Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies Jackpot rezoning but directs staff to draft conditional‑use option for 4‑H projects
Summary
The commission denied a proposed R1-to-AR zoning change for a Jackpot parcel (COZ26-067) after neighbors warned of noise, smells and property-value impacts. The commission directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow limited youth‑agriculture activities (4‑H) on R1 parcels via conditional use permits and signaled possible fee waivers for subsequent CUPs.
The Planning Commission voted to deny COZ26-067, a request by Vincent and Ruth Squatritto to change a Jackpot parcel from R1 (one- and two-family residential) to Agricultural‑Residential (AR). Staff did not take a formal position; the Jackpot Advisory Board had recommended denial citing incompatibility with future town expansion plans and concerns the change would constitute spot zoning.
During public comment, applicant Ruth Kennison Squatritto said she and her husband bought the parcel believing it could accommodate small youth agricultural projects for their four children. "My name is Ruth Kennison Squatritto. ... I just started a 4 h club in Jackpot, and they were very excited to do particularly just like lamb projects," she told the commission. Opposing neighbors, including Brad Hester, said sounds, odors and animals would harm residential quality and property values. Hester told the board neighbors "vehemently do not want this" and cautioned that allowing the change would open the community to more agricultural uses.
Commissioners discussed alternatives including tabling, denial, or directing staff to draft code language to permit constrained youth‑agriculture activities under a conditional‑use permit on R1 parcels. The commission ultimately voted to deny the zone change and directed staff to draft an ordinance creating a CUP pathway for 4‑H activities — and staff indicated it could consider waiving CUP fees for applicants who had already submitted zoning applications. The commission instructed legal staff to review statutory implications and asked planning staff to return with draft language that ties allowable animal head counts and conditions to parcel size and specific animal types.
