Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County supervisors send zoning text amendment back to planning commission for more options
Summary
The Board of Supervisors agreed to return a recently passed planning commission text amendment on by-right subdivisions to the planning commission for further study, asking staff to evaluate options including splitting the Ag district, creating a rural residential designation, and considering a technology zone.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted on a path forward to rethink a planning commission zoning text amendment on by-right subdivisions, agreeing to send the measure back to the planning commission for additional options and data.
Chair (unnamed in the record) said the planning commission’s amendment raised legal and policy concerns and proposed sending the package back for alternatives. "I would suggest that we send this back to the planning commission and ask that they consider, other possibilities," the chair said. He outlined a set of options he wants studied, including dividing the current Agriculture (Ag) district into Ag-1 and Ag-2, adding a 'rural residential' designation for smaller, non-farm parcels, and creating a narrowly defined 'technology' zone intended to capture non-polluting, non-industrial uses without opening full industrial allowances.
Supervisor Johnson and other board members supported returning the item for additional analysis and public study. Supervisor Johnson said the change would give the planning commission "3 tools rather than 1" to address different land uses. Supervisor Crystal (last name not specified in the record) urged that any changes not unintentionally penalize farmers, saying: "If we're not careful, we will punish our... farmland owners who have made this county so favorable." Several board members asked the planning commission to use real data to show what the options would look like and to present the implications before any public hearing.
Planner Kira Davis and other staff were not asked to adopt a prescription for zoning language; rather, the board asked for a collaborative process. The chair recommended a small working group — potentially the two chairmen of the board and the planning commission — meet to provide cross-communication and avoid duplicate efforts during the concurrent zoning rewrite process.
The board’s action was procedural: the item will return to the planning commission for study, with the expectation staff and planning commissioners will present comparative options (Ag-1/Ag-2, rural residential, and T district) and supporting data back to the board before formal public hearings.
Next steps: staff and the planning commission will develop options and data for the board’s review as part of the ongoing zoning-ordinance rewrite process.
