Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission adopts zoning text amendments on telecom towers, shipping containers and ADUs
Summary
On Jan. 15 the Reno County Planning Commission adopted a package of zoning text amendments affecting telecommunication towers (setbacks/fencing), shipping‑container rules (intermodal freight container definition; up to four allowed in residential), accessory dwelling unit (ADU) clarifications and other edits; the BZA will handle exceptions for more than four shipping containers.
The Reno County Planning Commission voted Jan. 15 to adopt a series of zoning text amendments covering Articles 1–6, 9, 14 and 15 of the county zoning regulations. The changes address telecommunication towers, shipping containers, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), manufactured homes and other items included in the staff packet.
County Planner Mark Fonachin explained the telecom language was revised to reflect recent state actions that limit local review; the county’s review authority will focus on setbacks and fencing, and where applicants meet the criteria towers will be permitted by right rather than by conditional use. Fonachin noted the code uses a one‑to‑one setback ratio (height to property line) to reduce risks such as ice shedding from guyed towers.
On shipping containers, the adopted text uses the term “intermodal freight container” and permits a limited number in residential districts; the staff recommendation — and the commission’s direction — was to leave appeals beyond the threshold to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) rather than require county‑commission conditional use review. Margie Westfall and other attendees requested clarity on the definition; staff confirmed a definitions section is included and that converted containers that become residences would be regulated as dwellings.
Commissioners also discussed ADU language, particularly whether the term 'adjacent' should be quantified. Staff raised scenarios where an ADU might sit several hundred feet from a primary residence while sharing utilities; board members debated whether to set a numerical maximum distance or rely on shared‑utilities and deed restrictions as limiting measures. The commission did not add a numeric distance at the hearing and left the ADU language as proposed.
A motion to approve the text amendments as presented carried on a roll‑call vote. The commission directed staff to publish the updated zoning text and noted the BZA will be the review body for requests that exceed container limits in residential districts.
