Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Growth Policy Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park County planners debate zoning, growth policy and 'buildings for lease' standards as residents press for protections
Summary
Board members and residents discussed whether county zoning or growth‑policy work is needed in addition to subdivision regulation updates; residents asked for stronger protections for water, wildlife and working lands, and staff flagged that 'buildings for lease or rent' (including RV/mobile home parks) currently lacks public‑notice requirements.
The Park County Planning Board’s meeting on April 16 expanded beyond a draft subdivision‑code update into a broader discussion over zoning, growth policy and county review of buildings for lease or rent, with residents urging the board to pursue tools that can provide enforceable protections.
Several residents and board members asked whether the county should pursue zoning or other tools that carry “teeth” beyond the guidance of the existing growth policy. A longtime resident (speaker 12) described threats from unchecked development and urged the board to prioritize clustering, reasonable stream setbacks, protection of working lands and stronger community outreach to prevent the experience of nearby counties.
Planning staff (Mike, speaker 2) said the growth policy is a guiding document that lacks regulatory teeth and that zoning and subdivision regulations are different tools: zoning addresses permitted uses and density, while subdivision regulations govern the division of land and design standards. Staff suggested the board could discuss Goal 16 of the growth policy at a future meeting as a starting point for identifying tools available under state law.
On a separate but connected topic, staff raised concerns about the county’s new review category for "buildings for lease or rent," which now covers RV parks and mobile home parks. Staff noted there is no statutory public‑notice or public hearing requirement attached to that review path and that the lack of notice can make reviews more subjective. As one board member put it, the absence of clear standards for water, sanitation and emergency access complicates determinations about whether a proposal would be “injurious to adjoining landowners.”
Residents asked for clearer public engagement: Barb Olbershaw requested an informal session to walk non‑planners through the draft regulations; staff and consultants agreed such sessions would be useful and said they would advertise them as part of the public outreach. Several speakers suggested the board tackle work in smaller steps—pick a single topic (for example, Goal 16 or impact fees) for the next meeting and produce a white paper or work plan to guide public discussion and possible referral to the county commissioners.
No formal policy decision on zoning or growth‑policy changes was made; staff said the commission has asked the planning department to “look into” different zoning options and that any concrete regulatory or zoning proposals would ultimately be presented to and decided by the county commissioners.
Next procedural step: the board will prioritize short, focused agenda items that can be studied and discussed publicly (for example Goal 16 review), continue with the subdivision regulations public‑comment process, and prepare any recommended options for the commissioners to consider.
