Trainer urges clear timelines, consistent variance criteria and careful use of conditional-use permits
Loading...
Summary
At an educational session for the Planning Commission, the presenter recommended that local agencies define reasonable diligence timelines, apply variance criteria strictly, and consider trade-offs when expanding conditional-use permit lists.
A presenter from the state land-use office told the San Juan County Planning Commission on Nov. 11 that local agencies should write clearer timelines and standards into land-use documents so courts do not have to decide whether officials acted with "reasonable diligence." "My recommendation to local agencies is to have some language in there that allows for staff and administration ... to be able to point to something so that 'reasonable' then isn't left up to the interpretation of just the individual looking at it," the presenter said.
Why it matters: the presenter said vague standards can produce inconsistent administrative decisions and weaken an agency’s record in litigation. He recommended spelled-out timelines for progressing projects so that questions about vesting rights — including whether vesting transfers after a property sale — are easier for agencies and courts to evaluate.
Other training points: the presenter emphasized the importance of applying variance criteria strictly: "If you as a local agency are approving variances without going through that five criteria, you're undermining your own code every single time," he said. He also described the "pioneering problem" that arises when early developers are asked to provide oversized infrastructure to accommodate future growth and urged use of development agreements to apportion costs fairly.
Conditional-use permits: the presenter discussed two state-wide trends: some jurisdictions are reducing their conditional-use permit lists and making more uses permitted by right; others are expanding conditional-use permitting. He said, however, that a conditional-use permit is a permitted use with conditions to mitigate impacts to a reasonable degree. "It does not mean that something has to be mitigated completely," he said, and gave examples such as light-hooding and hours-of-operation restrictions as reasonable mitigation.
Role of the county attorney: commissioners debated whether the county attorney should be present at every Planning Commission hearing. Presenters and commissioners agreed attorneys are useful for procedural guardrails, but several commissioners cautioned that attorneys’ interpretations can overshadow the Commission’s deliberative role on evidentiary findings. The presenter urged commissioners to be prepared to explain their findings in the record rather than defaulting to the attorney’s interpretation.
Outcomes: the session ended with staff offering to provide slides and follow-up training on request. The presenter invited commissioners to contact the state office for additional training, including remote sessions.
