Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board moves text amendment on additional dwelling allowances to commissioners with reservations about legal risk
Summary
After extended debate about procedural and legal implications, the Planning Board voted to forward text amendment TA25‑03 — changing how ‘additional dwelling allowance’ requests are approved — to the Board of Commissioners, attaching a written statement of reservations about potential conflict with recent state 'down‑zoning' legislation.
The Planning Board voted to forward a proposed text amendment (TA25‑03) that would change the approval process for Additional Dwelling Allowances — a UDO mechanism that allows higher densities in specified residential districts — to the Board of Commissioners, but the board attached strong reservations about the proposal’s legal exposure under recent state legislation colloquially described as prohibiting “down‑zoning.”
Planning staff said the amendment was developed in coordination with the county attorney and at the direction of the county manager’s office to move certain Additional Dwelling Allowance approvals from a quasi‑judicial special use permit process to a legislative rezoning/conditional zoning pathway used by the county and neighboring jurisdictions. Staff argued the change would standardize the decision path and reflect the county’s policy objectives about housing types.
Several board members and an outside planning consultant raised concerns. Planner Brad Schuler argued the amendment would remove a property owner’s option to pursue a special use permit and could be construed as a reduction of property rights or a “down‑zoning” because it would require a rezoning (a legislative act) to obtain density previously available by permit. Schuler warned the change could reduce predictability for applicants and argued that if the county intended to change substantive standards, the UDO text itself should be amended rather than requiring rezoning.
Other board members said the special use permit pathway is procedural and can be difficult for applicants and neighbors because quasi‑judicial hearings demand strict evidentiary standards; they also noted the county has adopted new zoning districts in recent years that accomplish similar density outcomes. Legal staff and the county attorney’s office were referenced as having advised that the proposed change is procedural rather than a removal of permitted uses.
The board’s deliberations focused heavily on the state statute enacted in 2024 (referred to in discussion as session law 2024‑57), which board members said remains legally ambiguous and the subject of pending legislative proposals and potential litigation. Members divided on whether to recommend denial to avoid legal risk or to advance the amendment while flagging the board’s legal reservations. The board ultimately approved forwarding the text amendment to the Board of Commissioners with an explanatory statement that the Planning Board has “significant concerns” about possible litigation risk and suggests commissioners consider awaiting additional state clarification or refinement.
The Planning Board’s advisory recommendation and its recorded concerns will be included in materials sent to the Board of Commissioners for its legislative consideration.
