconforming list. In addition, we want to have a discussion about the existing nonconforming ordinance which requires the structure to be damaged or destroyed by an act of God for it to be rebuilt in the non-conforming location as long as you don't exceed the existing footprint. If you wanted to tear your structure down just to replace it, that would not be permitted if it did not meet all of the terms of the zoning ordinance. So that's essentially the other question that we need to have answered tonight. The final issue tonight is in relation to a discussion that was had during the Primag Soils project and was passed on to us to solve the issue and the question essentially is should land in a conservation easement be allowed to be counted towards somebody looking to get additional density for a cluster subdivision? With that, I will turn it back over to you, Madame Chair, and that's all we have at the moment. Thank you. Sorry about that. We'll go to questions and then I'll outline how we're gonna run the rest of the meeting because I didn't outline that. So I'll outline it after we do questions. So are there any questions based on the information that was presented by SPAP? Thank you so much. That was very thorough and Chair Randall. Thank you. Thank you, Memphier. When we discuss whether or not what uses will, whether we will collapse the use for bed and breakfast and country and and all those things, can one thing that we consider be how far any one of those might be from the nearest home? In other words, for me, it's, you know, whether or not those uses are not, you know, how many haven't even say have per year, how many people they have. Those things can be all, they can be all the same. That doesn't bother me at all. My issue is always going to be how close they are to the nearest home. And that's not one of your criteria that you're looking at down here. Can we add that as a criteria if we choose to put them, give them all the same use? That make any sense? Yes, I mean we can add, we do have the setback discussion, but yes, we can be more specific regarding the location in relation to a residential structure. Okay, all right, thank you. Thanks, Chair Randall, a supervisor, Kirchner. Thank you, and thank you, staff for all the hard work. Based upon, I think we're headed in the right direction, given my personal opinion. I know everyone has a different opinion. Given my previous meetings with staff and my discussions with my colleagues and whatnot. And I think one thing I just wanted to say kind of off the bat, as I said at the very beginning, is as we go through this, obviously the devil in the details, and I would appreciate staff's attention if at any point, because I think we want to continue to be pro agriculture, pro business that we currently are promoting in Western Loudon. And obviously there have been ongoing issues with the zoning ordinance. So as much as we don't want to get a rye of that, and I think the direction that we've had, we're doing a pretty good job. The only other thing I wanted to say, which is a little off topic, what you discussed, and I'm just going to say it upfront. so I don't have to say it later. There was a situation that arose with my, where there was apparently from staff, there came an objection to one of an individual who has a zoning issue that's been arising with the staff. And it was told to those who want to select him that because he had the zoning issue, he could not participate or should not participate in the Speedy. I don't know. I ran that by the county attorney. The county attorney said no, it's perfectly fine. So I hope in the future that if there are those decisions or determinations or suggestions being made by staff on whether a person should or should not participate in this process, just because they have a zoning issue or whatever, maybe that that is run by the county attorney's office to make sure that's not an issue. So I don't want to throw anybody other buss, I don't know who did it. I don't even know if it's anybody in the room, but it was a little disappointing because that person should be participating tonight, but because they were told they can't, other people were and once I clearly it was too late, so thank you appreciate all the work you're doing. Okay, thank you supervisor Kirschner, so to follow up on what Chair Randall said, I do want to just add one of the strategies that I think was missing in our staff report. It's rural economy, RPA strategy 3, or policy 3 strategy 3.1, which is about ensuring the compatibility of rural uses through the evaluation of the scale, use, intensity, and design of development proposals in comparison with adjacent uses. So I think that gets to what are the impacts to the adjacent parcel. And I think that is an important consideration as we review the uses. Some of the supporting actions are to address traffic capacity, safe and adequate road access, site design standards, and public health safety and welfare, and to look to see if it's compatible in scale use and intensity with the surrounding environment, and also, you know, if it poses no threat to public health safety and welfare. So that one is part of our, is in our comprehensive plan, the 2019 Complan comp plan and again it's strategy 3.1 in our rural economy policies as part of policy three that just has us look at adjacent parcels and the impact on adjacent parcels. So with that I will go through the remainder of tonight's meeting how it's's gonna flow, and I just wanna thank everybody for participating. Your voice matters, that's why you guys are stakeholders. So my role is just gonna be to moderate, to make sure I ask questions and to get your feedback. Because again, you guys are out in the rural policy area, you know the issue's really well and so I look forward to hearing from you tonight. So what we will do is I will call upon the invited stakeholders, including planning commission members to provide comments and you each get three minutes. And then we will take a ten minute break'll return to a committee to when we return the committee and invited stakeholders and we'll move to the tables right in front of you for a committee of the whole. Then we will go through the seven issue topics that staff has detailed in the item. Some topics will probably take us a little more time like lodging and some we may be able to skip like the sawmill. So we'll see how that goes. And then following the seven issue topics, we will take a 10 minute break. Well, I'm just saying. We will take a 10 minute break prior to a wrap-up session. and then staff will provide a three minute introduction to the wrap-up session and then staff will provide a three-minute introduction to the wrap-up session and note any outstanding issues. And if needed, there'll be another 20-minute committee of the whole. So we'll see if that's needed. But for now, I am going to hear from the invited stakeholders. All speakers will have three minutes to address the committee whether speaking as an individual or a representation of any group or organization. When you are speaking please address the committee, not the audience. Those addressing the committee are asked to maintain decor while speaking and while listening to others public comments. So we'll start with the agricultural conservation representatives. And we'll start with the agricultural conservation representatives and we'll start with Mr. Chris VanVlak. So if you could come up to the podium, thank you, Chris. Having us again. I'm going to focus on a couple of the pantheon of topics we have because we've got lots of folks that are educated on other things. As a farmer and a conservationist who works with landowners to voluntarily implement environmental practices on their properties, I want to speak tonight on a zoning topic that I feel like should be a fairly open and shut case. And that's when it comes to conservation easements, although the details of each easement are unique. The agreement comes down between a landowner and the easement holder, the basic tradeoff of tax credits in exchange for future development rights and subdivision rights on a given parcel. If either of these components is removed, the easement sort of has no purpose and it falls apart. We recently saw a proposal that presented to the county where a development rights from a property that was already an easement with those rights extinguished was somehow reborn and used to increase the density on a neighboring parcel where the number of houses allowed on the adjacent parcel after a boundary line adjustment would have contained all the development rights from the property that was eased. How this is legal in state code, not clear to me, but what is clear is that the loud and zoning ordinance shouldn't allow this practice as it completely undermines the trade off that you get when you have a system of conservation easements. If we as a community support the idea that farming in green spaces have a future in loud and the board of supervisors who have supported easements as one of the tools to protect those resources, we shouldn't be allowing land and conservation easement to increase the density on a neighboring parcel that's not an easement. One of the other topics that we're looking at this evening is the definition of farm and of agricultural operation. The county staff has been working on a solution to ensure that legitimately generally accepted ag practices are protected in the zoning ordinance while also ensuring that the ag exemptions are not used for clearing mountainside steep slopes, fretting filder, and wetlands, floodplains. There's a vast difference between installing a water line for livestock watering trough, or building a livestock, or deer fencing, or disking, or crop field prior to planting, and conversely, clearing a mountainside of steep slopes to get a better view out the back of a house. And unfortunately, the allowances for normal ag activities have been abused by people to get around the permitting process for those development activities. And those people are generally directed to us at the Solemn Water Conservation District to obtain a farm plan for these activities, which have no realistic association with farming or certainly not with conservation. So I would ask however we choose to address this issue whether it's through a definition of farm or focusing more tightly in on ag operation and ag product that we allow those allowances for normal you know ag and conservation practices while not also just basically allowing a get out of jail free card for the exact reason those environmental protections the district is not a regular to . So ag and conservation practices, well not also just basically allowing a get out of jail free card for the exact reason those environmental protections are in place. The district is not a regulatory body and our mission is to assist folks with conservation programs and best practices so we cannot professionally and good conscience write a conservation plan to cover things that run counter to that task. Out of time. Yeah. Thank you. We'll go out time at the table. Yeah, all right. All right, thank you. All right, Sarah Brown is next. All right, thank you, board and staff. I am here this evening to talk a little bit about some of the lodging issues that we're going to discuss. I'm Sarah Brown. I run Oakland Green Farm, Bed and Breakfast. Now, my late mother opened the Bed and Breakfast in the 1980s. We sort of forged the path for what we have in place and how it has evolved. We started as a two room, one and a half room, B and B, and she cooked breakfast and was charming and made conversation and used the nice dishes. And we've evolved into a couple of different ways. We started, she started doing weddings in the 90s when that started becoming a thing and continued in the 2000s and the 2010s. Since COVID, frankly, it hasn't been my personal focus, but I'm here to share some of our experiences and some of the pitfalls that we experienced through the evolution of our our definitions and our uses in our zoning processes. The guiding principles that when I think about this issue, and I consider myself a hospitality professional, I like to call myself aggressively hospitable. I I really think that and as a guest sometimes myself, I think that one of the things we need to consider most prominently is the safety of our guests. The people who are coming to our county either to stay over and I order to visit and enjoy some of the things we have, they should be able to do it safely. They should do it under the assumption that they're doing it safely. And next, but I mean, these are not in no particular order, the community, the community that is next door, the community that's on the way there, the environment that's next door, the natural resources that are next door, that are on the way there, and our public infrastructure. It is, I live, I have a weird situation in the sense that our farm is on a one-lane dirt road. And when I have 150 people to a wedding, there's an impact, even if it's just once. My neighbor's notice, there's extra dust, there's extra noise. And so I want to be a good neighbor, and I also want to be aggressively hospitable. So those are the few guiding principles that I'll be diving a little bit deeper into in our next part of our conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next is Molly Croix. I run a farm in Love It's Hill with my husband. And so today I'm here to speak as a farmer in Loudon about agritourism and the definition of a farm if we choose to adopt one of those. We live in a county that has some of the best soil in the country and a history of innovative farming and because of all the residential development over the past decades we're also situated uniquely in a way that allows us a lot of opportunity in terms of agritourism. And by bringing people out to our farm, we can connect and educate people about their food and how it's produced as well as increased sales of our farm products and connect populations in parts of the county that maybe wouldn't realize that farms have a value to them, which is really important, I think, in a place like Loudon. And it's been a wonderful revenue source for our business, and I strongly believe that it's a way to support farms in Loudon, both directly and indirectly. But I think it's very important to continue, as we have this discussion about zoning definitions and policies, to continue to support those operations being agriculture first and tourism second. There's a very big difference in terms of the impact on the neighbors and the environment and the roads between a working farm that opens its doors up to people at some time of the year or in small numbers and, you know, a purely tourism operation that has hundreds of cars and tons of people with no real working agriculture involved. Another topic under consideration today is the definition of a farm. I think, my opinion is that farms are extremely hard to define as they vary so widely in size scope products and structures. There's really no one size fit all and I think that's especially true in Loudon where there's a wide range of farm operations and in particular some that maybe wouldn't strike people as a traditional farm I think when the general populist thinks of a farm they think of acres of soybeans and corn or hundreds of cows in a field but you can have a very profitable market vegetable operation on just a couple of acres. So I think it's hard to define a farm and I think we, Loudon has historically been a very innovative farming community and I would encourage us to think very carefully about putting restrictions in place in terms of the definition of a farm. Just because I think we run the risk of, you risk of not allowing things in the future that might be good innovative ways for people to continue farming and loud and. Thank you very much. Next is from the business tourism sector, Holly Heiter Chapel. Hello, good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Holly Heiter ChapelChappell. I'm the owner of Hope Flower Farm and Winery, a 25-acre historic property in Waterford, Virginia, which I purchased in 2015 with my late husband, Evan. Before acquiring the farm, we worked closely with rural and economic development to ensure our vision was feasible and sustainable. That early support was essential to our success, and it's why I'm here today. To advocate for policies that empower small agricultural entrepreneurs to grow responsibly and creatively. Hope is more than just a flower farm. It's my husband's legacy, my livelihood and the thriving destination for agri-tourism. So we recommend aligning with the state code's definition of agri-ratorism rather than what is in the current zoning ordinance. I also suggest deleting the term agritainment as it is redundant and does not have a corresponding state code. The property features a stone manor house from 1823 barns, a cottage that serves as our registered bed and breakfast. We have a state gardens and several acres of cider for apples. And specialty flowers like tulips, dalleas and peonies, our barns serve as spaces for education, events, tasting and floral processing and designing. We're located in the midst of a residential subdivision and share a driveway with our neighbor. Yet in all of our years of operation, we've never received a single complaint. We are diligent about complying with local noise ordinances, always mindful of both volume and timing. The level of stewardship is core to our mission and supports RPA policy two, strategy 2.1, as well as policy 3, strategy 3.2 in the staff's item before you this evening. In 2021, we pursued class A winery zoning. This designation allows us to operate a full gift shop, serve alcohol and expand our visitor capacity. While implementing these changes, my husband was undergoing chemotherapy. He worked to see our vision realize securing permits and securing permits in building the winery. He passed away in 2022 just one day after our ribbon cutting. Since then, I have taken on every role, farmer designer, creative director and sole provider. We host monthly Bloom themed events, teach classes internationally and online and continue to offer immersive experiences rooted