Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves contested rezoning after court remand; supervisors split on boathouse parcel
Summary
After a Court of Appeals remand and debate over procedures and town plan timing, the Jefferson County Board approved a multi-parcel ordinance amending the official zoning map. Supervisors separated one Concord parcel (a proposed boathouse site), postponed part of its consideration back to the zoning committee, then approved a rezone by roll-call:
The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance amending the county’s official zoning map after deliberations about a parcel on County Road B in the town of Concord that had been remanded by the Court of Appeals.
Supervisor Jayco presented the Planning and Zoning Committee’s report, saying petitions were considered at required public hearings and that the committee recommended approval. The committee cited statutory standards for rezoning and provided a staff report and decision to the board. “Petitions as listed were referred to Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Committee for public hearing… and the proposed amendments have been given due consideration,” Jayco said.
During debate, Supervisor Kennard declared a potential conflict of interest related to one parcel. Supervisor Gulick moved to separate the County Road B parcel in Concord from the others; Supervisor Gross seconded. That procedural motion to separate the parcel carried by voice vote. Supervisor Christiansen then moved to postpone the decision on that parcel and send it back to the zoning committee for consideration after the Concord Town Board meets in April 2025; that motion to postpone and refer passed by voice vote.
Corporation counsel Danielle advised the board that the Court of Appeals had returned the matter to the board to correct a procedural error made at the planning and zoning committee level, and that the board must judge the petition under the requirements that existed when the petition was filed. “We are required to judge this petition based upon the existing requirements at the time the petition was filed,” Danielle said, referencing the county’s packet and the court’s instruction.
The board then voted on the boathouse parcel rezone. A roll-call vote on that rezone recorded 20 yes, 7 no, 1 abstain and 2 absent; the abstention was Supervisor Kennard, who said he would abstain because he was the surveyor on the parcel. Board members who opposed the boathouse rezone said they viewed the land as viable agricultural acreage and questioned whether a boat storage facility fit farmland preservation goals.
After the roll-call, the remainder of the ordinance (the other petitions not previously separated) passed by voice vote. The meeting record shows the ordinance’s fiscal note states there is no determinable fiscal impact.
