County UDO Work Session Reveals Big Question: Will Jefferson County Make Land Use Simpler or More Restrictive?
As consultants work on a new unified development ordinance, council members pressed for clearer rules, more flexibility, and stronger protection for property rights in unincorporated Jefferson County.
By The Jefferson Review
A Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission work session meant to review early drafts of the county’s new Unified Development Ordinance quickly turned into a broader debate over property rights, development rules, housing flexibility, short-term rentals, and how much government should regulate what landowners can do with their own property.
The meeting focused on Sections Two and Three of the draft UDO, which deal with zoning districts, overlay standards, land uses, and what types of development would be allowed in different parts of unincorporated Jefferson County.
Consultants from Houseal Lavigne, the firm helping prepare the new code, explained that the goal is to bring the county’s zoning rules into alignment with the recently adopted master plan. They described the work as an effort to simplify the code, modernize outdated categories, reduce unnecessary rezonings and variances, and create clearer expectations for both property owners and county staff.
But while the Planning and Zoning Commission was the official body holding the work session, several County Council members who were invited to participate played a major role in shaping the conversation.
That became one of the defining features of the meeting.
Rather than simply listening to a technical presentation, council members repeatedly raised practical questions about how the new rules would affect real people: homeowners with large trucks, families who want accessory dwelling units, landowners in rural areas, people looking to rent property, developers trying to understand the rules, and residents concerned about what could happen next door.
At the heart of the discussion was a simple question: should Jefferson County’s new UDO become a more user-friendly, property-rights-focused document, or should it create another layer of rules that residents and businesses have to fight through?
The consultants emphasized that the draft is still a work in progress. They said the county is currently reviewing zoning districts and use standards before moving into additional sections dealing with parking, lighting, landscaping, screening, signs, subdivisions, and approval procedures.
One of the key proposed changes is the removal of traditional conditional uses. Instead, the draft would generally place uses into categories such as permitted, prohibited, limited, or allowed through a development plan.
That change could be significant. A permitted use would mean a property owner has a clearer path forward if the proposed use meets the written standards. Rather than relying on a case-by-case political or public hearing process, the rules would be placed directly in the code.
That idea drew attention because it could make the process more predictable for landowners and developers, while still allowing the county to set standards for compatibility, screening, parking, traffic, and neighborhood impact.
The consultants described the approach as “design, don’t deny,” meaning the county could allow more uses while still placing guardrails around how those uses operate.
For a county like Jefferson County, that may be the right direction.
Too often, local government rules become so complicated that ordinary people cannot tell what they are allowed to do on their own land. If the new UDO is going to be successful, it should make the answer to that question easier, not harder.
Several council members and commissioners raised concerns about whether the new zoning names would be easy for the public to understand. Bob Tullock noted that the current system, with districts such as R-7, R-10, and R-20, is relatively easy for residents to understand because the number directly relates to lot size. Under the new draft, districts would use names such as rural residential, suburban residential, and urban residential, with abbreviations that may be less familiar at first.
Charles Groeteke also pressed for a clear zoning map that would show residents how their property would change under the new system. The consultants said a proposed zoning map would be presented later, showing both the current and proposed zoning.
That map will be critical.
No property owner should have to guess what new zoning category their land falls into. If the county is going to rewrite the rules for unincorporated Jefferson County, residents deserve a clear visual explanation of what is changing, why it is changing, and how it affects their property.
Parking and setbacks also became a major point of discussion. Groeteke raised a practical concern about new subdivision designs and whether front setbacks would allow enough room for large pickup trucks without blocking sidewalks. Tim Brown echoed the point, saying the county needs to account for the reality that many Jefferson County residents drive larger vehicles.
That discussion highlighted one of the dangers of importing planning concepts that may work in more urban communities but do not always fit Jefferson County.
Walkability, sidewalks, and compact neighborhoods may make sense in some areas. But in many parts of Jefferson County, families need room for trucks, trailers, work vehicles, garages, and off-street parking. A good UDO should recognize that Jefferson County is not St. Louis County, and it should not force every neighborhood into the same development model.
The meeting also turned to accessory dwelling units, commonly known as ADUs. These can include small secondary living spaces such as in-law quarters, detached units, basement apartments, or other separate living spaces on the same property as a primary home.
The draft initially allowed ADUs in several residential districts, but not in some of the county’s larger rural or rural-edge zoning areas. That sparked one of the clearest property-rights discussions of the night.
The concern was straightforward: if a person with a smaller lot in a more developed area can have an ADU, why would a landowner with several acres be prohibited from building a place for an aging parent, adult child, or family member?
That point resonated with several members of the group. Lori Arons noted that with an aging population, ADUs could provide an important option for families trying to care for relatives while still allowing independence.
That is exactly the kind of flexibility Jefferson County should encourage.
A property owner with enough land, proper utilities, and the ability to meet health and safety standards should not be blocked from building a modest living space for family simply because the code failed to imagine that situation. The UDO should protect neighbors from legitimate nuisances, but it should not punish families who are trying to take care of their own.
Short-term rentals also generated discussion. The draft did not clearly allow them, meaning they would generally be prohibited unless specifically added. Members discussed whether short-term rentals should be allowed, prohibited, or regulated with standards.
Some raised concerns about enforcement and neighborhood impact. Others noted that people are already using homes as short-term rentals in some areas, making the question less about whether the practice exists and more about whether the county wants to define it, regulate it, tax it, or ban it.
Brown warned against trying to regulate every possible use of a residential or commercial building, saying that kind of approach could lead to overregulation.
That may be one of the most important cautions from the entire meeting.
A UDO cannot anticipate every future business model, housing trend, family arrangement, or property use. If the county tries to write a rule for every possibility, the result will be a code that is longer, harder to understand, and easier to weaponize against property owners.
The better approach is to focus on real pain points: traffic, noise, safety, sewage, stormwater, parking, lighting, and impacts on neighboring properties. Those are legitimate public concerns. But beyond that, Jefferson County should be careful not to regulate simply for the sake of regulating.
The meeting also touched on traffic studies, legacy zoning districts, cottage courts, manufactured homes, tiny homes, salvage yards, commercial uses, drive-throughs, and how future development should be reviewed. In each case, the same tension kept appearing: how does the county allow reasonable use of land while protecting neighboring property owners from serious harm?
That balance will define the success or failure of the new UDO.
The county should not use the new code as an excuse to micromanage landowners. It should use the process to clean up outdated rules, make the system easier to understand, protect rural character where it truly matters, and allow more freedom where property owners can meet basic standards.
A simpler code does not mean a weaker code. In many cases, clearer rules are stronger because everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. The danger is creating a document that promises simplicity but delivers more layers of review, more uncertainty, and more power for government officials to say no.
The consultants are expected to return with additional draft sections later in the process, including standards for parking, landscaping, lighting, signs, subdivisions, and approval procedures. Those sections may ultimately determine whether the UDO truly protects property rights or simply reorganizes the county’s existing restrictions under new names.
For now, the work session showed that several members of county government are paying attention to the right questions.
Jefferson County residents should be watching closely too.
Because when the UDO is finished, it will not just be a technical planning document. It will help decide what people can build, where businesses can open, how families can use their land, and how much permission residents will need from government before moving forward with their plans.
That makes this one of the most important local government projects currently underway in Jefferson County.
Stay connected to what’s happening in Jefferson County.
The Jefferson Review delivers the local government decisions, development updates, and community stories shaping our county every Thursday and Sunday.
Don’t miss what your neighbors are talking about.