in our land. Still sustaining the farm is a constant challenge. Terrorists have driven up the cost of imported flowers, tools, and hard goods. And I've lost opportunities due to geopolitical factors. As the farm progresses, I hope we can find new ways to expand our offerings, such as serving freshly prepared salads made with ingredients from our own gardens. Standards that restrict agriculture and agritarium uses should not be imposed unless they are necessary to protect neighboring properties from severe negative impacts. Thank you. Thank you so much, Holly. All right, next is Laura M. Olman. Hi, my name is Laura M. Olman and I own Scarlet Springs Farm with my husband, Alan. Scarlet Springs Farm is a 74 acre farm that is not only home to my husband and I and our three-year-old, our six-year-old and our one-year-old children, but also my mother. We operate a bed and breakfast in on our farm in a gorgeous 1800-stone house and breed miniature Highland cattle, which our guests adore getting to see. We must uphold the regulations of our conservation easement with the Virginia Land Trust, our land use agreement, and of course the rules and regulations of Louding County. Some visitors come to Scarlet Springs for an overnight stay. Some may host a small private party with loved ones outdoors. Some may host a wedding celebration in our historic barn. Some may come for a romantic picnic party experience for two in the fields, but most everyone comes for the fluffy cows. The cows are cute, but they are also livestock. Agriculture is the number one industry in Virginia and at Scarlett Springs. We've taken what makes Virginia agriculture so special and found a way to deliver on the promise of the rural policy area, RPA policy 2 strategy 2.1, as well as policy 3 strategy 3.2 in the staff's item before you this evening. I ask for your consideration for the following. We are aligned with and recommended. We are aligned and recommend using the state code for agri-tourism rather than the definition currently in the zoning ordinance and move us out from under-cultural tourism. Likewise, I support the definition of agriculture on page 10 but ask for alignment with our references to the agri-tourism state code. Despite having so much land, the 20 private party limit per year is tight. Private parties increase insurance premiums period. Costs are increasing across the board. The tightly regulated number is too low for us to sustain our business. We have 74 acres so we ask for flexibility to add to the number of private parties permitted. Any setbacks buffering or parking regulations should take an account the historic nature of our structures in landscape. For example, I have a 145 feet between our barn and our fence and our field parking is right on the road. I agree with the other recommendations that Minesha will make as well. We are a bed and breakfast in, but overnight accommodations are simply not enough to keep the lights on. There is no plan B if I'm not successful. The stakes couldn't be higher. My business is my home, my family and young children's home, my mother's home and my animals home. It is for that reason that business diversification and flexibility to meet market demand is so important to us. We've adopted a diverse strategy to keep our business sustainable, but this approach requires the county's continued support and flexible policy alignment. Thank you. Laura, I think I want to go see those fluffy cows. They sound awesome. All right, next will be Minesha Shaw. Hello, everybody. My name is Minesha Shaw. And together with my husband and my son, we probably own an operate stone manor buti can and met him breakfast and when you in the heart of western loud and county in love it's will. The original house was built in 1908 and since 2008 we have lovingly restored and transformed it into a vibrant and welcoming space for guests from near and far. We bring our background in international cuisine and hospitality to create a unique personalize experience for weddings, meetings, events and overnight stays. We are especially proud of our fantasy theme. Immerse. experience for weddings, meetings, events and overnight stays. We are especially proud of our fantasy theme, immersive experiences, which offer a guest and escape into magical worlds filled with adventure and creativity. This private party's foster culture exchange and deep sense of community, attracting both local residents and out of state visitors. Since moving from Richmond to Loudon, we have felt incredibly sorry, welcome and it has truly become our home. We are proud members of the Bad and Breakfast Guild, and I will provide the following input from the guild. We ask for flexibility to increase the number of private parties permitted by our licenses. Currently, I am capped at 20 private parties per calendar year, and any incremental increase will help to reduce the increased cost required to run our business. The cap was set around 10 years ago and we would be happy to work with the staff on recommendations. Just has been asked in the last two stakeholder meetings, the guild reminded staff that our buildings are often historic structures and that we often use egg related structures for private parties which may be difficult for our businesses to comply with setbacks. Just as you have heard in a meeting, we support requirements like setbacks, screening and packing to be consistent with other rural use like equestrian agriculture, wineries and limited breweries. Regarding noise, we support no outdoor music between 11 PM and 10 AM regardless of the day of the week. We believe that is consistent with the general noise audience. We ask that the county work with lighting experts to provide guidance for our businesses to support night sky standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. Point of inquiry, Madam Chair. Yes. So last speaker speaking on behalf and authority from the Benton Breakfast Group. Yes. We're so last speaker speaking on behalf and authority from the Benton Breakfast Grill. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Minesha. Thank you. And thank you, Chair Randall. So next up is Casey Chapman. You're in. I'm going to say the creation of multiple overlapping and at times far reaching zoning laws and covenants may intentionally or unintentionally result in discriminatory policies or practices. By changing uses and using government actions can be viewed as exclusionary, social and economic zoning policies. This would effectively maintain social and economic boundaries through the taking of personal property rights by way of a government act. I asked we keep an open mind in the flexibility to pivot in whatever direction helps preserve Western Loudon and the President said historically by real and practical applications of the persons, excuse me, of a person's right to make a living and live a life with what they were fortunate enough to attain. By that being a hard work, generational transfer through family farms being passed down or outside investment. But the ability to maintain flexibility and understanding we might not know what all the future uses that are being requested of us would be in the county. What ideas or outside perspectives may come in to help benefit Western Loudoun as a whole. I think it is very important that we keep an open mind when considering all aspects of our zoning ordinance and Western Loudoun County as a whole. Thank you. KC next is David Blanchard. I'm a resident of Middlberg, honored to be part of the committee in conversation. I'm also the chairman of the preservation committee for the Virginia Peadmont Heritage Area. My wife and I moved here from Richmond, a really goodsland County about seven years ago and purchased a small farm that was already in conservation easement. And really the value of open spaces, the rural landscapes and agriculture has been ever present in my life from the time as an Eagle Scout backpacking around the country as a kid to my work with nonprofits like the Blue Sky Fun Fun and City Kids and DC taking inner city youth into the outdoors for education and developmental opportunities it provides. So being thoughtful about the way we look at Western Loudon is really precious to me. I've done my best to prepare for these broad topics tonight. I'm looking forward to the conversation at the table. I kind of framed it to myself thinking about it in extremes. We could, as a community, decide that to maximize the financial footprint of the county, we could put data centers or houses from dullest to Paris. Essentially fill in the entire square footage of the county with massive revenue generating tools and never pay for county services ever again. Obviously that kind of over development is ridiculous. Similarly, the other extreme is no development and that doesn't make any sense either and no using of the land that we have. But the real opposite of planned over development is not too much development. The opposite of planned over development is not too much development. The opposite of planned over development is unplanned over development. It's watching unintended build out of venues and structures that don't adhere to seemingly common sense safety and neighborly use guidelines. So I think the lack of consistency in rules and definitions leads to each case being considered on an exception basis based on too many subjective determinants. Rules are not there for fun, they're there for fairness and safety and accountability. When we bought our farm, I'd never owned a farm before and to ensure my agricultural tax rate with the state of Virginia, I did have to make sure I had my farm plan in compliance and that I had so many numbers of animals on my property and so much revenue from that operation in order to be considered a bonafide farm. And if we don't require a consistent definition of a farm or of ag structures used on a farm based on the use that they're intended for. Setbacks based on the use that is going on, the number of parties based on that use, then we run the risk of having this unplanned over development or at least unplanned over use of unintended lands. Certainly holds true for the concept of manipulating land and easement for over development of cluster homes on adjacent parcels and to me it's all connected we really just need clarity tonight and through this process to ensure that we can execute as a community on a plan and not react every situation in the future as one-off surprises. Thank you, Mr. Blanchard. My name is Justin Wish. My wife and I, our four children, live in Love It's Fill and operate longstone farm and blue wall wine and cider. Our family owns just under 200 acres and managed leases on additional 75 acres. Lowns landscape of farms has changed dramatically over the last 70 years, went over 400 dairies operated across the county. Today's agriculture requires flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit that's not uncomfortable for the average aged farmer in the state, which is now 60 years old. As a county, we must protect the ability for these businesses to be creative and thrive with an our unique economical ecosystem and not create additional barriers and hardships within such a sensitive and underappreciated industry. I do not support a definition of a farm. This is defined in both state code and as well as at the federal level by the RRS. A county specific definition will create further confusion and misunderstanding throughout the zoning ordinance by staff and county officials for an industry that is facing daily pressures from existing regulations and daily development land development opportunities. In regards to definitions, agritainment and agritourism, there are uses that should be accessories to existing agricultural operations and revenue streamed vital to our ever evolving farms. I caution this group in review of dedicated uses, as ultimately I feel agritainment is a form of agritourism, which is also defined at the state level. I do not feel that our farming community should be further burdened by additional regulations in an already overreaching ordinance that questionably violates at times the Virginia's right to farm. As farms, we are already burdened by risks of mother nature and economic forces beyond our control more than any other industry. I caution this group on unintended consequences. We're adding additional language defining terms while only focusing in on one-off bad Apple situations. We should focus on repairing existing conflicts in current uses and instead before adding further uses to complicate the process. Finally, I support a reasonable and unexpected waiver process for the encroachment and set back concerns of existing ag structures. I understand the need for clear direction and guidance for businesses through the zoning ordinance. However, I would like to emphasize the unique and complex aspects of the ag industry that is consistently endured and the lack of understanding of the industry within these walls from both staff and departments historically made that has historically made agriculture continually unsustainable in this county. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wish. Okay, now we have our planning commissioners. I don't know if they want to speak. I have Robynneve. Thank you, Robynneve Jasper. And we have Mark Miller and I see Dale Pullmars too. So yeah, with Robynneve. Okay. Thank you. And thank you everybody for this meeting this evening and allowing me to participate. I would like to align myself with the comments made previously by Chair Randall and Supervisor Takroni about ensuring the compatibility of uses within our rural landscape and within our rural and historic communities. A bit about me for some people who might not know. I live on an historic farm in the rural south in the town of Unison, and I raise horses. So I am not quite the same quality farmer that many people here are, and I won't pretend to be, but I do have some familiarity. But one of the things I wanted to mention was the idea of cultural tourism. I'm fairly deeply involved in promoting cultural tourism and have been from an economic development perspective for some time in my career. And I did noteworthy and just want to frame the discussion a bit later, that when we look at the definition of cultural tourism here, we talk about ecotourism, agricultural tourism, whether it's agritainment or whatever the other term is. But I think that what we've missed out on completely is heritage tourism, arts tourism, and all the other kinds of cultural tourism that are incredible revenue generators for communities, and whether they be urban or rural, and it's been quantified throughout the country, as well as better able to preserve and educate people about the value of the rural landscape. And so as we think about compatible uses and constraints, et cetera, and economic opportunity, I think we need to broaden our thinking a bit moving forward. And so I just wanted to kind of put a broader perspective on this, because we're noodle down on the zoning ordinance. But I think what informs the policies that we express through that should be a broader lens. And I feel like sometimes we may in supporting agriculture, which I fully support in the Virginia right to form act, et cetera, I think in supporting agriculture or kind of agritainment uses, we may diminish the value overall of our rural landscape and communities. And so we need to take this multifaceted approach. Thank you, Robin Eve. All right, Mr. Miller, do you have any comments you want to? I just very much. I'm not going to be able to. Okay, thank you. And then Dale Pullen-Miers, but you like to make some comments. Thank you all, very brief. You know, back in 2000, we did the thing called the 200,000 Acre solution, which is the first look at the rule policies and what needed to be happened. And Helen Markham, who was one of the biggest farmers at that time, chaired it. And she used to always say, if you want to save the farm, you have to save the farmer. And I think what we keep talking about all these regulations, what we need to talk about is how do we make sure we're making more of things available for them and more initiatives for them instead of just talking about the land that surrounds them. I also think we have to be careful about all the regulations we're talking about. You know, in the old days we had pig sheds, You know what those are? We had low-finch as long as they didn't have a real foundation to them, they didn't require any permits. all days we had pig shed, you know what those are, we had low-finch shed, and as long as they didn't have a real foundation to them, they didn't require any permits. So what I'm concerned about also is what happens when that run and shed all of a sudden starts to crumble. Does it now, and we know it's not going to fit set, it's not going to probably fit a lot of the setbacks or regulations of today. But what are we, what is the agriculture uses that are going to be considered that can just be attainable without all the permits and the setbacks that we're looking at? If anybody's going to be considered that can just be attainable without all the permits and the setbacks that we're looking at? If anybody's going to continue to do any kind of traditional farming, whether it's pig, sheep, cows, I mean, at one point we milked over 200 head and I know, Chair Randall, you saw the picture from me from 72 with the dairy cattle. And I said yes, I live in barns and I did. But I think we have to step back and think what is it we're trying to protect what is it we're trying to preserve and what are we so afraid of as we look at these regulations thank you. Thank you Dale Paul and Myers so that concludes our speaking portion and I just want to say thank you to everybody who participated, your comments, I wrote down all your comments and I look forward to our committee of the whole discussion at the table. So we're going to take a little break and then we'll come back in 10 minutes and then we'll start on our seven topics. Thank you. I'm going to go you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm going to ask you to come back. I'm just going to come down. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, I'm going to show you. Okay. