Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and town officials urge pause on Boathouse rezone after court remand
Summary
At a Jefferson County Board meeting, residents and a town plan commissioner urged supervisors to delay or deny petition R4379A‑22, saying previous neighbor concerns remain unresolved after a court remand; the applicant's representatives said the issues were vetted and the remand is procedural.
Eric Kohler, a representative of the Boathouse of Lake Country, told the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors that his business seeks a rezoning to expand storage operations and that it has operated at the adjacent site for about 10 years. “We do not sell outdoor storage spaces at this property,” Kohler said, adding the business uses outdoor parking only during seasonal peaks and that an automatic gate on the property “is operational.”
The dispute over petition R4379A‑22 returned to the board after a Court of Appeals remanded the earlier county decision to correct a procedural issue. Richard “Rick” Donner, the applicant’s attorney, told the board the court remand did not void the county’s prior approval and said the rezone “is before you again today, not because of any action or inaction of the boathouse. It is to cure a procedural issue regarding how the county documented its original decision.” Donner reviewed a multi‑year timeline of hearings and committee votes that previously resulted in county approval.
But several nearby residents and a Concord plan commission member asked supervisors to halt the reconsideration and require full town process and public hearings before any new decision. Sally Williams, a member of the Town of Concord plan commission, said the county had not made required findings of consistency with the town plan and asked the board to “refrain from considering the petition until it has gone through the proper procedures and public hearings.”
Resident Kimberly Miller said opposition to the rezone remains substantial: “More than 40 people protested this rezone at the initial public hearing through letters, spoken testimony, and a petition. More than 30 people contributed funds to support the legal appeal.” Miller and other speakers said problems raised at the original hearings — including lack of promised landscaping or a green screen, year‑round outdoor storage of trailers, bright lighting in a residential setting, and traffic issues on Highway B — have not been resolved.
Former Concord town chairman Dale Connolly urged supervisors to avoid repeated legal expense and to follow state law on farmland preservation. “The state Farmland Preservation Law required certain criteria to be met before land can be removed from the program,” Connolly said, adding that courts previously found the county did not follow those requirements.
Opponents asked the county to send the petition back to the zoning committee and to seek input from the current town board. The applicant’s attorney and Kohler maintained that earlier hearings, town and county committee recommendations, and a prior county board approval supported the rezone and that the current appearance before the board is meant to correct a procedural record on the prior decision.
The transcript excerpt provided public comment and summary history; no final county board action on petition R4379A‑22 is recorded in the provided portion of the meeting transcript.
