Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee member urges rejection of code change that would bar unlisted zoning uses
Summary
Tazewell County board considered an amendment (D 26-10) that would remove language allowing analogous uses and instead prohibit any use not explicitly listed; speakers warned it could hamstring staff and block emerging uses such as data centers until formal ordinances are adopted.
Tazewell County board members debated a proposed amendment to the county zoning code — labeled D 26-10 in the meeting — that would eliminate language allowing uses by analogy and instead treat any use not explicitly listed in the code as prohibited.
A committee member warned the change would “leave us more exposed” and said, “So, basically, if it's not in the code, you can't do it,” arguing the amendment could put staff in an awkward position when novel proposals such as data centers or battery facilities are submitted.
The speaker urged the board to consider alternatives, including adopting interim rules that mirror more restrictive neighboring counties or referring unusual proposals to the full county board rather than allowing the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant exceptions.
Jackie, a staff member who spoke in response, said the intent of the amendment was temporary: “The full intent was for this to be temporary, make just this minor tweak that would buy this time, and then we can revert it back once we have the regulation that the board feels comfortable with in place.” She noted moratoriums had not been effective in the past and described the tweak as a stopgap while staff drafts clearer ordinances.
Another committee member urged colleagues to reject proposed amendments to the draft and support the original resolution, saying the land use committee had approved the measure unanimously and that the State's Attorney's Office, including an assistant state's attorney named Matt, helped draft the language.
At the close of the recorded discussion, the clerk announced a motion for D 26-10 ("Motion by Russ, second by Tammy") and called for the aye vote; the provided transcript ends before a recorded outcome for that motion. Earlier in the meeting the board approved the consent agenda by voice vote.
The land use committee said it plans to bring several ordinances later this year intended to provide the fuller regulatory framework staff and the board want. The meeting record does not show a final vote on D 26-10 in the supplied transcript.