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Yeah. I'm going to go. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the no one. Yeah I do. All right, it looks like we have everybody at the table. I know. I know. Well, that's. Hello. I don't think it's you. I don't think it's you. I think it's you. Are you echoing, Chair? Put yours on. No. Yeah. OK. Maybe it's just the technology tonight. OK. So we're gonna go through each issue topic in the following manner. Topic one will be the value added agriculture. Topic two, consistency between lodging uses. Topic three, the sawmill as minor special exception use. Topic four, agricultural product, bonafide agriculture, and agricultural definitions, topic five, creation of a form definition, topic six, agricultural structure, weight setback waiver, and topic seven, conservation easement density. Then we will enter into a committee. will have three minutes to introduce the topic issue. Then we will enter into committee of the whole for 20 minutes on the topic with a one minute timer for each speaker. And I will call each speaker. So just kind of indicate that you want to speak by putting on because it lights up. And also reach out to you if it's a topic that I know you know you have information to share on, I might reach out to you. So thank you so much again for participating and we're going to start with the value added agriculture topic one with staff starting the presentation on that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are going to start tonight with the agritainment and agritourism discussion. First things first, we have put on the screen here for you the definition of agritourism and agritainment. So just to make everybody clear as to what those current definition states from staff's perspective, if you ask me to tell you what the difference between the two were, I probably give you a long-winded answer that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Right now, the difference is cloudy. However, agritourism is regulated under the cultural tourism standards. Agretainment is regulated under the agriculture support use standards. So the question tonight, at least the first question, would be, is there a difference between agritainment and agritourism? Should there be a difference? Or are these two essentially just the same thing being regulated in two separate areas of the ordinance? Oh, so let's start with that. Is there a difference between agretainment and agritorism? Let's start with that. Does anyone want to speak on that topic? Oh, we're going to start. Yeah, so we're going in. They will committee the whole for 20 minutes. Thank you. Yeah, thank you too. Does anybody want to speak on that issue? Is there a difference between the two? Chair Randall. Yes. Oh, you want to ask the committee? So, well, so I, I, I, I, I will say just in general tonight, I am learning as much as I'm doing anything tonight because if you know me, you know that this is agriculture and farming and things is not what I know best, right, Ms. Windschill? And not what I know best. So a lot of what I'm doing tonight is in my comments, I may be even asking a question, and at no time do I feel like what I'm saying has to happen because I just know that I'm out of my depth to some extent. If I do think there's a difference, and I don't think it's a pretty murky one, I would say agrotaming is what happens and agroturivism is where it's happening. But having said that, I think that the difference is murky enough that those two definition, that those two things could be collapsed. Okay. Mr. Blanchard. Just to I guess is a question between the two, there are two different regulatory and policing agencies that look at them. So could one game the system if you wanted to justify, or to classify your business in one versus the other because it's a different policing agent, versus, I mean, not even talking about the use standards or anything like that, I just don't know the answer. I guess the question is about the policing of one versus the other or the monitoring of one versus the other agencies or statutes, I guess. I think they'd be the same. They'd be police in the same manner. I don't know if there's anything in this only ordinance that would separate that. But besides the regulations that exist, but I know you said aside from the regulations, but no, I think they'd be the same. I don't think agretainment is actually in our use tables, right? Agretainment? I know cultural tourism is, but I don't see agretainment. Agretainment would follow the cultural tourism use standards. Okay. So they're all the same. Yeah. And I think originally the agritourism had educational component where the agritainment was more focused on entertainment. But if you look at the planning and zoning literature, the terms are used interchangeably. And I hardly think, I mean, how could you have an entertainment experience without an educational component? have an entertainment experience without an educational component. I was on the first. I'll defer to my colleague on the paper. Thank you. I just want to note that it sounds like an Agri-Tam-It-Anagritorism. You could have the same function in both spots and be considered a different thing. In other words, a corn maze. An agritourism business could have a corn maze with some educational thing. An agritainment could have a corn maze. We can't have the same exact thing be regulated differently because it falls under some different name. And I wanna bring up to some broader point on the planning commission on Tuesday, we had a case that came up about the expansion of a business that sells construction equipment. You know, front end loaders and diggers and things of that nature, which because it's sales and service, we allow those items to be outside and plain view. If someone came along and bought all of that equipment and converted the building from the sales and service use to a well-drilling company. Those construction equipment pieces could no longer stay outside in view of the road. So we need to continue to be careful, especially if we're focusing here on the rural areas, that we can't, we have to be careful not to have the same exact thing be judged differently because it falls under a different spelling of what we believe to be the same word. And that was the approach that I was not going to pontificate on before. So I would do it here in one minute instead of three. So that's just my comments on that option. Thank you. And then Laura. agree. I think the agritamins were done then. Yeah. Is there just adopting better mind-richness state code just to reduce the interreducing? Does anybody object to kind of combining the two? And then also I wonder if the definition should be more the state code definition. I know we talked about that. So, I was just speaking with Jason about that and he mentioned that the state code definition for agritourism didn't come up until 2014 or so. And our agritainment definition predated that. So, perhaps we could certainly explore just calling this all agritourism matching the same matching the state code. Because I heard tonight a lot of people asked to match the state code definitions. I heard that a lot tonight. Can nobody hear them back? Well these are yeah. Okay so I think there is agreement on combining the two and looking at the state code definition of agritourism activity. And then there's a second part to that too, right? The next question would be, do we regulate that as its own separate, separate side of state use standards? Do we put it in and under the agriculture of support uses? Where does that term rest as far as its regulation? That's your abbreviation. Well, I mean, it is certainly an agriculture support use, right? However, I guess my question to you would be, is it significant enough where it requires its own separate call out as a specific use in the ordinance or not? So having asked you that question, Brian, thinking it through, I think the agritourism introduces an element of tourism that is not the same as the elements of agricultural operations. And so I think it would be useful for the staff to consider a separate provision that might include appropriate limitations. That would be fine with us, sir. I agree with the comments that made so far. If you have a standalone definition that combines these two definitions to find as agritourism, is it sufficiently delineated in a different way from agriculture support? You know, there's what it be a subset of agriculture support, and is it sufficiently discriminated to be a separate subsection of agriculture support, or can we just call it all, agriculture as an including agriculture support? That's a good question, and we would have to research that, and we're putting together that draft language to come up with a final recommendation. So I just want to make sure I understand. Mind who the guy like myself. Agricultureism is defined under state law. And is the concept here to align our zoning ordinance with the same language that's in the state code? So as to prevent confusion? Yes. Is then the second question that we are also going to include in that definition? Some of these concepts of agritainment that we currently have, and then eliminate the definition of agritainment? Or what? Yes. I mean, yeah, it would be a package of amendments to address everything as a whole. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Because I do. I mean, how the, I mean, I guess the devil's in the details there. But I definitely think we should align it with stay co from what I've seen in the state. Based on the direction, that's what we would do. If there was some issue that came up while we were doing this where it became prohibitive, we would certainly bring that up as we move forward through this project process. Chris has been very patient. Really really quick and I think it aligns with what definitely what with what Molly said the first time but I think in combining the two I feel like we would feel more comfortable with it being a ag support use so that there is the agra. But yeah, combining, simplifying, and I have not, I will admit I have not seen the state code definition of agritourism, but if everybody likes it, then I know Justin has. So I can read it if you want. Yeah, read it. Okay. Definition 3.2-6400. Agri-Torism activity means any activity carried out on a farm or ranch that allows members of the general public for recreational entertainment or educational purposes to view or enjoy rural activities including farming, ranching,back riding, historical, cultural, harvester-owned activities, or natural activities and attractions. And activity is an agritourism activity, whether or not the participants paid to participate in the activity. So that is the definition. That seems good, but right at the beginning, it says on a farm and that guess this back. What is a farm? And as long as we have, if we're going to address like as long as we solve that issue through the egg operation thing, it sounds good. I'll speak briefly to that. The definition that supervisor or Chair to Crony mentioned is it is comes from the to this. It comes from the agritourism liability statute. So it is a correct definition. However, the operative section of the Virginia code when we're talking in this context is 15.2, 22, 88.6. Agricultural operations, local regulation of certain activities. That's what's, I think, commonly referred to as the agraterism statute. That does say no locality shall regulate the carrying out of any of the following activities at an agricultural operation. So that is a little bit, it doesn't use the term farm or ranch. It uses the term agricultural operation. Let me go to Mr. Wish, sorry. I was just going to caution that, you know, I agree that the agritainment should be under agritourism, but also if agritourism becomes a separate use, I would just caution that, you know, when we start getting into the details of hours of operation and cars and parking and parking lots and all of those requirements that there's an understanding that the intent of agri-tourism is to be an accessory use to an existing form and not to over-regulate and require lighting and parking lots and parking wheel stops and civil engineering plans that are easily over-reaching in the intent for the agritourism operation. Molly. I just wanted to second what Justin was saying and say that in that definition that you read from the state code, it doesn't really specifically say there unless we go back to what you were saying that it needs to be an agricultural operation. What everything you described there was the entertainment part. But to me, the really important thing about agritourism is that it's agriculture first, tourism second. I'm not talking about a petting zoo that doesn't have any kind of agricultural stuff. They just happen to have some camels or whatever that you can pet when you go there. Or a playground that looks like a tractor. That's not agritourism. unless it's on a farm that also has a playground that looks like a tractor and they're selling their, you know one in Point of Rocks that's by the ice cream. But I think that, to me, that's a really critical thing that currently is in the way the language is written in our zoning, that it is a accessory used to agriculture. I just wanna make sure that that remains. I do believe it did state that it would be on a former ranch in the state definition. And I know that can be spoke about later. But so maybe that helps cover that right by definition as long as we can- I think it depends on what we're calling a conversation. Exactly, and that would depend on that later conversation. But combining the two seems to make sense, but there are two different regulations under current code. So if we use the state definition or state code for it, would it not also make sense to maybe consider using the state regulations that regulate that definition? Just for sake of simplicity and consistency. So the other question I have is about cultural tourism. If we're pulling out that agritourism, do we still need cultural tourism in our use tables? So that was a question I know Brian, we talked about. If you feel cultural tourism can fall within that agritourism definition, then we... That's a question. we certainly remove it. However, what I would say to that is, you know, keep in mind that there is opportunities to do cultural tourism outside of an agricultural setting. So. Well, and then I do want to bring to people's attention. Under cultural tourism, the definition is that ego tourism. So we would be eliminating that if we got rid of the cultural tourism. So I just want to get people's opinions on that. I mean, I'm already completely aware of that. I think social tourism is a big role that I think has like the same scale. You know what I would say is we'll take a look at that language as a whole and see how it relates to the other zoning districts and perhaps maybe it might not apply to what's going on in Western Lown, but it does apply into the policy area. I think it's more about what Right, right. Okay. Yes, David. Just a cultural tourism. I think just be caution or wary of the slippery slope. If we also have regulations that monitor cultural tourist sites that are different now than We have differentitarism sites and we have different setbacks again and we've got difference people are going to accidentally or intentionally play that system so I can have an old house that's neat to come look at and I'll pay some money to come see it and now I don't have to have setbacks that are the same so if we add another or clarify another distinction then I just would want to make sure that we're trying to not over complicate the regulations either. Just quick question. I think that it makes sense to combine, to me, agritors and agritamin are very much similar and could be combined. But do they need, I mean, I guess my question would be why move it from under the cold could it not just stay under the cultural tourism thing? Well, I'm good. And then it continues then I don't know. Yeah, it could sure. It could. Well, if there's a chance that it gets confusing in agritors, agritainments outside of agriturism and then we probably don't want to combine it. That's... I was just going to say that if you read it here, cultural tourism is separate from agritors and should remain separate. The question I had, you mentioned agricultural support, is there a state code defining agricultural support? I'm not aware of a specific definition of agriculture support. I't think there was. And that means you can grab agricultural support and agritainment roll it all under agritourism. Now you're completely in line with state code and you can define within agritourism what you want to define. And you've gotten rid of both agricultural support and agritainment. and then still the cultural tourism, agritourism is a subset of a type of cultural tourism and leave that the way it is. Yeah, we have two minutes. Yeah, um, Chair Randall. So in my head, if cultural tourism can happen in a suburban policy area or a urban policy area, then it cannot be under the same thing as agroteurism and agrotation. The word agra kind of defines what we're trying to do here in some ways. And so I don't believe that you can roll that into something else because it doesn't have to be on a farm or a ranch or something like that. So I could think of more than one example in suburban Lowne County that is cultural tourism, but that is not something that is agricultural in nature. Excellent point. And I think cultural tourism maybe should be looked at beyond ecotourism. Because if we roll agritourism out, then it's just ecotourism. One thing I want to just mention to staff is that there's an agritourism activity liability notice that's required with agritourism. So that's kind of a little regulation. It's, you probably know it, right, Jason? There's a liability notice that's required that we'll have to be looked into when we create our own use for agritourism. Yes. Yeah. Okay. There's state agriculture liability. Yes. