Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County adopts zoning change allowing construction/contracting uses via special-use permits; board adds a–f conditions
Summary
After a public hearing and lengthy debate, the Douglas County Board approved a text amendment to zoning regulations to accommodate existing construction/contracting businesses through special-use permits with standardized conditions a–f; motion passed 3–1 with one commissioner absent from the vote.
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt a text amendment to county zoning regulations affecting construction and contracting businesses, directing that affected properties use a special-use-permit pathway and that a standard list of conditions (referred to as a–f in the record) be incorporated into those permits.
Planning and Zoning Coordinator Laura Dietrich summarized the revisions and told the board that the Planning Commission recommended approval after discussion; she said the previously proposed temporary-use-permit scheme was abandoned and that many requirements could instead be handled as conditions in special-use permits. "Per the email from opposing counsel ... the temporary use permit process has been abandoned," Dietrich said during her presentation.
Danielle Dring, counsel appearing for several property owners, said the spirit of the temporary-permit proposal remained intact via special-use permits and that a list of standard conditions (a–f) could be attached to each special-use permit for the 7–11 identified properties affected. Clancy Peterson, representing an ag-zoned owner, said the change is a closed-class accommodation and urged the board to approve language that would allow one owner to complete an already-initiated building project.
Commissioners debated whether agricultural (AG) and rural-residential (RR) properties should be treated the same with respect to a provision that would otherwise prohibit additional buildings for construction/contracting use. Some commissioners urged keeping the rule aligned to the different zoning categories to avoid unintended growth; others favored striking the bullet that banned additional buildings and incorporating a–f into special-use permits so operators could come into compliance.
Commissioner Borgeson moved to approve the amendment with conditions a–f applied through the special-use process and to send the AG/rural-residential building provision back to planning staff and the Planning Commission for further discussion. After added clarifications from county staff and counsel that documentary evidence (not necessarily bank statements) could demonstrate prior operation and that buildings could be converted back to agricultural uses, the motion passed 3–1. The clerk recorded that Commissioner Rogers had left the meeting; Commissioner Friend voted no; the motion passed as a majority of the quorum.
