Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Animal Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds town-led restriction on animal units for rural parcel after planning committee alteration
Summary
The board refused to reverse a Planning and Zoning Committee decision that reduced a rezoning request from a rural business/agriculture category allowing many animal units to a more restrictive category limiting animal units to one per acre, siding with the town's recommended change.
Adams County supervisors rejected a motion to restore a larger agricultural zoning classification for a rural parcel after the town of Adams and the county Planning and Zoning Committee recommended a more restrictive designation.
The board enacted Ordinance 14, which rezoned a parcel in the town of Adams to A‑3 (a more restrictive agricultural district) rather than A‑1, following a Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation and the town's input. The vote on the amendment to revert the parcel to A‑1 failed 1–18; the subsequent vote to adopt the ordinance as recommended passed 18–1.
Why it matters: zoning classifications determine what uses (including numbers of livestock) are permitted without additional permits. Under the changed designation the parcel would be allowed one animal unit per acre rather than the higher density associated with A‑1 zoning (which was described during the meeting as allowing up to 25 animal units per acre).
Town input played a key role. Planning staff told the board the town board and citizens had expressed concern about animal units and potential runoff risks near Friendship Lake; the town had asked that the request be reduced. At the county committee meeting the applicant agreed to the town's revision and the committee voted to recommend A‑3 rather than A‑1.
During the full board discussion, several supervisors objected to what they described as limits on rural property owners. "We farm here," one supervisor said, arguing that the county should not overly restrict agricultural uses in a rural setting. Planning staff and other supervisors answered that the committee may grant a less‑intensive classification than the applicant requested when the applicant and the town agree.
Corp. counsel clarified the committee's authority: it cannot grant a classification more intensive than requested, but it can recommend (and the full board can adopt) a less intensive classification if the applicant and town are in agreement. The board then voted to adopt the committee's recommendation.
Ending: Ordinance 14 was enacted; the adopted zoning will be reflected in county records and will govern allowable animal units and related uses for the parcel in question.