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Weism. We're just under that. Yes. That don't have to work. It wouldn't be an addition to. No. That's what I'm saying. We just have to make sure it's a part of it. I think everybody's jumped into conclusion, so I wasn't called on, that cultural tourism is separate, but the our current zoning, cultural tourism is the title, agritourism and ecotourism are subset A and B under cultural tourism. So the argument of cultural tourism being separate, I think we either have agritourism and eco-tourism as their own standalone definitions, cultural tourism would really go away. The next thing I would just want to point out is eco-tourism at the intent. I think everyone's jumping to the conclusion that we would create a new use for agritourism, which I which I'm advocating against, eco-tourism. Then we would need another use for eco-tourism in addition to agri-tourism because they're going to have separate uses and potential impacts to more dense areas. But the antenna agri-tourism is in a rural area that shouldn't be subject to additional qualifications of a specific use. Okay, so this is the end of our 20-minute committee of the whole. I think we agreed to combine agritourism and agritainment to use the state code definition to look at cultural tourism. Where is that fit? your correct, agritourism and ecotourism were under cultural tourism, but I think we agree that agritourism needs to come out. Keeping cultural tourism. But keeping cultural tourism separately, and maybe look at, you know, is it just ecotourism? Or do we look at some other... We can look at the definition, and you how that relates to the other uses. Look at some other definitions maybe. Okay, so I think that we're done with that one. Now, the final one would be, it's going to have its own separate use category, agritourism. Correct. I think everybody is everybody in agreement with that. Use. Not everybody. Well, and remember some people talked about it being an accessory use, right? So let's. Yes. That was with that Mr. Wish, I think you were talking about the habit or Molly about have it being accessory use to agriculture. Okay. But. But then we need to fix the agriculture use. Yeah, but we're going to talk about that, I think. Okay, so is that good? Okay. Yes, I think we have what we need. Okay, thank you. So next we're going to go on topic two and this one, I'm going to ask for some more time because I think the sawmill we can go through quickly which is topic three. So okay I go through my order topic two. Okay, consistency between lodging uses is what we're going to talk about. We'll do 30 minutes and if we need more we'll add because again this is the big topic On the table so we'll let staff start and then Then we will open up to the floor Okay, thank you Madam Chair the bed and breakfast consistency issue lodging consistency What you have on the screen here is an introduction to the definitions for each of the four uses Homestay which is typically considered a house where the Owner occupant is using it as a bed and breakfast. You know bed and breakfast in would you know be a little larger and potentially have an operator conducting business. Looking at the country in, again, this one is a more intense use. The main difference, I would say, in this one besides the number of guests would be the option of the full service restaurant that would be accessible to the general public. And then finally, the largest, most intense use would be the rural the general public. And then finally, the largest, most intense use would be the rural resort, which you could get, you know, essentially a conference center for all intent and spur purposes. But those are the four uses that we are going to be talking about. And what I want to do is just kind of go through each one of these issues as far as the main items that we regulate in the ordinance. And we've got each of the four uses listed here with what the standard is. And maybe talk about each one of these items, get an agreement and then move on to the next one. But the first one being noise and hours of operation, you'll notice here Ben Breakfast, Homestay, the outdoor music staff at 11 p.m., Ben Breakfast in, staff at 11 p.m., the country in, goes till midnight, Rule Resort stops at 11 p.m., bed and breakfast in, stops at 11 p.m., the country in goes till midnight, rule resort stops at 11 p.m., the bed and breakfast home staying, bed and breakfast in, during the weekdays, the outdoor music starts at 10 p.m. So you'll notice there's a lot of differences that are, you know, I don't to say completely arbitrary, but, you know, we want to ask the group as a whole. Do we feel like the differences are reasonable and they should be in place based on the scale of the different types of lodging uses or should these issues be aligned? Okay, so, well, maybe we start with our B&B representatives. Yeah, Minesha. Okay, so I think actually that the rules should be all the same for all the lodging. What I'm thinking is the difference between Madame Breakfast, Homestay, the AIN, the country AIN, the timings. So as a guild, we support that outer music not allowed after 11 p.m. Okay. So most of these are at 11, I think just the country in has it at midnight So it looks like all pretty much have right this Yeah, that's during the week Yeah during the week for home stay in his 10 During the week. Yeah, okay, but during the weekend. It's 11. Yes, including the week home But during the weekend it's 11. Yes. The loading the week, home stay, oh. Okay, so we're saying 11 o'clock could be the consistent standard across lodging uses, 11 o'clock PM. And 10 PM on weekdays. And 10 PM on weekdays. Well, let me go back to this. How far are these? It's hard to do this first. It's hard to do noise first because I actually think we should first talk about setbacks first before we get. Let's do that. Okay. We have to jump between two slides here for this one, but this table provides you with the setbacks for home stay and and country in. And then if I could just jump up to the rural resort requirement, which you'll notice in this table, the required yard is essentially structured based on the size of the property being 40 acres through 150 acres. So you've got between 125 feet and 375 feet in the rural resort category. That's a few mongolous difference. But I'm going to- Well, I'm going to have different size. Lots. It's a significant difference. Yeah. So is there a room? I do want to let people know it was a minor special exception in Western Latin County. So it won't be something that's permitted by right. But I do have a question. So the home stay in the end, do they go to the default 25 feet setback? Because I don't see. Yeah, they're subject to the district requirements, which is 25 feet. Yeah, if it's typical for AR. The home stay and the in, which are the smaller, so this is a portfolio. The homeays the smallest and the rural is the largest and that one requires a minor special Exception so but those are the 25 feet which is which could which could be close to In adjacent property go ahead no this is going to get problematic pretty fast and it was counterintuitive when I thought about it But this but this is the opposite of what Chair Reynolds just said. You've got a lot of existing structures and existing businesses that emit business for a very long time. And if we start moving setbacks, we're going to have a whole bunch of nonconforming locations in Loudon County. And I think it's going to drive you back to something you can regulate, which is the amount of noise. If it's an existing business and it's only 50 feet from the property line and you're not getting regular zoning complaints and violations, then clearly that's operating okay and a common noise standard would accommodate that. But if we start changing setbacks, I think we're going to inadvertently throw a whole bunch of properties into a non-conforming status that's going to be a nightmare to try and sort out. I agree with Sue Resertunner. And I think the hours of operation, as was already mentioned, probably is something that's probably pretty easy to align. So I know we jumped from that to here, but my general experience within my office is not so much the time, although I guess you can get complaints on that. It's really the how loud it is and the consistency of it. So I do think that there's probably general consensus to set that time for all of them at 11, at least on weekends. Okay. I don't know if anyone opposed that. In terms of the hours, I know we're jumping back, but- Yeah, are we going back to the hours? Well, I'm suggesting that we do because I agree with Supervisor Turner that when we start messing with the distances and the setbacks like that, we have no idea what the impact on that will be on current existing event places We will have potentially a lot that will be non-conforming and they're going to have a lot of problems So I'd like to go to the counterfactual on that though Which is that if we don't change the regulations then what we can have in the future is a lot of people opening country ends within 25 feet of a neighboring property and having outdoor parties seven nights a week. But we could and there's nothing that prevents that going forward and as rural uses become harder and harder to maintain, and the quality of our rural communities deteriorate through more development, I think it will incentivize more people to move in that direction. I guess we'll go back to the, I think it's interesting. The country in has the 100 feet. The home stay in the inn is the default 25. Was there any intended to be residential structure setbacks that you would see for a residential? So I guess that's, but I, you know, that's what we need to talk about. Is 25 feet enough? I'm sorry to interrupt. Yeah, go ahead. I totally understand this, but should we actually talk about the scale of the size of these operations instead because the setback, the noise are all relative to the scale of the operations they're running and this is a use case conversation? So country end can have 40 rooms with only 20 acres and the rural resort can't have 20 rooms until they have 40 acres. So there's this total inconsistency on the scale operation, the amount of parties they could have, the amount of special exceptions they could have for other parties. But the number of people are different on both of those two. I'm sure. Which also changes the scale. It does. I think that the scale inconsistency in general will then lead to the setback conversation and the noise as a secondary. I think. Yeah. No, I'm sure. Yes. And I also just say that grandfathering is a lot easier than trying to police without rules in the future. Absolutely. Absolutely. So I would associate myself with your comments, with Dave's comments, for a couple of reasons. And, you know, first of all, I understand what you're saying, Mr. Kirschner, and that the size of the lot, the size of the piece of property is different. But we're, depending on where something is located on the property, it doesn't matter if the property is. If I'm 25 feet from the property line and I have 200 acres, I'm still 25 feet from somebody's property line. I understand what you're saying about the number of people, but if I'm having a party and Rick James is playing, then matter if there's two people in my party, or two hundred people in my party, Rick James is still playing and somebody else on property line can hear that going on. And so I think those things look good on paper, but your experience is actually gonna be very, very different. I do think grandfathering is easier, and that we may look to do that instead of trying to create something as we have, you know, going on right now, where I firmly believe that everyone has a right to enjoy and monetize their property, but my enjoyment of my property cannot interfere with the holly's enjoyment of her property. And that is my, that's why this is gonna be hard. And that's why I'm getting to the place where I do not believe we can collapse all of these. If I can just really quick combine what David said and what Robin each said, which I think is really good, you could thread the needle by saying existing, you modify the zoning, the noise ordinance. so you've got common noise standards. You grandfather existing structures and then you establish a new setback requirements to accommodate Robin Eves concerns with any new of these structures that get built. I think that's pretty good. That's a pretty good compromise resolution, I think. So you have the size so we could show up? Do you have kind of, you know, I think not the size but maybe the parties that are allowed just so people could see the scale there it is. Okay. I think we're missing that. Okay. So with Country Inn, you can have 100 daily attendees for parties. And then it goes down. You know, the small one is Homestay. Which one? And then that table to the right is essentially what you're talking about for events. It's daily. That's the event requirement. Mm-hmm. It's daily. Go ahead, Robin. I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand what you said, Brian. I, times per year that parties may exceed the daily max is what I see as a column to the right. Yes. I mean, we're another way to put that. That's your last. When we talk about, you know, the max number of permitted events is 20 a year. That's when when we talk about you know the max number of permitted Events is 20 a year that's the provision we're talking about So I'm that I'm genuinely confused I see it is a daily basis the number of people you you can have in the vet. That's column. The first column. The second column says times per year that your party can save the maximum number of guests. Yes, a lot of logic. Let's just let it just walk. It's a special permit. Right, so you have a better breakfast breakfast in you can have 50 people at a party every day But 20 times a year you can have Any unlimited number beyond Yeah, yes, you're correct. Yeah, yes I get to get a special permit for that though correct 20 of you at the special. Correct. No beyond the maximum amount of loud. Oh, yes. You have to get any for free and if you get the special. Correct. No beyond the maximum amount allowed. You get a spending for free. And then to get more than 20, you can still get a special. No, that's not correct. I don't think. You have to get a separate permit if you want to have those parties on the right over the. You have to get a special permit for that. Yeah, you have to get a permit. Okay, let's go over to Laura and to Manisha, just because they work in the field. Yeah, so I think we've hit on it like one of the big problems with when you want. So let's go over to Laura and to Manisha just because they work in the field. Yeah, so I think we've hit on it like one of the big problems with when you want to open up something like the bed and breakfast in is it is very confusing. You know, we're all a little confused. It's just kind of confusing model right now. So figuring out like a little more clarity and then continuing to have a little bit more flexibility within these models. For example, I'm a bed in breakfast in. Again, I'm on 74 acres. Again, like you were saying, supervisor Turner though, people are... a little bit more flexibility within these models. Because for example, I'm a bed and breakfast in. Again, I'm on 74 acres. Again, like you were saying, Supervisor Turner, though, people are coming to my farm because of my gorgeous 1800 structures. That's a cool bed and breakfast. That's part of what makes the rural, loud and economy so special is they're sleeping in these beautiful places that's not the best western or whatever. So, trying to piggybacking off into the setbacks, like the grandfathering being mindful of where these buildings have been would be really important. And then, yeah, I think we were talking about this scale. It can definitely go both ways. So again, like something that could be on as little as five acres or 20 acres can be on more. So, is there any room for flexibility in sliding scales there? Or is it just kind of still a one size fits all we find, these grids and boxes? And even though all of these businesses are so unique, like we're trying to find where our like diamond shaped business fits in the square peg or the circle peg. And they're all your B&B is different to mine all of us have Just you know different landscapes and you know just a lot of factors to take him to mine, right? Thank you, Laura and Minesha. Did you want to say something? so the question to To you all and the stuff that okay, so what is I know years before, there is a limitations on the events that we can do. We have a better break fast, we got sweets, and then we do small events, and then big events. So now, where the limit come from? What is the limit? Why there is a limit? So when it started? Are you talking about the daily or are you talking about the ones that exist? Not the daily limit. I'm talking about the 20. What is the 20 events that come from? That exceed. Exceeds. Okay, so we, where is the restriction come from? Like why we restricted to only 20 events? Why restricted to only 20? