Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press staff for clearer, phased approach to zoning ordinance rewrite
Summary
At a lengthy work session, Franklin County supervisors criticized presentation materials for a draft zoning rewrite, asked staff to distinguish state‑required edits from discretionary policy changes (lot sizes, uses, short‑term rentals), and asked for clearer comparisons and broader public outreach before a May 13 joint work session.
Franklin County’s Board of Supervisors devoted the second half of its April 23 work session to a chapter‑by‑chapter review of a proposed rewrite of the county’s zoning ordinance and told staff to clarify which updates are mandated by state law and which are discretionary policy choices.
Staff gave history and context: the county’s zoning ordinance dates to 1988 and has been applied only to portions of the county; the board contracted Berkeley Group in June 2024 to prepare a full rewrite and the planning commission worked with the consultant chapter by chapter. The first full draft was released in late March and followed public outreach including a survey and town halls.
Planner Randy Sandy summarized the draft’s goals: comply with state code, preserve agricultural land and rural character, modernize standards, improve usability and expand housing opportunities. Sandy said the draft reorganizes the ordinance into ten articles and includes a consolidated use matrix that lists which uses are permitted by right or by special use permit in each district.
Several technical and policy areas drew sustained attention. Key items staff identified and supervisors debated included new A2 agricultural/residential district rules (minimum 2‑acre subdivision standard), a proposed change to the A1 district minimum lot size for subdivisions (the draft proposes 10 acres in certain circumstances), backyard poultry and beekeeping allowances and limits (e.g., a suggested five‑chicken threshold for small parcels), updated use standards for data centers, and expanded language on short‑term rentals that moves many conditions the board has applied through SUPs into the ordinance’s use standards where applicable.
Supervisor Dan Quinn said the draft’s presentation materials failed to highlight discretionary policy moves and that citizens did not receive the guidance they needed to understand major changes: "The Berkeley group did a poor job in general...they simply asked us, 'Do you have any questions?' with no tools," he said. Quinn and others urged staff to separate non‑discretionary, state‑mandated updates from discretionary policy changes and to present a phased approach: publish a clean version with only mandatory/state‑required changes, then present a separate package of discretionary policy proposals for board decision.
Staff responded that many proposed changes flow from goals adopted in the county’s comprehensive plan (preserving farmland, modernizing code, expanding housing opportunity) and that the planning commission had reviewed chapters in public meetings. Mr. Sandy committed to produce clearer comparison materials for supervisors, flag which changes are required by state law, provide hard copies for residents without internet access, and prepare a second draft after the May 13 joint work session with the planning commission.
Next steps: the planning commission will meet May 12; the board and planning commission will hold a joint work session on May 13 to discuss prioritized issues. Staff will publish a second draft, allow a public comment window, and return to the planning commission and board with revisions leading to future public hearings.
