Commissioners adopt public‑notice rules for conditional uses, temporarily pause new applications

WAGONER COUNTY, Okla. — The Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners voted 2‑1 on March 3 to add formal public‑notice requirements for conditional‑use applications and to temporarily stop accepting new conditional‑use applications while staff and the board consider broader zoning changes.

The amendment, presented by Planning and Zoning staff member Casey Sanders, requires applicants to file 45 days before the public hearing and aligns notice with Oklahoma law by requiring a newspaper notice and mailed notice to property owners within a 300‑foot radius or to 20 property owners (whichever yields more coverage). Sanders told the board the draft text also requires a posted sign and an affidavit of mailing handled by a licensed abstractor.

Supporters and opponents of the change urged the board to act. Bruce Sewell, a resident who said he reviewed Tulsa County practice, told commissioners rural landowners often learn of nearby development only through legal notices in newspapers and asked for “a little more light of day” before permits move forward. “You can wake up one morning and find something going on across the street,” Sewell said.

Several commissioners expressed concern that the county’s conditional‑use mechanism is broad and could be used to permit activities the board would rather manage by zoning. Commissioner Kelly said he supports the notice provisions but not the conditional‑use category itself, warning it creates opportunities for inconsistent decisions. “I think conditional use could be abused in the future,” Kelly said. “You either have to give it to everybody or deny it.”

After hours of public comment — including remarks from residents Wes Coblitz and Kirby Crow who raised past problems with conditional‑use approvals — the board took a two‑part step. The board adopted the public‑notice language recommended by planning staff and simultaneously voted to suspend acceptance of new conditional‑use applications until the board can return with additional revisions. County officials said the change will not retroactively affect cases already in the pipeline.

The roll call on the board motion recorded two votes in favor and one opposed. Commissioners Haney and Stamps voted yes; Commissioner Kelly voted no. The board directed staff to place a revised item on the agenda next week to clarify the scope and to return proposed wording for any temporary moratorium or other limits the board wants to add.

Why it matters: County officials and residents framed the vote as a balance between transparency for rural neighbors and the longer task of deciding whether conditional use should remain a county tool. Supporters of the notice change said it addresses an immediate fairness concern for landowners who otherwise rarely see legal notices published in county papers. Several commissioners said they want further work to avoid long‑term spot‑zoning or inconsistent discretionary approvals.

What's next: The district attorney and planning staff will rework the draft language and the board asked that a refined item return to a future agenda for final direction; meanwhile staff will implement the new notice procedure for matters already on file as appropriate.