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I was all over the place. Okay. Okay. Why we restricted to 20 events. Okay. What would be your proposal? About like around 25. Okay. So it would be a small increase. Yes. So that way because everything is increasing, the insurance, the cost, everything increasing. So if you do a little bit more flexibility that we able to do the, you know. Okay, I'd like to hear from Holly. My question would be more if these businesses are operating without complaint and they are in compliance with the violation of noise, why do we care? Why would we want them to succeed so that they can support their historic estates or their farmland? I personally, my farm is now surrounded by subdivision. and it was the 450 acre farm. And now it's a 25 acre farm with a subdivision around it. My neighbors do not complain. My neighbors respect the fact that I am farming. They are grateful that there are things for them to do out in the country. I literally have a shared use driveway. As a matter of fact, my neighbor Joe, Blue House Joe, sent a letter to share with all of you. We can pass it around. He loves my farm. He loves the fact that there are donkeys on the farm and there are chickens for his children to see. He got engaged on the farm. He likes that he can walk over to the farm and drink a glass of wine. He likes that he can call me and I can make his wife a bouquet of flowers when he forgets her birthday. Like, I am providing an experience. I'm teaching about farming. It's cultural. It's everything. We embody all of it. And this is what loudened to me is. I mean, if we subdivide this whole entire county, we're not gonna be who we were. I mean, this is why people come here. This is an 1820s farmhouse with three historic barns on it. And I'm saving its life and I'm encouraging people to visit my farm and inspiring them to not only grow flowers but to also design with flowers and to learn. Do you have lodging or is it agri? It's the best one. Do you have lodging or is it mainly agri? We do have a small cottage on the property that is a registered bed and breakfast with the county because when I worked with Rowland Economic Development to find out how I could have 50 people on my property so I could teach them floral design, I have to become a bed and breakfast. Okay. Then I have a wayside stand. Great. I have a wayside stand. I can only sell flowers from my farm. Well, I'm an author. I have a patented product line. I make my own candles, my own soap, but I can't sell those because I didn't grow them. So I have to become a winery so that I can have a gift shop. I am a widow with a 25 acre farm that just wanted to grow flowers and zoning made me turn into this. And yes, and all I wanted to do was hang out and have people at my farm and play with flowers. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. So a couple of things. One, your place sounds phenomenal. But we cannot make zoning based on one person's place. We just can't. Secondly, it's not true that we don't get complaints. If we didn't get complaints, we probably would have been sitting here. And sometimes I get complaints and it true that we don't get complaints. If we didn't get complaints from the other women sitting here, and sometimes I get complaints and it says, please don't tell my neighbor I'm complaining about them. I get complaints. Everything from the noise to, there's a cow in my yard. The cow in my yard is, my God, get your cows under control. The cow in my yard, we get complaints. So I don't think it is, I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't even know where your farm is, ma'am. But we can't make zoning on one piece of property. We can't. And so we have to look at, that's why we're trying to look at this holistically. I think you sound amazing. I think your farm sounds amazing. what you're doing is amazing, but we have to try to take in everyone into account, which is why I like the back-to-the-ideal of perhaps having the grandfather some things that already exist. I also think one thing you said that was so vitally important, you were there first. People moved in knowing you were there, versus there being homes there, and then people move a bed and breakfast or a country in, especially a country in, around homes that are already there. There's a difference. You being there first makes a big difference. They knew what they were getting when they moved there. That's from saying the farmers there first. That's not always the way it happens. And that's something we have to consider as well Okay, thank you and now we're gonna hear from Sarah Brown who also has a B&B Yeah, so as I as I read through the the regulations as as written a couple things stood out I'm of the opinion there should be a minimum lot size If I as I read through and and please correct me if I'm wrong I the way I read it there could be a five or six bedroom home in a subdivision in Loudoun County of which there are many. I could make that a B&B homestay. I could have 20 people plus my four rooms over every single day. That's 25 people. That's, there's a formula, but let's say it's 10 cars. If I'm in a subdivision, even if I'm on a cul-de-sac, that's an intensity of use that I think is, and I think it's a bit of an unlikely situation. And I'm lucky that my B and B is on a large farm as well, but that's just not the case for everybody. And I think that the intensity of use does have to be considered and you have to sort of consider it to the maximum that it could be. Furthermore, this is an oldy-buddy goody for me, but the complaint-based system is not easy. I have been complained against. I have complained and it is not not easy. I have been told, you got a time you're complained for when they're violating. And it's like, dude, it's 11 o'clock at night. And I'm going to send, and this just doesn't make sense. So the process for complaining, which is the process for enforcement, another evening. Probably a whole nother meeting, but it is hard to rely on that as a method of enforcement. And so to my point being, I'm for a minimum lot size. I'm for some maybe not bigger setbacks per say, but just sensitivity to the community. Yeah, so just so everybody knows the B&B Homestay has no minimum lot size. And that's the 25 feet setback. You start getting into minimum lot size as you go down. The B&B in has the five acre and the country in has the 20 acre. That's not on this table. So I'm just letting people know. Okay, David. That was a great point. I almost lost mine. I think the intention that I was trying to impart earlier was that the scaling of these operations and the uses of each operation are relevant to the size of the community in which they live and the setbacks are based on whether it's a minimum lot size or not. And there seem to be some really sort of silly outliers like the country in back to this 100 or over 100. If you can have these parties over 100, there's no max cap either. You could have 1,000 people there. You could have a party. And you might be an amazing neighbor, but your next owner, if you move, if they don't have guidelines, then the neighbors that moved in after they love your farm may not love your farm anymore because these rules are different. So I think the fact that we've got rural resort with these really explicit scaling increases at sizes and acreages and volumes and the other ones don't, doesn't make any sense to me. I would be curious if staff could design a proposal that looks like that in a similar vein that marches up a scale of some sort that allows for people to have different size operations based on their size of their property. I don't know. Okay, anybody else? Mark and Judy. Okay, Mark. Thank you. A couple of comments. One about those that are advocating for an increase in the number of events that they can have on a property during the course of a year. They're asking for that probably because they're already at the maximum number. If the maximum number of events that one can hold on a property in a year is 20, and they only hold 12 a year, they're not here advocating to have more. They're advocating to have more because they're at their maximum and they want to grow their business. And there's demand for that, which we see constantly. We see people applying, there's a minor spec that the board is looking at for up in love and still to have an event up there. That's the why, that's economic development why. The other thing I want to comment on is sort of what David was saying about scaling. We have a country in at 20 acres. Okay, and the limit is 100 max guess. Okay, let's say there's a parcel out there that's 15 acres. It can accommodate the physical structure. The number of attendees can be limited by parking regulations and things of that nature. But maybe we need some sort of scaling that says if it's 10 bedrooms and 50 people on 10 acres, well, if you only have eight acres, well, now it's going to only be eight bedrooms and 40 people. Something to scale it that way so that properties that are 10, 12, 14 acres can actually be used economically for a smaller version of a country in, whereas a bed and breakfast home stay would never work because that parcel is not allowed, it's not zoned for residential at all, or something like that. And those are two things I want just to consider as how we can make sure that we don't have orphan parcels or parcels that have no economic value to the community. And that's to think about that's all thank you Thank you. I just wanted to clarify on the topic of setbacks a grandfathering would not apply Remember grandfathering only applies when it's an active application So wouldn't apply to those existing structures. They would be legal non-conforming. The other thing, while I have one approach to the setbacks would be to retain the setback for the structure that's a lodging structure, but to add a second minimum setback for any accessory structures used for events. Just an idea. Can you say that one would run for you? The 25 foot set back. The 25 foot setback could be the same for the lodging structures because you know people sleeping that's not creating any noise an additional setback could be established for just the structures used for events. Do you see that that normally there is an accessory structure for events that they're not. Yes, that happens often. Yes. OK, and we don't have that right now. We don't have any regulation. I didn't see it that talks about a setback for the accessory structures for events. Not for events. No. Largely and agricultural structures. Right. Not for events. No. Large-lein agriculture structures. Right. Not for events. OK. All right. That's something to consider. What do people feel about that? Well, same thing with the, though, if it's an existing Ag structure, and that's where the events are, we can't. I wouldn't be able to suddenly make a new setback, make that work. that would be one concern on that. Another thing, and talking about, I agree with a lot of the points I've been made about, maybe considering some sort of sliding scale for acreage, because these are also different, and I can't speak to some of the larger categories, but just a reminder too for staff for bed and breakfast ends in these home stays, we're living there. This is my home. I am there supervising these. It's not like some private event facility where nobody's there. People are coming into our home. My children are sleeping on my property. I understand it's my business, so I have a lot more in it. I do understand that. But just kind of understanding this, it is a different model. And there is a different level of like, just connection to the event. We have this one civil, because we stay on the over-property. We are maintaining, we are there for every event. So we don't want that anything happened either because our family is on the property. So we are careful with our neighbors too because they're family, we are concerned. And we're neighbors, like we're residents the bl County and we're the neighbors too. It's all wrapped up in one. It's not like some Starbucks that we own and we go home, turn off the lights and collect the money. We're in it every day all the time. Correct. So, do people think, so I hear you about existing accessory structures. How about should we look at new? Oh yeah, Casey, go ahead, sorry. Well I was responding to Laura. But yeah. And all the ideas flow. Yeah. No, I think the pro rata scaling idea per acre for a country hand, I think would be something to consider and would be probably work in Western Latin kind of you get These these odd parts of the land that maybe they're not exactly 28 years maybe they're 17.95 and you can you know Prada you know scale up or down according to the size But keep it in mind what chair Randall said you know the distance to the neighboring home and this new idea of maybe the event structure I mean I got I got married in a structure that was a detached accessory structure on the same parts of land that there is lodging, right? And so that is something active in West Lawn County, but the point made of the existing structures, the old barns that were converted into the venue, right? That's where my brother's reception is, was in a barn on an existing venue that had been there for 200 years. So I think both occur, I think all are relevant and the flexibility and understanding of how to incorporate that are all, great idea is being discussed, we should consider them. But the noise is a concern and I can appreciate that when it comes to neighboring structures. Yeah, I like we do have a noise ordinance and the complaint base, you know is hard to enforce when it comes to that I just want to clarify what Judy said so it's not an active application So by definition if we change setbacks we are creating non-conforming properties Yes, so then the only option I would say if setbacks are off the table because we're creating non-conforming, then somehow it would seem to mean that the key variable is noise. So you would then tie your noise constraints that are more constraining the less the setback and less constraining the further the setback. So you don't create non nonconforming properties, but now you're regulating noise based on how close you are to your neighbors. It can be tricky because that can be a real pain if you're 25 feet from the property line. You've been there for 50 years. And suddenly your noise requirement becomes much more stringent. Now you've got an issue with your operation. But I don't see any other way to do it if we're creating nonconforming properties by changing setbacks other than making proportional noise limits. Is it, is it, I'm sorry to butt in, but isn't our noise ordinance 55? Despoles at the property line, regardless of how big or small you are. So I'm not sure how you would alter that at all. Sorry, Mr. Hampshire, let's do another 10. Because this one I knew would be, and then saw mail I don't think will take. Chair to Crony, the other option that I could think of is the closer that you are to the property line, maybe your hours for music would have to be earlier. Like maybe cut it off a 10 if you're 25. Right, because I heard 11 is what the operators would like. Maybe if it's closer, we cut it off earlier. Yeah. And setbacks aren't just protecting against noise that is lighting and traffic and parking and sort of activity. So I don't know how to accommodate for that with just the noise ordinance. I know we're talking about building or B and B uses specifically here, but I do want to point out as staff moves forward to look at this that special events and private parties are a big component of agri-tourism too. And if there is a consideration for special event and private party restrictions, just understand that agriculture agri-ttourism, we're using existing ag structures for events, private parties, and other uses that may cross over here. And this is, I can see this happening right now. This is a perfect case where there's gonna be special event, private party language put in that's intended for B&B and larger scale use, such as this, that has an unintended consequence of affecting agritourism and agricultural operations. So let's go back to the number of attendees for parties that exceed maximum daily guests. So I heard Minesha say they would like more, but I'm just wondering if this group would consider adding a maximum number of attendees because I'm kind of questioning what What number of attendees are we looking at when we have parties that exceed maximum daily guess? So I'm wondering if we could talk about that It's funny because I was under the impression that 200 was that number So like it again with the kind of confusion I don't know where I heard that along the pipeline, but I was under the impression that 200 was that number. So like, again, with the kind of confusion, I don't know where I heard that along the pipeline, but I was under the impression 200 was ever the max that we could do. I, a supervisor, Kirschner, keeps whispering in my ear that there's the permit limitations to somebody on staff can they explain what the special event permit limitations are? Yeah, that would be helpful. Well, I mean, in this instance, you, so let's say you have a bed and breakfast in, and you have, every day you can have 50 people, but then you have to get a permit. We're talking about those entities. Yeah, so you have to get a permit. Correct. And you file it once a year. Only once a year. Yeah, and you list out your events on this. That's if you have all your dates figured out. Yeah, but yes, you have to contact permits to have an update your list. Right. And that's when you get that permit, that's when you get those on the right. But you can't come in and say I'm having 2,000 people. I mean, there's literally nothing that says you can't do. Do you ever have anybody that does that? I mean, when I was in permits, I would say it was around like 200, 250. It was never 2,000 people. I'm going to say I live in a small rural village. My neighbor has 40 acres. My neighbor could start one of these things and I would have to move. There'd be no question. They're the entire, you know, the idea that nobody complains is absolutely not the truth. I just came from a meeting this afternoon. We're a ton of people. We're complaining about noise from events in the rural west, whether they were related to parties, weddings, agriturism, whatever, and they can't even get away from that noise inside their homes. And the idea that we would regulate would say, well, you know, there's no, well, we'll determine this based on the level of how many complaints there are. Well, somebody's going to come, they're going to invest in creating a venue like this. And then what do we do? Somebody spend a million dollars tweaking a place. And then there are a ton of complaints. And we have, you know, there's no remedy any longer. I think what we have to appreciate is that we are in a complex environment, balancing the interest between economic development and people's livelihoods for sure, and maintaining the quality overall of the rural environment that people are coming here to visit. And so it's not one or the other, it's got to be both. And my guess is that there are other rural communities that have gone through this. What comes to mind for me is maybe the Berkshares. But I think this is going to take, we're looking down at the weeds and trying to come up with the answer. And I