Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vandenberg County approves three final-reading rezonings after legal clarification; commissioner objects to UDC practice
Summary
The Vandenberg County Board of Commissioners approved three final-reading rezoning ordinances on Nov. 4, 2024, after county legal counsel said state law allows only acceptance or rejection of rezoning proposals; Commissioner Musgrave raised objections to recent use-and-development commitments (UDCs), saying they reduce property market value and requested an investigation.
The Vandenberg County Board of Commissioners approved three final-reading rezoning ordinances at a Nov. 4, 2024 special meeting after county legal counsel advised the board that state law limits the board to either accepting or rejecting rezoning proposals as presented.
County legal counsel, identified in the transcript as Craig, told the board that under the statutory provision governing rezonings, "it only has 2 options, accept as, as proposed or reject as proposed." Craig said that because of that restriction, the board should clarify whether it intended to accept or reject each rezoning rather than attempting to amend terms during the meeting, which could require restarting the process.
Following that guidance the board moved and voted to approve three ordinances on final reading:
- BC-4-2024: Petitioner Stage 1 Holdings LLC (John Colbert) for property at 7925 Birch Park Drive, requesting a change from M-2 to M-1. Approved by roll call; recorded "Yes" votes included Commissioner Gable, Commissioner Musgrave and the board president.
- BC-5-2024: Petitioner McCullough Capital LLC (James McCullough) for property at 4220 North Saint Joseph Avenue, requesting C-4 with a use-and-development commitment (UDC). Approved by roll call with the same recorded "Yes" votes.
- BC-6-2024: Petitioner JMM Capital LLC (James McCullough) for property at 4400 North Saint Joseph Avenue, requesting a change from AG/R-1 and C-4 to C-4 with a UDC. Approved by roll call with the same recorded "Yes" votes.
During the meeting Commissioner Musgrave objected to a recent practice by the area plan commission of seeking UDCs from applicants. Musgrave said the UDCs "narrowly limit the use of the property" and argued the practice "steals part of their market value of that property without compensation," urging that someone "look into that." Musgrave said the policy emerged "roughly in the last 5 years" and noted representatives from the area plan commission were not present to explain the change.
The meeting record shows no amendment to the ordinances at the Nov. 4 session; legal counsel said an amendment could require restarting the rezoning process. The board president and commissioners completed roll-call votes for each ordinance and the meeting adjourned after Musgrave's comments.
What happens next: Commissioner Musgrave requested an inquiry into the use-and-development commitment practice; the transcript does not record whether the board took any formal follow-up action or assigned staff to investigate, and no timeline for further review was provided in the meeting minutes.
