Board approves Fort Richey Special Economic District zoning changes to clarify permitted uses

The Washington County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a zoning text amendment for the Fort Richey Special Economic District (SED) that revises the list of principally permitted manufacturing and industrial uses, updates residential lot‑size and setback rules for higher‑density housing, and adds design criteria intended to preserve the district’s small‑town character.

Kyla Shingleton, comprehensive planner, told the board the amendment was crafted to allow adaptive reuse and to better define uses already operating within the former Fort Richey site. “This district was created and applied to the land of the former Fort Richey Army Base,” she said, and the proposed edits aim to “attract uses once compatible with the property” while clarifying setbacks and design standards.

Applicant John Krumpetich, who owns about 500 acres of the former fort, said the changes are intended to encourage light industrial tenants, mixed residential above commercial uses and to avoid introducing heavy industrial operations that the town cannot support. “We’re trying to dial that in, to be able to put in some different housing choices, also with a look of commercial down below with residential above,” Krumpetich said.

The record included two emailed public comments in opposition: Erin Martin urged preservation of the base’s historical resources and opposed industrialization of the site, while property owner Joe Lee wrote that certain proposed restrictions may unfairly limit food and beverage manufacturers compared with other manufacturing uses. Commissioners discussed a specific distance/setback provision (section 19(c)(3)) that staff said had been in the ordinance in a stand‑alone section for many years and sometimes is applied more strictly for intensive uses; the board agreed to adopt the amendment but to leave that subsection at its normal distance rather than doubling it.

Several public commenters spoke in favor of easing reuse options to support local businesses; one participant used profane language and urged the board not to impede property rights. The board approved the amendment after discussion and a motion to accept the package with the single change to 19(c)(3).

The Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval at its June meeting. Staff said no public comments in favor had been recorded before the correction that two emails in opposition were received; the board addressed those emailed concerns during deliberations.