think we need to zoom out and start to look at what the issues are and how do we balance those interests more universally. And I would think that the staff could help us come up with all that. And if I could jump in, I think keep an eye on the ball. Like, what is the problem we're trying to solve? And one of those problems is lodging in Western Loudoun County. We are losing market share. We don't have a market share. We're looking for solutions. We're trying to be creative. We're trying to give flexibility to business owners to come in and open operations while at the same time being respectful of our neighbors. I lived and grew up in Western Loudoun County. I want to build Franklin Park and put up speakers or lights. I mean, everyone said we're going to have to move if you put up the lights. If you put on. I lived and grew up in Western Lawn County. When they went to build Franklin Park and put up speakers or lights, I mean everyone said we're gonna have to move, if you put up the lights, if you put on sound when you call it a baseball game we're not the move because it's too loud. They, I mean maybe some moved, I don't know, but it appeared that all my friends still stayed and we're all my team and didn't move away. So I've heard of my whole life, but I just respectfully want to say that you can have some community-based growth that So I've heard of my whole life, but I just respectfully want to say that you can have some community-based growth that promotes the tourism, promotes industry, promotes our youth without scaring off people from coming into the market and opening up a business and making it as easy as possible while also maintaining some rules and guidelines within our zoning. Yeah, and I think balance is the word. I like what Robin Heath, Jasper, said. I agree. Chair Randall, do you have something to add? It's true. I would largely associate myself with what Miss Jasper said and what Mr. Wish, is it Wish? The How You pronounce Wish? What we hear, what I hear on a regular basis is, I moved to the western loud and county for the quiet toot. I moved to western loud and county for the quiet. I move to the western loud and county for the signs. That's what I hear on a regular basis. And we absolutely get complaints. And so yeah, we want to be able to let people monetize their land. And we do know that the bed and breakfasts, and I say that kind of, are lodging, let's say lodging, and is an appropriate and very good use of a rule economy. At the same time, if somebody has moved to Weston, Lownown County because they want to hear crickets at night, having an event facility near them, they can have 50 events a year. That's every single weekend or more is a lot. That's a lot. So I am not sure that we can do this in the next 30 seconds. I think this may have to be an issue that we have almost a whole, I knew this one was gonna take longer, have a whole nother media, because I don't think there's one person on this table that as you're talking, I didn't shake my hands with everyone saying valuable and correct things, even though it's opposite, because it's such a huge issue. I will answer your question, ma'am. To some degree, you can't just up the number of events or the number of guests because of, it might be a traffic stay that might be needed for more people to come of that type of thing. And so we have to, there's a lot of things to look at when we say can we move this number from 20 to even 30 or whatever. There's more than one thing to look at. Chair Randall, you brought that up. Let me just make a quick comment because one thing I've been concerned about is as the scale increases and the intensity increases, what does our road network look like? What do our unpaid roads look like? It is important to look at the vehicle trips per day and how that is impacting safety and the traffic on our gravel road network because a lot of the more commercial businesses as you get into more parties and more people, it does have an impact. So I do wanna bring that up. Road access is an important kind of point for me to be concerned about because we do have a very extensive rural road network. And some of our roads are better maintained than others. So I think it's important to consider that as well. Go ahead, super riders. Yeah, just briefly because we have 51 seconds left. My office probably receives more complaints than anyone because a big significant amount of these different uses are within the Kentucky district. Obviously, the Western districts receive a fair amount, the chair, Mr. Crony. But I will tell you that the two biggest complaints I get, primarily one, the music and how loud it is. And so I've told the industry, if you don't self-regulate, you will get regulated. I feel like we've done a much better job over the last couple of years than we did when I first came on the board. So I throw that out as a concept. The other thing that would slip my mind, oh, well, the other thing was the demand. It was talked about. We were asked, some folks are asking for more. That's because there's a demand for this. So if you don't give them more, more will spring up. So there's a question of demand that goes on here that people want to come to Western Laud. They want to enjoy the wineries and breweries. They want to stay at the bed and breakfasts. the country ends, the home stays, because there's a significant demand for it. So there is that balance, yes, between the residents and this. But we have to keep that in mind, yes, between the residents and this, but we have to keep that in mind too, as we work through this, because you want to encourage it. And if you don't allow an additional five or 10, for example, then others will spring out, because when there is a demand, that you will fill that demand. Thanks. So we are done with our extra time. I think we did 40 minutes, am I right? So we did double time. I don't know if we have enough for staff to take and maybe come back. There's a lot. There's a lot. But I think there was consensus. There was some consensus. We ought to stop noise at 11 at night on weekends and 10 at night on weekdays. That's the progress. Not substantive, but progress. I do not believe that is correct. But I also think that we haven't done enough. I don't think we've staffed. Do you believe you have enough to go away with because it doesn't sound like you do? If you do, great. You know, the outdoor music hours, you know, certainly we can put something together for that as far as the you know we've talked a lot about you know potentially doing sometimes music hours, you know, certainly we can put something together for that. As far as the, you know, we've talked a lot about, you know, potentially doing some type of sliding scale for A-Cridge, and we've talked, we've had some different ideas about setbacks, and, you know, the number of events seems to me like there needs to be more discussion on those particular issues at this point. Yeah, and also I think we didn't get to, should there be a maximum number of attendees for parties that exceed maximum daily guests. We didn't, I don't think we got there yet. Or are the number of additional structures for a country in? Yes, that was the CPACs. Is that what we're thinking for the structures for the new ones? Well, multiple structures on a property for a country. Oh, that's right. Yeah, and we also didn't talk about one thing that I think is important is should there be a minimum number of rooms for lodging uses? So we didn't get to talk. That was on my list. We didn't get to talk about that. So what I'm hearing is you want to, you guys all enjoy this discussion so much, you want to do it again in the seventh meeting. Yes, yes. Just very quickly, the fact that we've had a 40 minute discussion and we've heard arguments from extreme opposite ends and not come to consensus, I would suggest that everybody is pretty comfortable with the way it is right now, that there's no overarching problem to solve. Is that unreasonable? I agree. I agree. I think another agree with that. What's the problem with the tweets? I mean, I think it's the exact opposite. Is that we actually did have some consensus among the group towards cleaner, more understandable rules that you could start a business, maintain a business, and have good, neighborly engagements. But it's up to, I think, the elected and paid staff to suggest a path forward to consolidate some of these things. I'm not sure, I don't know the rules of the difference of a home stay versus a B and B home stay versus maybe the country and you don't have to sleep there, but like there might be consolidation opportunities there that would then allow for whatever role resort is and the scaling stuff. I don't think it's what we're saying is it's good as it is today. There's no maximum cap. There's all these different things. Yeah, I would agree. I don't know if we should, you know, the other thing that I talked about, I don't think we'll have time today is, you know, there's a lot of other uses under lodging, like day, day and camp boarding and campground that I wanted to look at, you know, as far as definitions and maybe making sure that some uses are consistent. But could we bring it to the seventh meeting? Or yes, thank you. Madam Chair, do you think it, I'm sorry, just coming one second. Do you think it is worth having a meeting on this issue alone? Chair Randall, I do. I do think so. I think, I mean, clearly, again, everyone's, have been so valid and so good. I don't think they've been completely opposite, but I will say, I don't know how many complaints Mr. Kirschner gets, but I know how many I get and people are complaining. And so we have got to figure it out. We're respecting all the voices of people who's business is is this, and what you said was really very, very helpful to be honest. But I don't think we've reached consensus at all. And I think another meeting on this topic would be really, very helpful. I would agree. Yes, Mr. Crabos. Just clearly no consensus. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to propose to the committee that the staff go back, take the information they've received today. They will receive summaries from our consulting support that captured all of the comments. They can go back and address the issues that they feel like there may be consensus and then come back with this secondary meeting and you'll have something before you that you can react to and massage and maybe we can get to the finish line at that point in meeting seven. Okay. Yeah that sounds good and there's a lot in meeting seven so I think we should be prepared in case we need a meeting aid. I'm afraid to say it, but yes. Yes. Yes, for everyone who doesn't know me, I'm Theresa Miller, the zoning administrator here for Loudoun County. And I just wanted to kind of bring up a couple little topics that I wanted further direction from you or just something to think about. The regulations that we're talking about for these lodging are not just specific to the rural policy area. They affect the suburban areas, the transition, our joint land management areas. So we need to be specific in that if what we're changing is for the rural policy area, we have to change it for just those districts. And so these regulations will stay for some of those other districts that we have out there. So just bringing that up as a reminder. The second thing that we need to consider is if we're gonna be changing some of these things such as events, this isn't just a zoning issue. And a lot of times these, especially the rule uses are on private water and septic systems. Their septic systems are sized based on these zoning regulations. And so if we change these numbers, we're going to have to have these businesses come back in and get another zoning permit and go through the health department again because now you're increasing the capacity and you may need to increase those systems. So again, this is what we're looking at is the zoning, but I don't want us to stay in that little bubble and we've got subject matter experts here that can come and speak to that. So I want to make sure that we're looking at it from a broader perspective as well. This is not number one, just the real policy area that an important person to have at the table. I think the next time we bring this up, because we do have to look at all aspects, especially the septic, and yeah, if we're gonna be increasing any of these numbers. I try to stay like silent in the back, because it looks like it's possible, but then it builds up. I'm glad you came up. Thank you so much. OK, so does that sound like a plan? You have some information. So just as a clarification, when we come back for this B&B only meeting, would that also include things like the issue with the day camp and or is that going to be? So just so the group knows under lodging there is camp ground and day and camp boarding that is permitted in the rural policy area that I would like to look at while we're looking at lodging. There is a day camp issue that was brought to my attention that I think, and I think this is the time to address some of these issues. And I'm hoping that if we have the separate meeting, it would give us the time to really look at those two uses. Okay. Okay. All right, so now we're going to go to Somile. And that should be short. So that's that's look I'm going to say I got chair Randall and saying it. I'm sure. Don't cut it too short. I knew you would say something like that was bad. That was bad. We're needed to do. Okay, so Saul Mill has a minor special exception use. Go ahead, Brian. Yeah, so just to be brief on this one, currently Saul Mill is a special exception. Special exception requires public hearing and review from the Planning Commission and then public hearing and decision from the board. By changing it to a minor special exception, you would essentially be eliminating the planning commission from the review process and it would simply become a discretionary decision made by the board. Also you would be essentially trimming three to six months off of the review process and cutting the fee as a rough estimate by half, essentially. So that is't know. I just have a quick question. Yes. Definitely this. Does this also affect all the folks that have the mobile mills? No. No. No, I think I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jude. It does. It does not. That's just accessory to your car. Good. Okay. Yes. And this is good. Yes. No. And Casey. Yes, thank you. I think this makes common sense. I mean, I've been buying boards from a guy and I won't disclose a location, but I'm pretty sure this would help that person and many other people that operate meals in Western Lown and County or saw meals of this nature. And so I think it's a very practical occasion to change. And I would say speaking as a planning commissioner, on behalf of the entire planning commission, I don't know if it's one less thing for us to have to do. Okay. Yes. No. Yeah. Okay, so are there any any any? Oh my god, what's Chair Randall? No, I'm just groaning that Caleb's really bad dad jokes. Oh, I know. I know. He's going on and on. Let's cut to the chase. Let's go. All right, so can this one? Can we just give direction? Are we all good on this one? Can we give direction just to have to just we all good on this one? Can we give direction to staff to just move forward with this one? Okay. Right, we got one done. And how, what was that a record? That was a record. What's the next two minutes? Okay, that's awesome. All right, so now we're gonna go to number four. All right, let's see if we can be a minute and a half on this one. I don't know about that. OK, so this one's agricultural product, bona fide, agriculture, and agricultural definition. Let's ask that we combine this one and the farm discussion kind of as a whole, just as a definition. You know, just looking at number five, the overarching question for farm is, do we need a definition for a farm yes or no? No. I'm sorry. We'll talk about it. We'll talk about it. We're going to talk about it. We don't get to talk. These are the current definitions for, in the ordinance right now, bonafide agriculture and agriculture. We are not suggesting to change anything with bonafide agriculture. With agriculture, Jason's here to discuss a proposal that we add the term operation to that and change the definition of agriculture operation to essentially match the definition of agriculture operation in the right to farm act. In addition, we would add the term agricultural products to the ordinance to provide additional clarity to what's considered an agricultural product. This is just a proposal that we feel. The address is some of the concerns that we've heard. Staff continues to maintain the recommendation that we not include a definition for farm simply because it's used in so many different ways within the state code. Okay, so wait can I just clarify? So we're looking at using state code but we're not going to keep the definition of agriculture which is in our county zoning ordinance. We'll change that to agriculture. Agriculture operation which is state code. Let me clarify The concept is to keep agriculture definition. We can tweak it slightly for the use classification, which is the higher level organization. But for this, right now, the term agriculture double functions is both a classification and the specific use. So the keep agriculture for the overarching general classification, but the specific use itself would become agricultural operation. Okay, that provides clarity. Is that clarity? Yeah, I was so hoping that Brian would read the agricultural operation or Jason would from the state care. It's just a feeling. Sure, agriculture operation as defined as the bonafide production or harvesting of agriculture or silvicultural. Pass that around. It's a little, yeah, that's an abbreviated version. It does. Well, Okay, the agricultural operation. Okay, under the Right to Farm Act, even though it's called Right to Farm, it uses the term agricultural operation. means any operation operation devoted to the bona fide production of crops, animals or foul, including production of fruits and vegetables of all kinds, meat, dairy and poultry products, nuts, tobacco, nursery