Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County APC sets hearing on subdivision and setback changes after debate over materials and timing
Summary
The APC voted to set a public hearing at its August meeting on proposed subdivision and yard/setback clarifications circulated by staff; members discussed concrete vs. asphalt, specification standards, county review, and notice deadlines.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Franklin County Area Planning Commission voted to schedule a public hearing on proposed updates to subdivision standards and yard/setback language at its August meeting after staff circulated draft language and an executive summary.
Staff described the materials as clarifications to current code and said most proposals align with state highway standards; the circulated packet included a before-and-after comparison and highlighted changes tied to specific code sections. “If we start with the 80.10.7, we really went back and tied the requirements to NDOT sections,” staff said, noting the edits were largely clarifications rather than substantive new policy.
Commissioners raised concerns about construction materials and maintenance implications. One member said county road crews had experienced costly repairs where concrete pavement had failed, and another observed that concrete can have greater longevity but can be more expensive or harder to repair in the county’s current operating environment. Commissioners discussed whether the APC could be more restrictive than state standards and whether the county’s highway department should review proposed verification and third-party testing requirements before a hearing.
A committee member moved to use the language distributed by staff (referenced in the discussion as the proposed changes to sections such as '80.10.7') and set a hearing at the APC’s August meeting; another member seconded the motion. The chair called for the vote and the motion carried after members present answered “Aye.”
Clerk/staff later reported four active code violations and said the county attorney planned to pursue fines by the end of the month; no enforcement votes were taken during the meeting.
Next steps: the APC will advertise the most updated draft prior to the August meeting, solicit public comment, and hold the scheduled hearing as noticed.

