County planning committee outlines broad rewrite of zoning code, proposes new AR‑3 district and clearer accessory‑dwelling rules

At a May 6 Board of Commissioners work session, county planning staff and members of a zoning steering committee presented a draft overhaul of residential, business and industrial zoning standards that would add a new AR‑3 agricultural/residential district, revise AR‑1 and AR‑2 rules and introduce consistent tables of permitted uses across districts.

Planning presenter Chelsea (staff member) told the commissioners the draft changes add intent statements taken from the county comprehensive plan and that the steering committee emphasized consistency: “We are also referencing the table of permitted uses, so, you'll see that as well,” she said, describing a single, shared approach to permitted uses and development tables.

The draft leaves AR‑1 as a five‑acre minimum and would allow up to two residential units per lot — either two principal dwellings or one principal dwelling and one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) — increase maximum building height from 35 to 40 feet and set a 100‑foot minimum road frontage in many cases. AR‑2 would be set at a one‑acre minimum with one principal residence plus an option for a single ADU; the committee recommended language restricting AR‑2 to family/estate subdivisions and requiring affidavits to document that intent, while directing other, more commercial subdivision activity toward the proposed AR‑3 district (2.5 acres minimum).

Ryan Thompson, a steering‑committee member, described why the committee favored ADUs in AR‑2 rather than allowing multiple primary dwellings: “The accessory prevented that issue from being able to pop up because it was very clear that [a] second unit on a small 1‑acre AR‑2 lot would never be a justification for anybody to propose some other rezoning associated. It is an accessory unit to that primary use primary unit only.” He and other committee members said the ADU approach aims to reduce the potential for small‑lot subdivision used primarily for speculative development while still providing housing flexibility for families.

The committee also recommended a new AR‑3 district (2.5 acres minimum) with development standards similar to AR‑1 but tighter rear and side setbacks, and the same proposed 40‑foot principal building height.

Beyond residential districts, the steering committee proposed moving much of the use detail into a single table of permitted uses (TPU) and relying on short intent statements in each ordinance to clarify scale and purpose. For commercial districts the draft introduces a minimum 15% green‑space requirement and requires at least 50% of the street frontage to be landscaped. The committee also discussed scaling limits (for example, 8,000 and 50,000 square‑foot thresholds) to keep neighborhood businesses at an appropriate size for surrounding areas.

On industrial zoning the committee recommended splitting the current one‑size industrial district into separate light‑industrial and heavy‑industrial districts. Light industrial would limit more intense uses and list permitted activities in the TPU; heavy industrial would retain conditional uses for higher‑intensity operations such as junkyards, container storage and larger truck operations. Committee members discussed whether to create an I‑3 district but concluded many intense uses can remain as conditional uses in heavy industrial.

The draft also addressed buffers and landscaping: where two similar intensity zonings adjoin the ordinance would still require a buffer but allow a managed landscape buffer in place of an undisturbed strip, provided a landscape plan is submitted. Members discussed parking minimums and design tradeoffs and floated the idea of payment‑in‑lieu options for sidewalk construction to allow piecemeal infill of missing pedestrian connections.

Steering committee members and staff described the rewrite as a “living document” intended to reach roughly a 90% complete product with the board then able to make text amendments as future issues surface. Commissioners were briefed that the county will advertise the first reading of the draft AR, B and I revisions for May 20; second reading is scheduled for June 3.

Discussion versus action: the May 6 meeting was a work session and the board did not adopt any ordinance changes that night. Staff and the steering committee requested feedback and will bring formal ordinance language to the May 20 meeting for first reading.

Why this matters: the zoning revisions affect development patterns, housing options (especially through ADUs), the types and scale of commercial and industrial uses permitted across the county, and the design standards that will guide landscaping, buffers, parking and sidewalks.

What’s next: staff will post materials online and present the formal ordinance packets for first reading at the May 20 Board of Commissioners meeting; the committee urged commissioners to forward any suggested text changes before formal readings.