Residents urge county to reexamine Boathouse rezone after court remand; applicants and town commission disagree

Eric Kohler, who said he represents the Boathouse of Lake Country, asked Jefferson County supervisors to approve a rezoning petition so the business can expand its existing boat-storage operation.

The application (petition R4379A-22) has a multi-year history in local hearings and litigation. Rick Donner, attorney for the applicant, told the board the matter was returned to the county only to correct a procedural error after the Court of Appeals remanded the case on Oct. 17, 2024. "This application is before you again today, not because of any action or inaction of the boathouse. It is to cure a procedural issue regarding how the county documented its original decision," Donner said.

Nut graf: Residents and a town plan commissioner urged supervisors to pause reconsideration and require fuller town-level review and site inspections, saying promised mitigation measures were not implemented and that state farmland-preservation rules and the county and town comprehensive plans had not been satisfied.

Details and history: Donner reviewed the administrative timeline in public comment. The transcript records the application was filed in November 2021 and considered multiple times: a Town of Concord plan commission hearing on Dec. 22, 2021; a Concord town board hearing on Jan. 10, 2022; county planning and zoning committee hearings in February and March 2022; and a county board approval on April 19, 2022. Opponents filed suit on Oct. 14, 2022; the Court of Appeals remanded the matter on Oct. 17, 2024, directing the county to correct documentation tied to the original decision. The county zoning committee reconsidered the petition on Jan. 27, 2025 and again recommended approval before the matter returned to the full board.

Residents’ concerns: Sally Williams, identified as a member of the Concord plan commission, told supervisors the county "had never made any findings as to its consistency" with the town and county plans and asked that the board treat the petition as a new application that begins with town recommendation and public hearings. Kimberly Miller, speaking for a group of neighbors, said letters and petitions from more than 40 residents opposed the rezone at the initial hearing and argued the staff report contains "inaccurate or incomplete information." Miller added, "These boat storage barns are not agriculture or agriculture related."

Other neighbors raised longstanding complaints that they said remained unresolved: lack of a required green screen and landscaping, year-round outdoor storage of trailers, lighting intensity, and traffic impacts on Highway B. Several speakers said the site’s automatic gate is effectively blocked by a padlock and that vehicles sometimes queue on the county road.

Procedural and legal context: Opponents and commenters cited the State Farmland Preservation Law and the county and town comprehensive plans in arguing the rezone removes land from farmland-preservation status without meeting statutory criteria. Dale Connolly said he formerly served as Concord town chairman and urged supervisors to avoid further legal costs, saying the county’s prior handling of the petition "does not follow the law." The transcript records the petition identifier as R4379A-22.

What the transcript shows the board did: The public-comment portion of the transcript contains repeated calls to delay the board’s action until the town and neighbors have been re-notified, site inspections completed and conditions (landscaping, lighting, gate operation) verified. The provided transcript excerpt does not record a final board vote on petition R4379A-22.

Ending: The rezone petition remains on the board’s agenda packet (item 14 in the packet referenced for this meeting). Public commenters asked supervisors either to deny the petition or to return it to the zoning committee and the town for additional process before a final decision is taken.