Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Campground topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Campground permit tabled after missing site plan, floodplain and documentation concerns
Summary
A conditional-use application for a proposed campground was tabled after committee members said the petitioner was not present, the packet lacked a clear site map tying camp sites to parcel locations, and the local floodplain rules may apply.
The Land Conservation and Zoning Committee voted to table a conditional-use permit and related zoning matter for a proposed campground after staff and neighbors said essential materials were missing and the petitioner was not present.
Committee members and a resident who submitted a detailed email raised multiple concerns: the meeting packet did not include a map showing where individual campsites would be placed on the parcel; the county’s floodplain ordinance may preclude placement of sites in mapped floodplain areas; and local staff said the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) plan approval file included a layout that did not tie to the county parcel reference.
A committee member moved to table the item ‘‘to leave it all CVP for the campground’’ and another member seconded; the motion carried on a voice vote. Committee members said the petitioner should attend the next meeting or participate remotely and provide the DATCP site plan that shows parcel-level placement of the campsites and clarifies whether proposed sites are in the floodplain.
Staff noted DATCP’s plan-approval process focuses on campsite layout and spacing but does not review local floodplain determinations; that is a local municipal responsibility. The resident who had written in said DATCP typically requires detailed campsite spacing, water spigot locations and other infrastructure plans before plan approval, and that level of detail was not in the county packet.
The committee asked staff to request the petitioner’s full site map and DATCP layout, and to return the item next month with clearer documentation and the petitioner present.
Speakers directly recorded on this item included a resident who prepared an email of questions and zoning staff who relayed DATCP’s role and the lack of parcel-tied maps in the packet. ‘‘I have a lot of questions,’’ the resident said during the discussion. The committee then voted to table the matter until the next meeting.
