Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pottawatomie County Planning Commission denies A1-to-AB rezoning request
Summary
The Pottawatomie County Planning Commission voted 8-0 on June 18 to deny a rezoning request to change a tract from agricultural (A1) to general business (AB); staff said denial does not require removal of existing gravel but limits site uses.
The Pottawatomie County Planning Commission on June 18 denied a rezoning request to change a tract from A1 (agricultural) to AB (general business), citing incompatibility with neighborhood character and the county Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Bridget Snow presented the staff report on the application listed on the agenda as submitted by Derek Tollefson, reviewing nearby zoning, the site’s existing gravel parking and fencing, and considerations including whether the request would detrimentally affect nearby properties and conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. Adjacent owner Daniel Davies said the current owner could have sited the facility farther from his property, closer to Highway 63.
Commissioner Robert Busby moved to deny the request for reasons that, as stated in the motion, included that the rezoning "is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood," "is not consistent with zoning and uses of nearby properties," and "is not consistent with the comprehensive plan in that region." The motion was seconded by Austin Vincent and passed 8-0.
Snow clarified the practical effect of the denial: "the denial does not mean the gravel has to be removed, but it cannot be used as a construction office site or for the storage of vehicles and equipment." Commissioners also asked whether the entrance location and road-use implications had been appropriately considered; Public Works approval was noted as a factor for driveways and entrances under county rules.
Why it matters: the vote preserves the tract’s agricultural zoning and limits commercial uses that neighboring property owners said are harmful to rural character. The county’s public-record action now leaves the owner with limited options under current zoning; any future change would require a new application and public hearing.
Next steps: the denial is final for this action by the Planning Commission; the record does not specify any appeal or subsequent application from the owner and does not identify a requirement to remove existing gravel cover.
