Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners find Baum East urban service area expansion consistent under new plan language; applicants argued unique circumstances
Summary
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to find two related applications in the Baum/Waimama area — a text amendment to enable an urban service area expansion (HCCPA 24‑35) and an associated map amendment to increase residential density (HCCPA 24‑36) — consistent with the comprehensive plan, citing newly adopted language that allows consideration of unique circumstances for noncontiguous USA expansions.
Jay Collins, planning commission staff, presented HCCPA 24‑35 (text amendment) and HCCPA 24‑36 (map amendment) seeking expansion of the urban service area (USA) and a change from Rural/Residential Plan 2 (RP2) to Residential 4 for roughly 370 acres east of Baum‑Waimama Road. Collins reviewed the process note that the applications were filed in July 2024 and therefore staff reviewed them against the comprehensive plan policies in effect at that time; staff recommended the proposals be found inconsistent because the adopted policy then required USA expansions to be contiguous to the existing urban service boundary.
Applicant counsel and representatives said the applications meet the county’s newly adopted future land use policy framework (effective after the applicant filed) and cited “unique circumstances” including existing entitlements, installed utilities and the fact the properties already had planned‑development approvals and on‑site utility infrastructure. Isabelle Albert (applicant team) said the county is simultaneously considering a publicly initiated, broader USA expansion in the same area and noted the applicants are further along with zoning and infrastructure installed.
Agency comments addressed standard considerations for potable water, wastewater, transportation and school capacity. Conservation staff flagged wetland and surface water considerations as routine review points during project implementation.
Commission discussion focused on which version of the comprehensive plan should guide the decision. The applicant maintained the new plan — which allows consideration of noncontiguous expansions under certain “unique circumstances” — governs. Planning staff explained their report used the plan in effect when the applications were filed but acknowledged the new plan language addresses unique circumstances.
Commissioner Kona moved to find HCCPA 24‑35 consistent, citing Objective 1 and Policy 1.1.9 (new plan language about unique circumstances) and Policy 2.1; Commissioner Buza seconded. The motion carried unanimously. The commission then separately found HCCPA 24‑36 (the map amendment requesting Res‑4) consistent under the same policies; that motion also passed unanimously. The items will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioners and counsel noted the BOCC was already considering a publicly initiated USA expansion covering broader area.
