Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivisions Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors and planning staff flag conflicts in subdivided ‘Pierce Sun Sites’ area; special overlay zone proposed
Summary
Board members described neighborhood conflict where buyers combine small, residential lots to gain RU‑4 zoning and place mobile homes or small houses with large outbuildings; staff and supervisors discussed creating a localized overlay zone and strengthening code enforcement.
Board members described a recurring land‑use conflict in subdivided areas (referred to in the meeting as the Pierce Sun Sites problem) where buyers combine several small residential parcels to reach the acreage threshold for rural RU‑4 zoning.
Supervisors said neighbors who paid for larger homes object when adjacent parcels are bundled and used to place smaller principal residences, mobile homes, or large accessory buildings. At the meeting staff explained that some purchasers are combining lots to achieve the RU‑4 threshold so they can build mobile homes or smaller primary residences with large barns or shops.
A specific pattern the meeting examined: neighbors’ houses in affected pockets are typically about 2,000 to 2,800 square feet, while some applicants proposed principal structures of roughly 600 square feet plus accessory buildings (multiple speakers referenced a 600‑square‑foot house and a 2,200–2,500‑square‑foot shop or barn). Neighbors said those contrasts affect property values, sight lines and neighborhood character.
Staff and supervisors discussed remedies including: creating a special overlay or localized zoning category to preserve small‑parcel residential character; clarifying standards for principal‑structure size relative to accessory buildings; and tightening rules that allow mobile homes under RU‑4 in these pocket situations. Several supervisors suggested that some buyers may have been told by third parties they could combine lots and obtain different development rights; staff said the treasurer’s office denies advising on zoning and that buyer education is needed.
Board members also raised code enforcement capacity. Development Services staff said enforcement is largely complaint‑driven and noted there are two code enforcement officers countywide, a capacity supervisors said is insufficient to police neighborhood problems or respond to recurring violations.
No regulatory change was adopted at the session. Supervisors asked staff to explore options, including an overlay zone or targeted amendments to the county’s zoning rules for these subdivided pockets, and to identify potential enforcement and staffing implications. Staff said they would return with options and that the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board would need to consider any ordinance or text amendments before changes could take effect.
