Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Cecile Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve rezoning for Cecile Court parcel with fence and plan-submittal conditions
Summary
Board approves a rezoning to Planned Development Project–Rural after P&Z added conditions limiting farm-animal impacts and requiring a buffer fence; staff warned that commercial equipment storage could require further permitting because it may not qualify as an agricultural accessory building.
The board voted to rezone a parcel on Cecile Court from R-1C to a Planned Development Project (PDP) rural designation with agricultural residential uses after Planning & Zoning converted the applicant's initial R-1C-to-AR request to a PDP so the commission could place conditions.
Development Services Director Omar De Pablo summarized the P&Z action and noted P&Z attached conditions limiting types and numbers of farm animals and requiring an opaque fence to buffer a residential subdivision to the north. Michelle Miller, lead planner, told the board the Planning & Zoning Commission placed conditions because Euclidean zoning cannot be conditioned: converting to PDP allowed P&Z to require a fence and performance conditions.
Petitioner representatives testified they cleared the parcel and plan to use it for a small agricultural operation and equipment storage. Commissioners questioned whether the storage of drilling or other commercial equipment was part of the record presented to P&Z. Miller said the use for commercial drilling equipment was not discussed at P&Z and was not in the application packet; if the proposed structure is used to store equipment unrelated to agriculture, she said, staff would treat it as a commercial storage use and it would require further approvals.
Commissioners debated whether requiring an opaque fence was appropriate where the houses the fence would protect are across a road and already benefit from a vegetative buffer; several commissioners said the neighborhood should bear some responsibility for its own privacy improvements. The board approved the PDP and conditions; the motion was moved and seconded on the floor and the motion carried. The county's staff condition requiring the petitioner to submit a revised plan within 30 days of BCC approval was emphasized as a requirement before development permits would be issued.
Speakers included petitioners Kim Poteet and Joseph Worning, petitioner representatives, and staff. The board vote recorded the motion to approve as carrying.
