Consultants deliver draft ordinance updates; commissioners, planning and zoning to review before finalizing enforcement, fees and land-use alignment

5948786 · October 15, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A consulting team presented draft updates to Mercer County’s ordinances and fee suggestions; commissioners and planning and zoning members discussed enforcement, bonds scaled to project cost, permit-fee benchmarking and whether to align a comprehensive land-use plan with the ordinance rewrite.

Consultants presented a set of draft ordinance updates to Mercer County commissioners and planning and zoning staff, and commissioners directed staff and Planning & Zoning to review the drafts in detail before the board considers final adoption.

Keefer, the consultant lead, and county planning staff described changes they recommend to modernize the county’s ordinances for issues that include industrial uses, bonds, permit fees, recreational/residential subdivisions near the lake, and potential worker housing (man camps). “We came up with, that I think makes a lot of sense is as you're looking at industrial properties ... they need to post a bond for noise mitigation,” the consultant said while outlining an approach to scale bonds and permit fees.

Commissioners and planning staff debated sequencing. Some commissioners urged moving quickly to adopt comprehensive ordinance updates because new industrial proposals could appear on a short timeline, while others recommended passing ordinances and a comprehensive land-use plan together to ensure consistency. Commissioners discussed that bonds tied to project size or disturbance area, rather than fixed dollar amounts, would better match potential rehabilitation costs; consultants suggested percentages of project cost as a potential model.

The consulting team also noted surrounding high-growth counties (Stark, Williams and McKenzie) as benchmarks for permit fees and enforcement approaches, and commissioners asked staff to include comparisons to McLean and Oliver counties as well.

Commissioners and staff agreed on several next steps: Planning & Zoning will hold a November meeting to provide formal feedback; county staff and the consultant team will prepare a prioritized set of ordinance choices (option A/B/C on specific sections) and fee-recommendations for commissioners; and the departments will propose flow charts and checklists to streamline applications and inspections. Commissioners also discussed shared code-enforcement staffing options with municipalities via joint powers agreements.

No final ordinances were adopted at the meeting; the consultant and county staff will provide revised drafts and a meeting agenda designed to get decision-level direction from P&Z and the commission.