Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses clarifying conditional‑use permit rules after Planning & Zoning concerns
Summary
At a Feb. 24 work session commissioners and Planning & Zoning members debated whether county zoning language unintentionally requires CUPs for manufactured homes; the county attorney said state procedure governs CUPs and recommended clarifying local code.
During a Feb. 24 work session the commission and Planning & Zoning members discussed whether the county’s conditional‑use permit (CUP) ordinance is written as intended and whether it now requires CUPs for more situations than planners intended, including manufactured homes.
Planning & Zoning Chair Brent Ingersoll told the commission the way the CUP language is written "applies to everything even stick built homes," and that the board of commissioners is the final approval authority. County Attorney Bin Minter responded that portions of the conditional‑use process are guided by state zoning procedure law but that the county can make its zoning code more specific about what requires a CUP: "the conditional process isn't subject to change, it is the same and pretty much dictated by zoning procedure law at state level, but... the zoning code would need to be more specific on uses," he said.
Chairman Charles Coffey and others repeatedly raised fairness and legal‑risk concerns about ad‑hoc approvals. Coffey told an applicant that granting an exception in one case could expose the county to claims of inconsistent treatment: "If we give you an exception, then that opens us up that we didn't do the same for someone else," the minutes record. Commissioner Jason Frost urged a careful review of the conditional‑use and zoning procedures and recommended staff and the county attorney produce proposed revisions for the next work session.
Commissioners considered a motion to amend the Feb. 24 agenda to vote immediately on three CUP applications that met criteria; the motion failed after Coffey voted against the amendment on fairness grounds and Commissioners Biddle and Douglas also opposed it. The commission later scheduled a called meeting (Feb. 27) to take final votes on CUPs after the public hearings.
The discussion leaves two clear next steps: Planning & Zoning and county staff will work with the county attorney to draft clearer zoning/CUP language for review at a future work session; and applicants should pursue required health‑department approvals, permits and platting to complete their administrative files.
