Planning and Zoning Commission flags legal gaps in proposed subdivision ordinance, plans revisions and public hearing

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed town-council comments on a proposed subdivision ordinance and directed staff to revise the draft after a legal walkthrough by Mark Kelly.

Mark Kelly, who presented the council’s comments to the commission, said the draft contains inconsistent language about the "administrative land use authority," sometimes naming the town council and in other places referring to a designated administrative authority. "The Administrative Land Use Authority shall be the Planning and Building Commission," Kelly read from the draft as an example of wording that must be clarified, and he recommended explicitly designating who performs preliminary and final reviews, and what duties an appointed administrator would have.

Kelly also identified conflicting provisions for appeals. The draft at points names the town council as the appeal authority and elsewhere points to an appeals group; Kelly urged using an appeals body in line with state-code practice and noted the ordinance should acknowledge the statutory right to appeal to district court (he estimated the court-appeal deadline at about 30 days but said that timing should be confirmed in code).

Commissioners raised questions about whether signatures on a final plat (the mayor and the town engineer are named in the current draft) could be used to block a subdivision after preliminary and final approvals. Kelly and other speakers clarified that signature lines exist to enable recording at the recorder’s office and are not intended as an extra approval veto once the checklist-driven preliminary and final reviews have been met.

Members also flagged drafting issues such as the ordinance’s use of the term "recordation," and the transcript records Kelly saying the external reviewer assigned to earlier ordinance phases (referred to in the transcript as "Sterling Colder fires") failed to preserve a prior, intentional change; Kelly recommended attorney review of the revised draft before sending it back to council.

On process and timing, Kelly warned that the ordinance allows 30 days to begin a preliminary review and that a canceled meeting could eat that window; commissioners discussed meeting more frequently or scheduling short work sessions to avoid missing statutory deadlines. The commission also discussed the need for a clear administrator section specifying appointment authority, term, qualifications and any required training.

The chair said she would obtain the most up-to-date draft from staff (Hailey), incorporate the commission’s edits, and return the revised draft to the town council for a public hearing. Commissioners discussed statutory posting timelines and the possibility that town council could amend the commission’s proposal at the council-level public hearing.

The commission did not adopt ordinance language at the meeting; instead members agreed to a round of drafting edits, a recommended attorney review, and to seek scheduling of a public hearing once the revisions are complete.