and floral products, and the production and harvest of products from Soviet culture activity. Generally, that- Agriculture operation also includes. Any operation devoted to the housing of livestock. And generally, there's another term in right to farm act called production agriculture and silviculture. That matches all those activities that I just kind of ran down the list of. And I'm passing around the state code definitions right now. And then Jason, you recommend any definition of agricultural products too? Yes, we can include a definition of agricultural products. From state code. Yes. So that's 3.2-6400. Correct, and that would be any livestock, agriculture, poultry, horticultural, flora, cultural, bitical, rural, silver, cultural, or other farm crops. OK. And so I think that's where Brian was also getting to, instead of running down that whole list, just a production of agricultural products. Okay, so anybody want to comment on that on what we have so far? Go ahead, Sharon. I have a clear question for attorneys. I have no issue at all not having a definition for farming. That's not an issue. But as was stated earlier, this would be from county Y, correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. In general, an HOA would have an HOA.'s code of whatever of their what do you call evidence? The Covenants code does have priority over so if somebody, if somebody in an H.O.A. wanted to have an agriculture use a farm, their H.O.A. could say no correct correct? If it's in their covenant? Correct. I mean, provided there's not some pre-existing allowance. Sure, sure, sure. All right, thank you. I actually, thank you for raising that. One of the questions that's come up, I know in one of our rural communities, is an H.O.A. that came through, you know, through covenants for a cluster subdivision and then threatened to sue the farmer whose farm had been subdivided and prevented the farmer from, it was a sheep operation from continuing to raise sheep. And it always seemed to me that that somehow would I the Virginia right to farm act. And I'm wondering what the tension is there and have you resolved it. I know, I don't, well, I mean, if it's the farmer who subdivided his property and subjected it to covenants that allow for the HOA that now occupies a portion of his property to sue him for agricultural uses, what I would say there is that's kind of shame on the farmer for allowing that to happen. I know that right to farm act, we don't look at it too much because it deals more with private nuisance, but it does protect, you know, if the farmer's on the adjacent parcel and people buy into a subdivision that's, you know, on a separate parcel, I think it does offer them the farmer some protection from basically people coming to the nuisance for lack of a better term, but I think that's what it's the Virginia code calls the agricultural operation. Again, that's more of a private protection, so we don't really enforce that provision by the county. I think as we look at cluster subdivisions, this may be a more relevant, Chris, you probably have. Okay, so let's go to Chris, our farmer. We got lots of farmers here. So as one of the groups that kind of brought, got this discussion started about the definition of farm. I have talked to Jason and the staff and I think their strategy on defining agricultural operation and agriculture and agricultural products is a good path forward because we weren't really concerned about, you're a farm, you're not a farm, are those crops you're going really a farm? It was more about folks who were already in violation of zoning. They get a complaint, it's a founded complaint. And then because of things that are in our current code, and there's like a sheet that people get handed, like, hey, this is your violation, this is what you need to do, and there is a thing in there that says, if you're a farm and you have a plan from the solar and water conservation district that supports this activity, you are exempt from this regulation. And the problem is is that virtually none of the things that folks are getting dinged for are things that we would put in a farm conservation farm plan. They're usually things like dumping filled dirt in a flood plain, clearing a mountain side. And so folks get told like, oh, if I'm a farm, I can get away with this. And so then they start to sort of concoct a imaginary farm. And sometimes they will even come to me and I'll say, OK, what sort of farming operation do you have? And they'll say, well, I'm not farming, because they think that that will make their plan easier. And as conservationists, we've got to go through training. We've got to get all sorts of certifications. I can't write a farm plan that says, I recommend you clear that 30% slope for planting row crops, which is, you know, I've had somebody say they wanted to clear the side of a mountain to plant corn. And I said, that is not. And so anyway, the funny story is aside, we're trying to think of a way that we can stop having and this is not uncommon. This is, I would say, on a monthly, if not weekly basis, someone is sent over from the county to try to get a farm plan to get them out of his own in violation, and any layperson would know that that is not farming. And so a way that the county staff can triage this stuff. So a non-regulatory entity like the Soil and Water District does not get a person who then starts cussing me out because I will not write a farm plan recommending the corn on the side of the mountain because that's not, we would be recommending like, maybe we use one of our programs for reforisting that area because that's erosive, but anyway, so that's, I think the solution that they have proposed would help with that issue greatly. I think there are other issues related to things in the code that say located on a farm, mostly related to topics we will be addressing at future meetings that I think will be addressed otherwise, but I think overall, you know, to the conversation Chair Randall had with with this in between about how many acres, you get into acres, you get on slippery slope because then you're telling somebody who might be earning $300,000 growing intensive veggies on three acres in high tunnels that you're not really a farm but somebody that just mows five acres is a farm. So I think this is a good solution. Okay, so I'm going Justin, do you think we can do the definition of farm or are you good with? I think the idea of using agriculture operation is a fine solution. I would just say as the staff goes to tinker with 4.08.1 bona fide agriculture that we also review, you know, I think it's not clear right now that, you know, the way that it's currently written, all farms need a conservation farm management plan, and that's not truly the case. It's, I think, the intent of the code was it if it was under five acres. That's only if they have livestock on under five acres, they need to get a plan. The reasons people have, like the normal reasons people come into our office to get a farm plan is they're doing one of our cost share practices. They're on under five acres and want to have livestock usually back yard chickens. They want to get into an ag and forestal district and they're on under 20 acres and getting into ag land use. But you don't need a farm plan just to farm. We would like them to come get it. Bonafide agriculture is broken down into two non-silver culture and civil culture and they both require either a crop conservation farm management plan or a force management plan. 4.8.02, the very, the letter C, after parcel size, says conservation farm plan, part of the establishment of animal husbandry use on a property less than five acres must have a conservation plan. But if we're combining the two, which is what I think is being proposed, there's going to be different regulation between those two uses. I'll speak briefly to I think the section, it was Chris, is that correct? Justin. Justin. I'm sorry. That's Chris. Sorry, I got them. I know that. Good looking. So the section that you cited in the U-specific standards chapter four for bonafide agriculture, currently that only applies if you are trying to encroach into any R areas, which any R or some of the environmental overlays, which I believe right now is primarily LOD and MOD, and that was kind of, which is mountainside overlay district, and limestone overlay district. And so requiring the conservation farm plan, which has put Chris in the tough situation, was for those people that have MOD on their property, and they want to cut down trees to make a better view for themselves. And then they are prohibited because of the MOD restrictions. But then before they would come in and say, well, I have a Soviet culture use. Or I need it for my farm to cut down these trees. And so that's why we put the farm plan in there, which, again, unfortunately, book racing at tough situation was to kind of prove, make them have some kind of level to prove the actual legitimacy of their use. Like, because we obviously we do not want people denuding mountain sides, building an LOD just for the sake of, you know, aesthetic improvements. We wanted to protect those environmental areas and have that kind of higher threshold. So that's the, that's was the genesis of that requirement. If you are doing agriculture or wanting to do, well, and have that kind of higher threshold. So that's the, that's, was the genesis of that requirement. If you are doing agriculture or wanting to do, well, currently it's called agriculture, but I think would become agricultural operation in just regular land that isn't subject to an environmental overlay district, you should not be in order to prove that for zoning purposes, you should not be at this point required to have a farm plan. Okay, David. Just do. You should not be at this point required to have a farm plan. Okay, David. Just a question. Are we eliminating the use of farm entirely in the, in all these zoning and planning? Not in today's but for a brewery it says it must be located on a farm. And- Stay-coat. Right, but it's like, if that they don't use farm, they use what maybe they do use farm. But- I know there's a totally different rabbit hole, but does the adoption of this strategy mess us up for addressing what needs to be addressed in that next conversation. I just make it better. I think, again, because it has its own, and that was part of what the thinking was around this, I think because it is a separate, like, category of use, like, a limited brewery is its own thing, and while the state code says must be on a farm, it then doesn't really define what they mean by that, which again is its whole separate issue, but yeah, I think that's next meetings thing. What I would say to that is, we can all hold hands if we've come into an agreement on this one, which is great, but we will definitely carry whatever we decide if we decide to use agricultural products and agricultural operation. We're going to carry that over into the June meeting discussion because it is going to have an impact on how things are defined when we discuss the rest of the definitions for the other uses that we're talking about here, you know, involving things like the wineries and breweries and the distilleries. So we'll bring that from this meeting to the next meeting and when we look at it, we'll look at the whole product and how it all relates at that. But the David's point, if state code uses the term farm, we've got to somehow have a bridging definition that matches agricultural operation to farm and state code. Yeah, and otherwise the the farm term in wineries and stillers doesn't mean anything. Well, or it could leak backwards from limited brewery back to sort of a half farm that's not a brewery, but they're using that terminology. So I just don't allow us in June to go backwards. That is something where we need to take a closer look at it and try to unravel I Note that the term agricultural operation one of the things that we thought it was attractive from staff's perspective And also based on the people that we've talked to is that it does not include The processing of agricultural or civil cultural products by processing. We're not not talking about preparing for market and I think 15.2, 2288.6 allows some minor canning, bottling, operations, honey selling, stuff like that. We're not talking about that kind of processing. But it gets into the limited breweries where if all you're doing is processing and there's no really legitimate growing of agricultural products, then that's kind of going to raise a flag and have us ask some questions and maybe look at maybe having know, maybe having different regulations or something like that. Okay. Okay, any other comments on that? Okay, so I will say, we'll probably be talking about this in the June meeting again. I think. Yes, because we do have more definitions to discuss relating to the June meeting. So we'll tie it all together with this discussion here that we've had today. OK. And I just do want to say that when we went through the Zor, I know the public was interested in adding a definition of farm. But I think when we get to the June meeting, the reference is to it. That'll allow us to figure out if we need a stand alone or if we can just include it in another definition, like the agricultural operations. So I think that's a good time to do that. Okay, anything else? I think we're good. Yep. So we're saying the plan is to talk about definition of farm in a future meeting. I think- Though we agreed at the beginning that we weren't going to have a definition. I think what I think we're gonna be talking about farm because it's in the state code description of one of the items we're going to be discussing wineries and breweries and limited distilleries. I think wineries and breweries should be discussed separately but the definition of farm as it relates to agricultural operations needs that that's a different conversation that I think we're gonna end today. Okay. I'd like to. So I don't, I heard that nobody really is interested in a standalone definition or I have heard that putting it in with the agricultural operations might suffice and might. I think as long as it solves the issue, right, yeah, as long as it solves the issue, as long as it solves the issue. Then yeah, if it doesn't, like, if it doesn't, then we're still back with the same problem. But yeah, as long as it, yeah. It doesn't create more issues. It doesn't create more issues, yeah. We never know. Yeah, but we think we know. Okay, so does staff have enough, I think, to work with? Yes, I think so. Okay, wonderful. I look, we are doing really well, 15 minutes. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Go ahead. I don't think Miss, I don't believe I heard an answer to Mr. Wisch's question. Maybe it was an answer, but I need to know that I know that I heard an answer to his question. I think he would he said, correct me from wrong, Mr. Wish. Wineries and breweries is another discussion, but as of today, we're saying that we will be seeing agriculture uses and there will be no definition of farms for the capital operation to know use of farms. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Wonderful. And like I said, you know, you aren't tied to these decisions tonight. Right. If we go forward, it's not fun. These are just, like, you know, and have a decision that, you know, something comes up, we can revisit it. But yeah. Just to add to that, farm, we will have to address it in the next meeting because the state code talks about farm. And so we'll just be bridging. We'll have to talk how to bridge that. And anticipation of that meeting coming up, I think at 13 limited breweries in Louten County. And as far as I know, they're all in in compliance and they're all meet the definition that we would entitles tail so kind of 13. Yeah, not an aggregate of the 13 the farm at 100% No, absolutely not. Do you know what 13 they are? I can think Lark doesn't make anything there a place on. Are they one of the 13? I mean they in compliance so if we're just looking so that's there this is where the discussion He's the current that next meeting so I think we're fine here Right that's why I think a cut you got high level look at this if Like you need to have the word farm to find would it would it be inappropriate or not realistic to say if you define agricultural operation under state code, then you have farm under the county definition and it says see definition for agricultural operation and call it a day. I mean, thanks. Yeah. Right. I mean, there are. to me it means, you know what I mean? I can say that there's a farm brewery that doesn't have any of the farm or ag, or whatever, that's a time definition to since it's some words, the only time to use in this context we could make farm breweries look whatever you want to look like. To Casey's point, all you have to do is say one time, one is to sow his breweries. For the purpose of this discussion, under Warners to Soys and Breweries, the word farm means agricultural operation. Done. Move on. Yeah. That's an easy fix, I think. Yeah. In preparation for June's meeting, I'm happy to organize and arrange for visits to any and all farm Warners and Breweries in Loudon County to see how they operate. You can do 13 all in one day. Only compliance. All right. That would be a tough day. That would be a tough day. OK, so topic five. It says it sounds good. Sorry. That's good. All right, so topic five, Brian, are we done? We're going to combine that with the topic four, and we're done, right? Pretty much how we think. We've all got two. Again, we combine it. Topic four and top of five right. Pretty much happy. Yeah, we've got two. Yeah, we've got two. We've got two. Yeah, we've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. We've got two. So we got a little additional information. Yes. Supervisor Kirschner's issue. Essentially, so we've got two questions that need address. Number one, should an agricultural structure be allowed to be rebuilt if a person just wishes to rebuild the structure and repair it even though it's not conforming based on the setback. And then number two, if property owner would like to remove the nonconforming designation regarding