- The eligibility requirement should require the building be not only 50 years old or older, but also be deemed historically or culturally significant by the county staff. There are countless cookie cutter homes, garages, and barns from the 1950's and 60's that become eligible otherwise. This change would give clear guidance to future proposals, the community, staff, and future Board of Supervisors that the intent is to incentivize adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
- There is no clear extinguishing of the use. If a facility is destroyed can the owner rebuild? If so, what are the guidelines for rebuilding? This needs to be clearly outlined in the ordinance and this amendment session would be a good opportunity to address it.
- The addition of "receptions", without definition, creates ambiguity for future applicants and the staff in interpreting the meaning. Receptions are not defined in the county code, raising concern about what exactly this addition would allow. Including it potentially adds an element of ambiguity that could be exploited for purposes that were not initially intended by the drafters such as avoidance of event regulations through the Winery Ordinance or large scale banquet hall facilities.
PEC feels that the reception use should be removed because it is not consistent the comprehensive plan and puts additional pressure on rural infrastructure and provides little support to agricultural operations. However, if included it should be clearly defined in the ordinance or definition section of the zoning. This would help applicants trying to understand what they may do with the land, staff trying to consistently interpret the language, and assure the community about what exactly is allowed under an adaptive reuse.