Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct staff to pursue UDO changes that shift some decision authority to staff and preserve planning‑board appeals
Summary
After a lengthy presentation by UDO consultant Michael Harvey, commissioners agreed on proposed changes: keep text amendments and conventional zoning largely intact, make plan developments conditional zonings (100‑lot threshold), have staff decide many site plans/subdivisions with appeals to the BOCC/board of adjustment, and expand neighborhood meetings; the board voted to advance the draft and review final wording before adoption.
The county’s unified development ordinance (UDO) update moved forward after a detailed presentation and board discussion that focused on who makes final land‑use decisions and how to reduce litigation risk.
Michael Harvey of InFocus and planning staff described a recommended set of process changes: preserve the current text‑amendment process and conventional zoning path; convert planned development processing to conditional rezoning (100‑lot threshold), which preserves the ability to impose mutually agreed conditions; move more site‑plan and subdivision determinations to staff as objective compliance checks with appeal rights to the board of adjustment (and in some cases the board of commissioners), and add neighborhood meetings to increase public input. Harvey said shifting objective compliance reviews to staff reduces the risk that an advisory board would exceed its authority and produce litigation exposure.
Commissioners raised tradeoffs: some said elected officials should retain decision authority on large, site‑specific projects; others warned that taking more decisions to the BOCC would slow reviews and increase costs and staff load. Several commissioners supported preserving planning‑board decision authority with appeal rights to the BOCC; staff confirmed the proposed changes probably require modest additional staff resources (likely one or two positions) to handle increased workload.
After discussion, the board voted to move forward with the consultant’s recommendations as discussed, asking staff and county attorney to finalize ordinance language for a future posted hearing and to circulate draft text for commissioner review two weeks prior to final presentation.
The UDO revisions aim to streamline objective approvals, provide clearer appeal routes, and align local practice with anticipated state legislation affecting advisory‑board authority. Staff will return with a redraft and formal adoption schedule.
