Landowner says county stopped driveway project under borrow-pit rule; supervisors agree to review ordinance

Resident Bruce Sasonson told the Board of Supervisors county staff stopped a project that would remove the top of a hill to create driveway access for his acreage, saying the work was halted because the county classified the work as a borrow pit when he believes it should not be. "We're not using it on our own property. We're... letting it go wherever," Sasonson said, describing how the county cited a borrow-pit definition that prevented him from hauling material offsite.

Supervisors discussed the case and the broader policy issue: they noted the county ordinance dates to 2008, described how county zoning allows farmers to move dirt when it is used on other property they own for agricultural purposes, and said the lack of a conditional-use pathway for non-agricultural offsite hauling can impede development. Officials suggested staff check whether an agricultural exemption applies to Sasonson's site and said they would ask zoning staff (Daniel Priestley) to outline options, including whether a conditional-use process or ordinance revision is appropriate. Board members observed that moving fill is often necessary in floodplain and low-lying communities to allow development and that an archaic ordinance may unintentionally inhibit building.

The board did not overturn the stop order at the meeting; instead supervisors committed to follow up with zoning staff and explore options for a pathway forward, noting ordnance changes would require time and would likely involve the zoning commission.