Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Sunsites topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends SunSites parcels be rezoned to allow accessory buildings first; vote splits 4–3
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve rezoning three SunSites Unit 2 parcels from NB and SR‑43 to RU‑4, a change the applicant said would allow accessory structures before a primary residence.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend approval of docket RZ23‑24, which would rezone three SunSites Unit 2 parcels (APNs 117‑05‑042, 043 and 054A) from neighborhood business and SR‑43 to RU‑4. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Staff planner Matthew Taylor said the applicant added a parcel after an earlier hearing in October, increasing acreage from 5.1 to about 6.3 acres and triggering a rehearing. Taylor told commissioners nine of the zoning factors applied and that the down‑zone generally reduces the number of allowable principal dwellings; staff found the application compliant with applicable factors but noted written opposition from nearby property owners and additional opposition outside the mailed notice area.
Applicant Jeff Thiede told the commission he intends to use RU‑4 to construct accessory buildings (garage, solar control shed and workshop) first and then build a site‑built residence later; he said he owns contiguous parcels totaling about six acres and that the owner‑builder approach allows him to secure and protect tools and equipment while building.
Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, including Kevin Todd and Lindsey Rothschild, who said SunSites Unit 2 residents paid premiums for site‑built zoning and want to preserve the area—s character. Speakers warned the rezoning could create a "slippery slope" toward increased manufactured housing and blight, and some asked whether deed restrictions or SR‑174 would better protect values.
Commission discussion focused on whether SR‑174 would better match neighborhood expectations, the owner‑builder provisions, and deed restriction options; commissioners debated whether a condition limiting manufactured homes could be imposed but staff said the county does not enforce private deed restrictions. Commissioner Limbach moved to recommend approval without special conditions; the motion passed 4–3.
Votes at a glance: RZ23‑24 — rezoning APNs 117‑05‑042, 043, 054A from NB/SR‑43 to RU‑4; recommendation forwarded to Board of Supervisors (4 ayes, 3 nays). The commission recorded Mr. Watkins and Mr. Limbach among the dissenters who said SR‑174 would be preferable.
Speakers quoted or summarized in this article are taken from the meeting record: staff planner Matthew Taylor, applicant Jeff Thiede, and public commenters Kevin Todd and Lindsey Rothschild.
