Pending fiscal court approval, Farmer & Frenchman will soon be able to build a six-unit bed and breakfast on its campus
The Henderson City-County Planning Commission approved a recommendation to add small farm winery farmstays with up to nine guest rooms as a conditional use for land zoned agricultural to the county’s zoning ordinance at Tuesday night’s meeting.
The recommendation came in a roundabout way, after a series of motions and seconds were made and withdrawn, before finally returning to vote on the first motion to approve language that originated from the Henderson County Fiscal Court.
Relatively early in the discussion regarding small farm winery farmstays—which has come about after efforts from Farmer and Frenchman representatives to build a six-unit bed and breakfast on its campus—Planning Commissioner Bobbie Jarrett made the motion to recommend to the Henderson County Fiscal Court to add to the county’s zoning ordinance that small farm winery farmstays are a conditional use in agricultural zones. It was seconded by Planning Commissioner Mac Arnold.
But then Planning Commissioner Curt Hamilton suggested that instead of recommending small farm winery farmstays as a conditional use, it should be a permitted use on agricultural land. He said the red tape that people have to go through to do business in the county is “just too much and it’s discouraging for investment in our county.”
Jennifer Allen, the assistant director of the planning commission, said that both bed and breakfasts—of which small farm winery farmstays are considered—and agritourism are both conditional use permits required. So, to make small farm winery farmstays a permitted use would require some changes to language surrounding bed and breakfasts in the county’s zoning ordinance, she said.
Tommy Joe Fridy said that the planning commission’s job is to make recommendations and that Hamilton can make an amendment to Jarret’s motion, which Hamilton did, moving to amend Jarret’s motion and recommending that small farm winery farmstays are a permitted use on agricultural land.
At this time, Jarrett’s motion with a second was on the floor with Hamilton’s motion to amend. After four more people spoke, Planning Commissioner Gray Hodge seconded Hamilton’s motion to amend.
Shannon Hill, after hearing previous testimony from county Codes Administrator Randy Tasa, asked what would be in place for protection of adjacent landowners when the conditional use is eliminated and people who own agricultural land only need to submit a building plan. Tasa stepped to the microphone again and said that conditional uses protect adjacent property owners and give them a chance to voice their concerns.
Hamilton asked if investors would have to go through the process every single time they want to start a new project that has conditional use.
Tasa replied that a similar process is in place for commercial projects when site plans are submitted and people are allowed to speak about them in public hearing.
As the planning commission was about to vote on Hamilton’s motion to amend, Planning Commissioner Mac Arnold asked what occurs if Hamilton’s motion to amend is passed. Arnold wanted to know if Farmer and Frenchman would need to come back to the planning commission again in a month for another public hearing regarding Hamilton’s amendment.
Friday, at this time, suggested that Hamilton withdraw his motion to amend and then make a new motion that the planning commission pass Jarrett’s motion—which was the language sent from the fiscal court—and include in the motion that fiscal court only consider further amendments to the ordinance that would make small farm winery farmstays a permitted use on agricultural land.
Hamilton withdrew his motion and made another motion using the language that Fridy suggested.
Planning Commissioner Dickie Johnson said that the fiscal court asked the planning commission to make a recommendation on small farm winery farmstays as a conditional use. After that, the planning commission can originate its own change, if it chooses, according to Johnson.
So, once again, Hamilton withdrew his amendment, leaving Jarrett’s original motion left to vote on.
And finally, the planning commission voted, passing Jarrett’s original motion to recommend that small farm winery farmstays be added as conditional use on land zoned agricultural. The vote was unanimous.
After that, Planning Commission Chair David Dixon asked if anyone wanted to make a motion, and Hamilton again moved that the planning commission recommend making small farm winery farmstays a permitted use. Hodge seconded.
This motion failed 7-3—Hamilton, Hodge and Kevin Herron voted in favor.
In discussion during the meeting, Herron and Hamilton both said they favored less restrictions on doing business in the county.
“It shouldn’t be this complicated for people to do business in our county,” Hamilton said.
After the meeting, Farmer and Frenchman owner Katy Groves-Mussat said that after the fiscal court receives the planning commission’s recommendation and ultimately approves it, the best-case scenario to have the bed and breakfast built and occupants renting would be six months, but more likely it would be one year.
She said subcontractors were ready to do the work in the past but with the lengthy wait from when they wanted to get started until now, they have gone on to other jobs.
She said the zoning change, if passed by fiscal court, which is likely, will provide more clarity for entrepreneurs who want to do something similar.
“I think Henderson is moving in the right direction,” she said.
