Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council removes two conditions tied to motocross facility zone change after applicants argue rules are inconsistent
Summary
The Town Council voted to remove two conditions placed on a prior zoning decision that required planning board approval and state permits before a motocross facility could proceed; the council cited ambiguity in the planning‑board process and state rule changes as reasons for removing the conditions.
Richmond’s Town Council voted on Feb. 13 to amend a prior zoning decision for a parcel on Buttonwoods Road and remove two conditions that had been attached to a previously approved zone change allowing a motocross facility.
Lede: The council approved a motion to remove two recorded conditions from the land-evidence record (Book 366, Page 143) for Lot 28 on Assessor’s Plat 4C: (1) a requirement that the property owner receive planning‑board approval for a motocross facility and (2) a requirement that the owner obtain all required state permits before submitting an application to the planning board.
Why it matters: The applicant argued conditions were undercutting the property’s status, because the town’s zoning had already listed a motocross facility as a permitted use in the Flex Tech zone and show no applicable planning-board review process for the use as currently written. The applicant said there is no planning‑board approval to obtain because the motocross use is permitted by right and because no structures triggering planning submittals would be built initially. A member of the planning board and former planning-board chair told the council the planning board had not created a review procedure for motocross facilities and that state-law changes in 2023 further complicated the issue.
Council action: After public comment and question-and-answer, the council made and passed a motion to approve the requested zoning-ordinance amendment to remove the two conditions recorded in the land-evidence records; the vote was unanimous.
Details in the record: Attorney Manzo spoke for the applicant and explained the inconsistency between the prior council decision and the current land development rules. Former planning-board member and current councilor Dan Madnick reviewed the planning-board record and told the council the planning board had never adopted a site-review procedure specifically for motocross facilities and had been waiving some state-permit prerequisites in practice. George (Jordan) Carlson, the applicant, spoke in favor of the amendment and said the conditions were unduly burdensome.
Ending: The council’s vote eliminates the two conditions as recorded in the prior decision; if future work requires planning-board review or state permits, that requirement will be determined when an actual development application is filed under whatever review procedures then apply.
