Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2025-532

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Relating to Agritourism Regulations; Amending Pierce County Code Chapters 18.25, "Definitions," 18A.33, "Use Category Descriptions," and 18J.15, "Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines"; Adopting Findings of Fact; and Setting an Effective Date.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Robyn Denson, Amy Cruver

Final votes

October 7, 2025
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Janice Bryant 9/24/25 9:54 AM Letter to Councilmembers Robyn Denson, Amy Cruver, and Dave Morell Subject: Proposed Ordinance No. O2025-532 – Agritourism Clarifications Date: September 24, 2025 Dear Councilmembers Denson, Cruver, and Morell, As a Pierce County Agriculture Advisory Commissioner, representing Key Peninsula farms, I apologizes for this late submission on Proposed Ordinance O2025-532, amending PCC Chapters 18.25, 18A.33, and 18J.15. I support its aim to clarify agritourism for GMA compliance, boosting revenue and financial security for Pierce County farms and ranches. However, it unfairly impacts existing operations— specifically farms that include lodging, wineries, distilleries, and barn wedding venues—by removing their approved uses in PCC 18A.33.260, risking non-conforming status and threatening viability (e.g., $500K+ annual tourism revenue). Without clear process to document these uses or deadlines for future revisions, farms face uncertain, inconsistent approvals due to staff turnover. Concerns: 1. Non-Conforming Risk: Removing “lodging, small-scale breweries, wineries, distilleries, barn wedding venues” from PCC 18A.33.260 could force established farm operations into non-conforming status, limiting financing and operations. 2. No Clear Process: Without county-led documentation (e.g., “use verification” forms), farms must reactively prove continuity under PCC 18A.70, risking enforcement disputes, and at a resource loss for the very farms we are seeking to strengthen. 3. Uncertain Approvals: No revision deadlines leave farms vulnerable to inconsistent staff interpretations, and changes over time, worsened by Planning Department strains and renewal rates. Requested Action: • Amend O2025-532 to retain “lodging, small-scale breweries, wineries, distilleries, barn wedding venues” in PCC 18A.33.260 to protect existing operations, acknowledging potential conflicts with high-intensity use rules but prioritizing farm viability until corrective measures are developed. • Implement a county-led “use verification” process to document current agritourism, preventing non-conforming status and hurdles. • If unable to restore verbiage, push the ordinance back to staff and the Pierce County Agricultural Advisory Commission for further work. I understand that there are egregious actors in the agritourism space, and that we need standards to limit those actions, however, the first rule of good policy is to “do no harm.” With clear definitions in place that delineate agritourism operations and expectations, I submit that the County has what is needed to make clear distinction between authentic and faux agritourism operations. Until we fully understand the problem, I argue strongly to protect not harm existing efforts and businesses. Thank you for your support, time and consideration. Sincerely, Janice Bryant Pierce County Agriculture Advisory Commissioner (360) 507-8745