Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bicknell planning commission approves building permit amid septic, floodplain and title concerns; council conditions approval on attorney review
Summary
The planning commission recommended approval of a building permit with conditions; later the council voted to approve the permit subject to the town attorney’s sign‑off after members were told a 1977 title claim could create litigation risk.
The Bicknell Planning Commission reported to the council on March 6 that it approved a building permit for a property owned by a resident identified in the meeting as Jim with two caveats: (1) the property owner would cover costs to install a culvert if a secondary septic drainfield required crossing an adjacent ditch; and (2) the town should not be held responsible for costs arising if the site later floods, because the lot lies within a mapped flood plain.
Planning commissioners described a revised conditional‑use/conditional permitting section in the town’s zoning ordinance (section 16) that clarifies permitted conditional uses and states that uses not listed are denied unless added to the code. The commission flagged cottage industry and home‑based business boundaries as an item that needs clearer written definitions and recommended the council schedule a work meeting with planning staff for a policy discussion.
Title issues and council action
Later in the meeting Jim told the council a recent title search found a 1977 instrument that might show a 25% interest retained by a descendant of an earlier owner. Jim said his title insurance and prior closing did not flag the matter but that a current title company (Stewart Title) had identified the older claim. Council members expressed concern that signing the building permit could expose the town to litigation. The council asked the applicant and staff to consult the town attorney.
The council then voted to approve the building permit conditioned on the town attorney concluding the town would have no liability for signing the permit. The maker and seconder of the motion were not named on the record; members said the vote was in favor and no member opposed.
Why it matters: The permit covers a private building project that intersects with the town’s floodplain policies and septic/drainfield management, and the newly discovered title interest raised a potential legal claim that could affect the property owner, a leaseholder, and the town. Council members emphasized they wanted attorney advice before final signature on the permit.
Other planning items: The planning commission also discussed and circulated a redraft of the conditional‑use section of the zoning ordinance with the stated approach that uses not listed are denied. Commissioners and council members debated whether small, home‑based “boutique” businesses and cottage industries should be allowed in residential zones and asked staff to prepare a clear written definition and a joint work session with planning commissioners.
