Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff present draft pond-permit ordinance; commissioners ask to align language with UDO
Summary
A county staff presenter reviewed a draft ordinance to require pond permits, plan review and modest fees; commissioners asked to align setback and slope language with the county UDO, add airport-overlay notice, define private vs recreational ponds and consult planning staff before next steps.
County staff presented a draft ordinance on March 10 to set permit, plan-review and inspection requirements for private ponds, including a proposed fee ($100 plan review + $100 inspection). The presenter said the change is intended to reduce poor or incomplete plan submissions and improve consistency in field inspections.
Commissioners and the county attorney discussed whether the draft is a standalone ordinance or a zoning amendment requiring three readings and planning commission review. The county attorney recommended changing inconsistent technical language to match the county UDO: for example, one subsection lists a 50-foot setback while the UDO specifies 40 feet; another section lists a 4:1 run-to-fall slope as "recommended," but the UDO requires it, so counsel advised changing "recommended" to "required." Counsel also proposed adding a sentence to ensure compliance with the airport overlay district and suggested defining "private pond" versus "recreational pond" to avoid legal ambiguity.
The presenter said the ordinance includes required setbacks, emergency overflow and outlet standards, and an application process with checks to prevent approving ponds that do not exist in the field. Commissioners directed staff to work with Chris Gaumer (planning) to reconcile UDO language and tabled the measure for further drafting.
Next steps: staff will consult planning staff (Chris Gaumer), adjust numeric and definitional language to match the UDO and consider ordinance-adoption procedure (zoning amendment vs. regular ordinance), then return the revised draft.
