Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County hearing considers language to define when nonconforming land uses are abandoned
Summary
Planning staff proposed adding an abandonment clause defining when a legal nonconforming use has ceased (six‑month benchmark and requirement for tangible proof); commissioners and public raised concerns about the short time frame, property rights, and appeals process. The hearing was closed for further consideration.
Washington County planning staff asked the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 23 to add language to the zoning ordinance that would explicitly define when a legal nonconforming use is considered abandoned. The proposed amendment (RZ2053) would clarify when a use that was legal when established but later rendered nonconforming by zoning change ceases to exist and therefore loses protection as a nonconforming use.
Jill Baker, director of the Department of Planning and Zoning, said the amendment adds an abandonment clause and intends to require “tangible proof” when a property owner claims they intend to preserve a nonconforming use. “The proposed language includes an abandonment clause to define when exactly a use has ceased or has been abandoned,” Baker said in the staff report.
Staff said a six‑month period is already referenced in county practice and that the amendment is intended to clarify acceptable evidence of intent to retain a use — for example, maintaining a license, active marketing with a broker, or other documented actions rather than solely subjective claims. Baker said exceptions such as probate would be considered when determining extensions.
Why it matters: nonconforming uses can carry significant property value and legal rights; setting a time threshold for abandonment can affect owners and buyers of investment property and can generate litigation if parties disagree about intent or proof.
Public commenters and several commissioners raised concerns. Commissioner Derek Harvey and others asked whether six months is too short as a standard for investment properties or businesses that may need more time to sell, retool or probate. Baker replied that the intent is to require tangible evidence, not to penalize legitimate owners, and that an appeal process to the Board of Zoning Appeals would remain available.
Speakers who spoke during the hearing expressed a mix of views about property rights and local regulation. Justin Holder warned of potential legal exposure to the county and the risk of costly litigation if the county’s standard were applied in ways that conflict with longstanding property rights. Several speakers — including Curtis Ray and Sean Porter — raised broader concerns about local regulation and enforcement, some expressing hostility to government action; commissioners repeatedly asked speakers to remain on topic during public comment.
The commissioners did not enact any ordinance changes at the hearing. Instead they closed the public hearing and asked staff to take the item under advisement, gather clarifying materials, and return with refined language and answers about appeals, proof thresholds, and how probate and other exceptional circumstances would be treated.
Ending: No vote was taken; the hearing was concluded and staff was asked to report back with specific language and legal analysis for the board’s future consideration.