their agricultural structure, should they have to go through the board with a special request to have that removed? Yeah want me to address it? Yeah, why don't you send two of them on the post? Yeah, so this is, so we ran, this is really probably not going to happen a lot, but it has happened, and so I wanted to bring it to staff's attention and to this committee's attention to perhaps. We ran, we have run into situation, I've shared this publicly a couple of times where a farmer wanted to remove a current garage they have and build another garage for it's where he was keeping his equipment because it was an old one built back in the 60s and replace it with one basically the same footprint and everything else. But he ran into an issue where back in the 80s his uncle, whomever owned the property of the time, had subdivided one parcel where their access road went by his current farming garage. And because it was, I think within 30 feet of that access, it was 20 feet or whatever, he was prohibited from doing so unless there was the only way that it happened was there was an act of God. Now we were And that's there's chances we had a really bad windstorm. It kind of blew over One night because the act of God happened and Yeah Yeah, God got came through and fixed the problem for us But it demonstrated to me a very severe problem It's like we I think I think our policy as a general rule would we want to encourage agriculture, we want to encourage nicer looking buildings, if there's an old building they want to replace as long as it's the same footprint. I think we can do that as a general rule, but sometimes you run into this situation where you have a subdivision where a road's running by. It doesn't affect anything. It's very close to where I live. It's a very nice looking building now. It replaced the old one. He would have been required to move it 20 feet to the right in order to rebuild it, which was not going to work on how the land was set up there. What's the use for Tuesday and Tuesday? First, farmer's women. Just like he would before. There's no change in any use. Okay. Go ahead, go ahead I know one question I have is so I was very, you know, I thought this was a fine idea and made a ton of sense. The only question I have would be the volume of the new building. So the same footprint, easy, but maybe there's a value in restraining the building volume to, you know, 25% larger than the original building or something. So you don't have that condition where somebody, yeah. I think it has to be, it cannot include increased floor area either through an expanded footboard or additional height or stories. Am I correct? Yeah. So it's an uncomforming structure. Well, I do want to say, should the waiver only apply to agricultural structures with agricultural operations? So that's my question, because what if the primary use is not that? I mean, you know, what's the use for when you rebuild it? Should it just be for agricultural structures with agricultural operations? What if it was a historic? Well, that you wouldn't need this because then you go through the historical non-conforming because there's another process for historical. Okay, so let's, David, you're- It's exactly that point. I mean, I think it makes total sense to to allow grandfathering of an ag structure as long as it's a bonafide ag structure. I am not 100% sure but it sounds like some wineries can become a tasting room and not have to go through building codes and safety standards because it's considered an ag structure and if they take like a dilapidated barn and they make it a nice tasting room and they don't have safety. I don't know if I want to drink wine there, but is that part of this Statute to it's setbacks, but it's really like rebuilding of a old building Am I going down the wrong rabbit hole? No, I think you're asking the right question. I mean what's what's the use? Yeah, change of years. Go ahead, Chorano. It was my impression when I had the briefing from staff a couple of days ago I asked that question. Is my... was the use. Yeah, change of use. Go ahead, Chirino. It was my impression when I had the briefing from staff a couple of days ago, I asked that question. It was my impression and if I did not get this right, please let me know. It is the same use or a very, very similar use. Same footprint, same height, and all those types of things. That's why I'm surprised I was taking this long on this issue because if it's the same use it's the same use That's that was my understanding during that meeting so it's the same use and in the same footprint and it can't give more FAR with height Okay, guys can we just Why does one of say I think that Consolidious Jasper had a at a great point that you know giving them the flexibility to maybe be considered to increase. Maybe their farm has increased. It's designed to hold a tractor from the early 1900s and now there's a modern tractor. So a modification of a size may be warranted due to the equipment that needs to be facilitated. So if it has a practical application, could you not have a little leniency there? I mean, I'm not saying substantially it changes, I'm not saying expanded in height, but allow them the ability to get their building up in good repair and also for a use for today with modern equipment. What does that think? Because it's non-conforming. So what does that mean? To further along that first though, it also may be that modern building requirements and modern building code requires, in order to have the same amount of capacity to what you were doing, you might have to have a bathroom. You might have a dish, you might have a that, that makes the physical space slightly larger. Just on safety design. You just don't get to design. The U.S. building could't apply to extractors. That's right That's and that's what David was saying that you know, you're correct Justin So what what was staff thought thoughts on that? I mean, I was thinking the same footprint same size because it's non-conforming I mean that that's our initial take on it and to look at opening up non-conformities to then increase in that specific section there. We definitely wanna research that and look into that. Yeah, because if you look at nonconformities, it won't, I mean, it specifically says you can't, you can't increase the size. So I don't know that we wanna do that. Anything else, because I think Chair Randall's right, this is relatively easy, is there any other comments? And I guess my only comment would be the waiver consider the setback from adjacent residential properties. But I don't, I mean, they already had the ag building there, right? The extraructure. So that would be the only thing is the adjacent properties to maybe consider that. OK, anything else? No? Okay. All right, now we're on the last one. Look, that was a short. Okay. Okay, good. Conservation, easement, density. So that's, this one is across a few zoning districts. So I just want to give everybody a heads up, not just rural. So this issue is a holdover from the prime ag soil discussion. There was a concern that was raised that there potentially would be a loophole where you could loop in to your proposed development land that was in already in conservation easement and use that land for additional density within your cluster subdivision so the question is do we want to close that loop hole to ensure that conservation easement land is not allowed to be counted towards additional density or would you like to open that up as a potential. David. Close loophole. Yeah. I call it double dipping, but that's what I've been calling it. Anybody else want to speak on this? It's a loophole. But it is a cross zoning district, so I will say. So I just want to give everybody heads up. It's not just a R1 and a R2 where we have conservation easements. Go ahead. I think, you know, the double counting, double dipping. Double dipping. People that I've spoke to that are involved with conservation easements. They have no need for this. I think it's a simple one to close loophole. It was never intended by people that are trying to do the right thing and Constracies to be used that way. My only thing is I would propose that we look at it retroactively too and I know I threw that out to Jason because it clearly violates the intent of a conservation easement. So I'd like to look at this retroactively. I think we can do that. Yeah, thank you, Jason. I mean, if there's been a subdivision that's already been approved and recorded that violated this, that slipped through, I don't know that we can undo that at this point, but certainly existing conservation easements, yes, we can certainly account for those. One point of clarification, if the conservation does, most conservation easements do allow a limited lot yield that's much less. And I think we talked about this. We could still include that limited lot yield, provided it hasn't been exhausted yet towards density, or are we saying that conservation easement, you can't even include it at all. No, you can't say that. Each easement is very different and has very different language that outlines the use within that easement and sometimes the density is not totally forgiven in that easement. Okay. But to that point, that's a valid point. If the conservation easement did not use up the full lot of the lots and take advantage of it, then why that's different from what I said previously, that's not a loophole that is unused lots that have not been put into the account for. But then it's not subject to the easement by definition. That's not true. The easement's got very clear language and you're not forefitting. you can choose to forfeit a certain volume of lots yield in that easement. And if you're not forfeiting all of those lots, you should be able to use those lots in the future. I think- You're not in other parcels. No, I like an adjoining parcel. I think that's already been taken into account. Nobody's saying that we're going to extinguish easements. I mean, you say I have X number of lots, you can still use those lots. Yeah, but you're not necessarily always subdividing at that point. Yeah, I think we're. So there's a state, had a hundred acre property and you said, I'm putting this in Eastman, I'm keeping three development rights. But you haven't used the development rights yet. Okay, you can still use those development rights. And then let's say you did do about what the issue that this came up, it wasn't totally ethereal. There was actually a proposal that said, I have this acreage that has no development rights on it, and I wanna combine it with the 10 acres next door, and I wanna, that is an inesment, and I wanna take all the development rights of like 20 plus development rights that were totally extinguished, and put them on the 10 acres that's not an easement, which only has one development right. So that was the proposal, but I guess if they had three development rights, they could combine them and say now are 110 acres as three development rights, so that would still be allowed. Yeah. For the easement agreement was I don't think you modify that because it's with a third party. That's your point to allow the limited. Yeah, it's with a third party, right? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, the Lee interest. OK. Anything else on that? OK. All right, so we agree. So that's to close the loophole. And actually, will that go? I think we talked about having that go to Zoc in a different path. Yeah, we can forward that at the ZAC. Different path. So we're not going to wait. This will probably take- Did we say we're going to go right through? Retro and then forward this on a different path because this could take tool 27. Wait, would you say about retro? If somebody is in the application process, it would be retroactive. Oh, it depends on where they're in that process. I don't know this. That's what I just wanted to say. Yeah, I don't. This is what Jason said. Yeah. Tell me about that, Jason. I may have misunderstood. I thought when I heard the retroactive, I thought you meant previously recorded, conservation needs, it's not new conservation needs, when it's looking forward. I think the question of whether or not something is currently in the process that would come down to probably a grandfathering, if it hasn't been approved, if it's been submitted, and we want to make the regulations apply to it because it hasn't been approved yet, I think that would be more of a grand fathering. Do you have any ideal of these existence of so how many? I'm sorry. Do you have any ideal of this issue exists and of so how many? I'm aware of the proposal that Chris mentioned. I don't know if that was just conceptual. I know I think I was in a pre-meeting. Involving that, I don't know if an actual plan was ever submitted pursuant to that. I would have to defer to building and development. OK. And in terms of grandfathering, my sense on this is that the word double dipping has come up. The people who have already put property and conservation, Eastman and got a fixed number of lots and got compensated through using our taxpayer money for giving up their development rights. I don't feel like if we close the opportunity to double dip, we have to really worry about retroactivity because they're really trying to game the system. I think the, I mean my understanding was that the gap in the loophole exists in county written easements between what 90, 68 and 2014. So that's what I'm talking about retroactivity is that the state code protects for that in Section B but of the state code that's relevant to this but If we're not talking about closing that 1968 to 2014 everything from 2014 is already protected We can't we can't double dip in those. It's very explicit. So we are retroacting something. I met that, but I also met, I think Robin Eves said it right that it really truly is double dipping. And I don't think we should be looking at grandfathering. So and I was thinking retroactive meaning that there would be no grandfathering too. Well, there's no need to. No need to. No. There's no need to. I don't know why we would. I didn't bring it up. I think Jason brought that up. I'm sorry. What was the? There's no need. Just never mind. It was something you brought up and I was just. You didn't miss anything. All right. Anybody else? I think we're good. So do we want to break and then summarize? Do you think you have enough to summarize? Well, my outline says we're supposed to break sure. Yeah, it does. I can summarize. But Yes. I can separate. Like your life. I know. So staff has time to put it together. Okay. But if he has it. I'll go through it right now. Okay. First issue, agritainment, agritourism. We're going to combine those two, create one definition to match a state code for agritourism. Create its own use, make it accessory. We are going to delete agritainment as far as the definition goes and make sure it's part of the agricultural operation as the primary use. We are going to review cultural tourism requirements and as far as the impacts go and make sure that we keep that in the ordinance. Going to the next issue, bed and breakfast, We are going to continue that discussion at a future meeting. Staff is going to do our best to address the issues that we feel there was a consensus on and will provide some reference language for you to take a look at and use as a jumping off point to further the discussion. They haven't took a while, but we are going to move it to minor special exception. Definitions, we are not going to pursue a definition for a farm. We are going to look at the agricultural and agricultural operation and agricultural products definitions as proposed by the county attorney. We are going to we're going to carry that forward into the June discussion to use as a jumping off point for our further discussion regarding our definitions for next meeting. the, the Ag structure discussion, we are going to allow an exemption that applies only to Ag structures that would allow for the replacement of those structures without a natural disaster. As far as conservation easements, they are not going to count. And we are going to review that retroactively. They're not going to count towards additional density. That's what I have. Yeah, and also can you add structures with agricultural operations? Yes. because then that ties the two together. I think that's what we talked about. Madam Chair, can I have a point of clarification? Yes. Just a point of clarification. Two staffers, well thank you to staff. You all have done a great job tonight as you always do. And thank you to everybody else. These are hard discussions for really important. And these are discussions that actually kind of shaped the county going forward. And so thank you everybody for being here. The only point of clarification I had I have is I want I actually wanted on record because you said that we came to a consensus about the hours as it related to music. I want to be on record for disagreeing with the hours that were stated. I'm not saying that we need to change anything, but I just want that to be on record for myself. Yeah, we'll use that as a jumping off point, and obviously depending on what we discuss at the next meeting, maybe everything will change, right? Okay, thank you very much, I appreciate it. And did you add campground, day camp? And yes, all of that will be... Part of your jumping off, yeah. to the the Bud and Breakfast discussion, yes. Okay, wonderful. All right, any other comments? I wanna thank everybody for participating. Your insights and your expertise is really appreciated as we go through this process. So our next meeting is in June. And just so you know this is gonna be a long process, we probably won't be done with this until 2027, but you will have another opportunity to comment because your input is important. Your voice is important because it will go to the planning commission and it will go to the board of supervisors and there will be lots of opportunities for public input. So thank you so much. It was nice to meet everybody. And thank you staff. You guys did a great job. You came very well organized. So. It's always a pleasure. We look forward to next time. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. But. Thank you.