Crook County holds first hearing on broad land‑use code overhaul amid debate over ‘dwelling’ and ‘kitchen’ definitions
Loading...
Summary
At a Jan. 7 public hearing, Crook County officials opened the first of two reviews of Ordinance 357, an omnibus update to Titles 17 and 18. Residents pressed staff on a new definition of “design for occupancy” and a proposed kitchen standard that would affect accessory structures and future ADU conversions.
Crook County held the first of two public hearings on Ordinance 357 on Jan. 7, a package of scattered amendments to Titles 17 and 18 of the county code intended to modernize references and clarify land‑use rules. Community Development Director John Eisler described the update as “kind of an omnibus code update” that includes changes reflecting recent state rules, revisions to penalty and subdivision review language, and new definitions meant to distinguish dwellings from accessory structures.
The hearing’s central debate focused on a proposed definition of “design for occupancy” and a new, more detailed definition of “kitchen.” Under staff’s draft, a structure would qualify as a dwelling only if it included all listed elements of permanent independent living facilities — for example, a specified number of interior plumbing fixtures, a full bathroom and a kitchen. Eisler said the intent is “to set a foundational framework” that clarifies when a building is an independent dwelling and when it remains dependent on a primary dwelling.
Several residents urged caution. Brad Wilson argued the proposed kitchen language would be costly and could hinder future adoption of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “I asked the board of commissioners to consider dismissing the proposed definition of kitchen and use the current standard,” Wilson said, warning that requiring dedicated refrigerator or dishwasher hookups could force people to pay to retrofit homes later rather than build affordably now.
Staff defended the change as a safety and compliance measure. Katie McDonald, senior planner, said one administrative goal was to eliminate duplicate notifications to the fire marshal and to clarify when fire‑safety requirements apply. Kenny, the county’s compliance officer, told the board that “nearly half of the compliance cases that I dealt with involved accessory structures without approved land use and without building permits,” and described examples of unsafe conversions such as rooms used as bedrooms without egress.
Eisler and other staff said the draft definition is intended to reduce after‑the‑fact enforcement and to give clearer guidance to residents and builders; they also proposed administrative mechanisms — such as fees and periodic inspections — that could allow owners to plan for future conversions without immediately triggering penalties. Eisler recommended pulling a manufactured‑dwelling provision from this update and returning it later when it is better developed.
No final action was taken on the ordinance; the board left the record open and scheduled a second hearing for Jan. 21, 2026. Eisler said clerical fixes will be made to the packet before that meeting and that staff will continue refining the language in response to public input.
The hearing included standard ex parte and conflicts disclosures; none were reported. The record remains open until the next hearing, when the board may elect to uphold, modify or revise the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
