Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables measure to require 'complete and accurate' conditional-use applications
Summary
The Dickinson County Planning Commission reviewed TXT 2601, a proposed change to require that conditional-use permit applications be 'complete and accurate' before acceptance. Commissioners asked for clearer definitions and voted to table the draft for 60 days for staff and county-counsel review.
The Dickinson County Planning Commission on Jan. 15 considered TXT 2601, a draft amendment that would require all conditional-use permit applications to be complete and accurate — including the development/site plan — before the county accepts them for review. The measure was introduced by staff and discussed at length before the Commission voted to table the item for 60 days so staff can consolidate edits and consult county counsel.
Tim, planning staff, told commissioners he intended the standard to apply to the entire conditional-use application rather than only the site plan. "The intent was a complete application, not just the site plan," he said, explaining that a complete submittal includes the application document, required fee and the development plan that meets the county's 01/2003 standards.
Commissioners pressed for clearer language. One commissioner proposed adding the descriptors "precise" and "truthful" to the list of expectations, arguing those terms would reduce errors and omissions in applications. Commissioners also discussed how staff and the county commission would handle cases in which an approved application later shows changes or omissions; staff said county commissioners can return an item to planning for reconsideration and that clearer standards would give planning staff a tool to pause an application while issues are resolved.
After discussion, a motion to table TXT 2601 for 60 days so staff could consolidate the proposed language and run the redraft by county counsel passed by voice vote. The motion record in the transcript identifies the mover as staff; the name of the second was not specified on the record. The Commission did not adopt any regulatory changes at the meeting.
The next step: staff will prepare a consolidated draft of TXT 2601 that incorporates the Commission's input, submit it to county counsel for review and return the item to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
