Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Temporary Use Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses moving temporary-use permits to Codes, sets fee approach and liability standards
Summary
The Codes and Zoning Enforcement Committee reviewed a plan to move temporary-use permitting from Public Works into Codes, debated a $100 minimum permit fee vs. the current $350 BZA route, and discussed requiring third-party insurance and certified installers for high-risk attractions such as bounce houses; staff will return with recommended ordinance language.
The committee voted to transfer temporary-use permitting oversight from Public Works to the Codes and Zoning office and opened a detailed review of permit fees and safety controls for community events. Chair said the permit under codes "will require a $100 fee," and several members said routing routine permits through the Board of Zoning Appeals — which carries a $350 charge — would be an undue burden for small community gatherings.
The committee focused on public-safety and liability concerns for inflatable attractions. Chair said the county insurer "has stated emphatically, they will not cover bounce houses on county property," and members discussed requiring event operators to carry their own liability insurance and provide a certified installer and certificate of insurance naming the county as additional insured before a permit is issued. Staff suggested permit language should specify required documentation, site plans, parking and sanitary arrangements for larger gatherings.
Staff recommended routine temporary-use permits be handled by the planning/building office with discretion to escalate larger or unusual events to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The planning staff noted the combined draft ordinance includes a six-month option for recurring uses (for example, a seasonal farmers market), which would reserve space and reduce vendor conflicts. Committee members also raised enforcement and outreach concerns — that many private-property events are unaware of permit requirements — and asked staff to draft clear thresholds (by estimated attendance or scope) for when a permit is required.
Chair asked staff (Rosalie) and the county planning consultant (Amanda) to research state certification requirements, insurers' installer-certification practices, and other jurisdictions' language, and to return with recommended ordinance revisions and proposed cutoff thresholds at the next meeting.
