Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land-use committee holds multiple rezoning and events ordinances after questions about public notice and planning commission vacancies
Summary
Jackson County’s Land Use Committee voted to hold several rezoning and land-use measures April 28 after members raised concerns about whether planning commission agendas were properly noticed and whether vacancies affected required proceedings.
At the April 28 session, the Jackson County Legislature’s Land Use Committee moved to hold several proposed ordinances affecting rezoning, event facility rules, and lot vacations after members questioned the planning commission’s notice procedures and appointment vacancies.
The Clerk read multiple ordinances including one to rezone a 2.5-acre tract from agricultural (AG) to residential estates (RE) (ordinance 5974) and a proposal to enact rules for wedding and events facilities in unincorporated Jackson County (ordinance 5975). Committee members debated whether the planning commission’s agenda had been properly noticed and pointed to vacancies and lapses on the commission that, they said, affected transparency.
"In the committee, we had 2 to perfect and 2 that abstained from that. So we had a tie. So we had no recommendation," the Land Use chair said when explaining why the committee offered no recommendation on the wedding-and-events ordinance.
Legislators pressed county staff on what forms of public notice were required. County staff cited Chapter 81 of the Jackson County Code as outlining required notice methods and said statutory notice requirements were met in the cases under review, adding that posting on the county website is not required by code. "We have to put it in the newspaper. We have to mail it within a certain radius. It's not required that we put anything on the website," a county staff member said.
Several legislators expressed concern that if the Legislature enacted measures that had not been properly noticed, the county could face exposure and lawsuits, and that applicants might be barred from reapplying for a year if an ordinance failed procedural review.
Procedural votes at the meeting sent multiple land-use items forward as held for further review. Roll calls recorded repeated 6-yes, 3-no outcomes on hold motions for specific items, sending them to the Legislature as a whole or keeping them in committee for additional vetting.
The committee’s discussion emphasized verifying compliance with publishing and notice requirements, addressing planning commission vacancies, and clarifying whether additional public posting (including website posting) should be adopted as best practice even when not legally required.
No rezoning or event-facility ordinance was enacted at the April 28 meeting; members instructed staff to verify statutory notice records and the planning commission’s membership status before further action.
