Douglas County board sends construction/contracting zoning amendment back to Planning Commission after public pushback

The Douglas County Board of Commissioners voted 5–2 on April 14 to send a proposed zoning text amendment addressing construction and contracting businesses back to the Planning Commission for further public review.

The motion, made by Commissioner Borgeson and seconded by Commissioner Rogers, followed hours of presentation and public comment about the scope and timing of the proposed changes. Kent Holm, director of environmental services, told the board the review began in 2021 after staff identified roughly 60 potentially illegal uses and that the county’s goal is to bring qualifying operations into compliance "with some guardrails" through the special-use-permit process. Holm said the draft includes a cutoff so that only businesses "that would have to have been in business as of 01/01/2026" on a parcel could seek the allowance, a provision he said was intended to prevent any "workaround."

Attorneys representing property owners urged a different approach. Danielle Dring of Cooley Jessen told commissioners she had submitted a letter alleging "certain irregularities as well as certain violations of the Open Meetings Act," offered recordings of prior Planning Commission meetings, and proposed a temporary-use permit as an alternative regulatory tool with a 2‑ to 5‑year recertification window. "The temporary use permit would just have the additional 2 year window where the owner and applicant of that property would reapply and recertify," Dring said.

Residents and property owners said the county’s draft rules, including limits on accessory building size and permanent restrictions on shipping containers, would be burdensome for rural residents who use land for equipment storage and emergency response. Clancy Peterson, who said he represents property owner Brandon Walvoord, told the board the resolution "creates a path forward" for his client, who built a 17,000‑square‑foot building under a 2015 permit; Peterson argued the county’s approach would allow existing operations to become legal. Other speakers said they had not received timely notice of Planning Commission meetings and described the proposed limits as "too tight" for rural residential uses.

Several commissioners expressed concern about whether the Planning Commission had allowed sufficient public interaction during the drafting process and whether alternative proposals — including the temporary-use model offered by landowner attorneys — had received adequate consideration. Commissioner Borgeson said he was "a little concerned" by how the public input process had unfolded and moved to send the item back for more in‑depth discussion.

The motion to return the amendment to the Planning Commission passed 5–2, with Commissioners Kavanaugh and Friend voting no. The board did not adopt the amendment at the April 14 meeting; staff and the Planning Commission will reconvene and report back with additional analysis and notice procedures.