Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Agricultural topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to copy rural setbacks into new Agricultural Zoning District and cut SUP fee
Summary
After a staff briefing on the Agricultural Zoning District, councilors generally agreed to adopt the same setbacks as the town's Rural Residential district and lower the specific-use-permit fee from $500 to $100; staff will draft a UDC amendment for Planning & Zoning review and return to council in February.
Councilors on NorthlakeTown Council on Jan. 8 directed planning staff to draft amendments to the town's Unified Development Code that would apply Rural Residential setback standards to the town's recently adopted Agricultural (AG) zoning district and reduce the specific-use-permit (SUP) fee for residential applicants.
Planning staff Nathan reviewed differences between the AG district and Rural Residential, saying AG is intended primarily for agricultural uses and has a 20-acre minimum lot size (compared with a 5-acre minimum in Rural Residential). Nathan noted some standards were split when the AG district was created, including certain height allowances for agricultural structures and the handling of accessory building standards. He also summarized the SUP fee history: a $500 fee applied broadly, with a $100 residential fee adopted in 2020 for some uses.
Council members debated whether to "copy and paste" the Rural Residential setbacks into AG, to reduce certain setbacks across the board, or to create grandfathering or transitional rules for existing property owners. Several councilors expressed concern about changing the rules midstream for current owners; others said leaving the setbacks identical would protect the town's rural character while avoiding administrative complexity.
The mayor summarized council's direction as follows: staff should draft a UDC amendment that sets AG setback requirements equal to the current Rural Residential setbacks and carry forward a $100 SUP fee for affected property owners. That amendment will be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission at the end of the month and would return to council for possible action at the Feb. 12 meeting.
Public comments during the hearing included residents who asked the council not to impose "forced zoning" on already-zoned land and sought clarity about how existing structures (for example, older windmills) would be treated. Staff and councilors responded that agricultural structures are permitted in the AG district and that existing law does not require demolition of existing agricultural structures when zoning changes.
Next steps: staff will prepare the text of the UDC amendment and the supporting notices for the Planning & Zoning hearing; council requested clear public outreach on the proposed changes and on any grandfathering or fee provisions.
Ending: Council gave direction but did not adopt the UDC amendment on Jan. 8; a P&Z recommendation and a council vote are scheduled in the coming weeks.
