Commissioners Reject Zoning Change

DAYTON - During their August 6 meeting, the Columbia County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to deny a zoning text amendment that would have significantly changed the land use in the AR-1 zone in Columbia County.

The amendment, which was requested by Monteillet Fromagerie owners Pierre Louis and Joan Monteillet, would have allowed on-site sales of any agricultural-related product in the AR-1 zone, regardless of where it was produced.

Prior to the commissioners' vote, County Prosecuting Attorney Rea Culwell read a statement that outlined the issues she felt the commissioners should consider in making their decision, and recommended that they deny the request.

The proposed amendment is a legislative action, she said. It is a decision regarding "a code that applies to everyone in a particular zone - this is not a case-specific decision like a building permit or a plat adjustment."

One significant objection Culwell said she had was that the proposed amendment was not consistent with the county's comprehensive plan, as established by the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act.

According to Culwell the comprehensive plan, as it currently reads, requires that the county discourage commercial activity in zones in which residences are a primary use, including AR-1. Individual zoning regulations cannot conflict with the comprehensive plan, she added.

In an interview after the meeting, Culwell reiterated the risk of legal action if the amendment passed. "If we had granted this, the state could have come in and sued us," she told The Times.

Columbia County Planning Director Kim Lyonnais also spoke before the commissioners voted. His office had also recommended denial of the proposed amendment.

Lyonnais re-read the proposed text amendment and expressed his concern that the language put no limitation on the types of products that could be sold on site, other than that they be in some way agricultural related.

In a separate interview, Lyonnais said, "This amendment would open the A-1 zone to anything ag related, no matter where it was produced. That's way too vague and open-ended, in my opinion."

During her interview, Culwell said that if the community wants to allow on-site sales by small agricultural producers in an AR zone, like the Monteillets, the place to start is with the comprehensive plan.

"If people in the community want this, we should re-address the comp plan," she said. "The comp plan can only be revised once a year, but it hasn't been revised yet this year."

The Monteillets cheese-making facility is located in the AR-1 zone, about 1.2 miles west of Dayton on Highway 12. Besides producing and packaging cheese, they sell it to the public at their facility. They also sell wine that's not produced on site, and they sometimes hold public events at their facility.

They were notified in March 2013 that they were out of compliance with zoning regulations, because of their on-site sales. According to records provided by the Columbia County Planning Dept., three letters were sent last year before the Monteillets responded in December.

Early this year the Monteillets and their attorney, Michael Hubbard, proposed the text amendment, which would have put them in compliance with code. With the amendment, the code would be revised to allow certain conditional uses in the AR-1 zone, including:

"On-site sales of farm products, processed and/or packaged on site, including nursery, meat, dairy, orchard, vineyard, hay, winery, brewery, distillery and similar products, together with on-site sales of other agricultural based products, including wine, beer and spirits with tasting room (subject to Washington State Liquor Control Board license)."

The Columbia County Planning Commission discussed the issue during several of its meetings, but some of its members were uncomfortable with the broadness of the proposed language. In April, they asked planning staff to propose revised language to the Monteillets which would have allowed on-site sales only of products produced at the site, and would only allow alcohol to be consumed at the site, along with the product produced. That counterproposal was rejected by the Moneillets.

The commission held a public hearing on the proposal in June. In the end, the commission voted to recommend denying the amendment. Two of the six members voted to recommend approval.