Notice Error Forces Planning Commissioner to Leave Before Jefferson County UDO Meeting
County officials avoided a possible Sunshine Law violation before beginning a detailed review of proposed zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards and public-safety requirements.
By The Jefferson Review Staff
HILLSBORO — A Jefferson County meeting focused on rewriting the county’s development regulations began with an unexpected Sunshine Law concern after officials discovered the public notice had not properly covered the possible participation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Before the July 16 meeting was called to order, Councilmen Tim Brown and Charles Groeteke discussed the situation with a member of the county’s legal staff.
The Master Plan and Unified Development Order Ad Hoc Committee meeting had been publicly posted. However, the notice did not identify the gathering as a meeting of the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission.
County legal staff explained that if five members of the nine-member commission were present and actively participated, they would constitute a quorum. That could cause the gathering to legally qualify as a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that had not been properly noticed.
One Planning and Zoning Commission member left before the meeting began, reducing the number of commissioners present to four and allowing the committee’s discussion to continue without a quorum of the commission.
Once the meeting was called to order, the county’s legal counsel formally explained the issue for the record.
“It is our understanding as the county counselor’s department that there was an intent to have something in the nature of a joint meeting,” the attorney said.
He said joint meetings between county bodies are permitted but must be carefully noticed when quorums of both groups are expected to attend and participate.
“Unfortunately, it appears that the notice of meeting for tonight’s meeting, although properly noticed for the Master Plan UDO Ad Hoc Committee, did not include a notice with respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission,” he said.
A roll call confirmed that only four commissioners remained in attendance. Because five members would have constituted a quorum, the Planning and Zoning Commission was not officially meeting as a public body.
Groeteke later asked that future agendas and notices be prepared so all Planning and Zoning Commission members could attend without raising the same issue.
Officials Question Proposed Zoning Tables
After resolving the Sunshine Law concern, committee members spent much of the meeting examining draft language for the county’s new Unified Development Order, commonly called the UDO.
The document is intended to replace or significantly revise the regulations governing zoning, development and permitted land uses in unincorporated Jefferson County.
Groeteke said the proposed system represents a dramatic change from the current UDO, including new names and descriptions for zoning districts and new tables showing where different activities would be permitted.
Committee members focused on the distinction between uses marked “P,” meaning permitted by right; uses marked “L,” meaning allowed only in limited locations and subject to supplemental standards; and uses marked with a dash, meaning prohibited.
Groeteke said the tables require careful examination because approval of the final document could determine where hospitals, schools, places of worship, government buildings, recreational facilities, industrial operations and other developments may be constructed.
Among the provisions that drew attention was language allowing a solid-waste transfer station as a permitted use in the proposed RR-2 Rural Residential District and in heavy industrial areas.
Groeteke also questioned provisions covering recycling facilities, salvage yards, cottage courts, agricultural uses and sexually oriented businesses.
The committee confirmed that sexually oriented businesses would remain permitted only in heavy industrial areas.
Brown said the committee should not wait until a final public hearing to attempt significant revisions.
“If we waited until just that meeting and then everybody was like, ‘Well, I’ve got 10 changes I want to see,’ and we tried to make them on the fly, it could be a little bit more complicated than providing feedback up front,” Brown said.
Questions About Conditional Uses and Rezoning
Several officials expressed concern that the draft eliminates the county’s current conditional-use process.
Under the proposed framework discussed during the meeting, a land use would generally either be permitted in a zoning district or prohibited. Property owners seeking a prohibited use might have to request that their property be rezoned rather than applying for a conditional-use permit with specific restrictions.
Brown raised the example of someone operating a gunsmithing or repair business from a home. If that use were not permitted in a residential district, the property owner might have to seek commercial zoning.
He questioned whether the new framework would provide enough flexibility to allow certain businesses or developments when reasonable conditions could address concerns involving traffic, signage, customers or neighboring properties.
Committee members also discussed cottage-court developments, which typically feature smaller detached homes clustered around a shared area.
The draft allows cottage courts in three proposed zoning districts. Lori Arons said that type of development could work well in additional locations, recalling a previous cottage development proposed in her district that ultimately did not move forward.
County legal staff cautioned that the draft remains in development and that the relationship between base zoning districts, overlay districts and supplemental standards has not yet been fully defined.
That uncertainty became a recurring concern throughout the meeting.
“The table doesn’t really matter if there’s no good supplements,” Councilman Billy Crow said.
Members said they need clearer explanations of when supplemental standards apply and whether they could provide flexibility for uses otherwise shown as prohibited.
Smaller Lots Raise Stormwater and Fire Concerns
The proposed reduction of minimum residential lot sizes also generated discussion.
One Planning and Zoning Commission member said some existing districts requiring approximately 40,000-square-foot lots could be replaced with districts permitting lots closer to 25,000 square feet. Other proposed districts would reduce approximately 20,000-square-foot requirements to roughly 14,500 square feet.
Members questioned how greater residential density could affect existing neighborhoods, stormwater runoff and emergency access.
The committee discussed developments with narrow lots, limited space between houses and large amounts of rooftop, driveway and other impervious surfaces.
Members said downstream property owners frequently appear before the county with concerns that new construction could increase flooding or erosion.
Officials acknowledged that some residents prefer smaller homes with smaller yards, but said development standards must also account for water runoff, fire separation, emergency access and the effects on surrounding properties.
Groeteke said the county must learn from older developments that were constructed under less stringent standards.
“We can’t cure the ills of the past,” Groeteke said. “But we have to look to the future so that we do not create any more serious problems.”
Fire Districts Submit Development Recommendations
Groeteke also presented a letter from the Jefferson County Fire District Alliance recommending that emergency-access requirements be incorporated into the new UDO.
The recommendations included:
- Formal fire department review during the development process.
- Standards for fire-apparatus access roads.
- Limits for dead-end roads and cul-de-sacs.
- Secondary access for larger developments.
- Requirements for aerial fire apparatus.
- Coordination of hydrants and water supplies.
- Parking-lane controls.
- Gate-access standards.
- Continuing maintenance of emergency-access routes.
The letter stated that the UDO should not merely determine what can be built and where it can be located.
“It should ensure that once it’s built, Fire, EMS and law enforcement can safely and efficiently get to it and operate on it to protect the people using it,” the Fire District Alliance wrote.
Groeteke said the letter was signed by Alliance President Bob Dunn and represented input from fire districts throughout Jefferson County.
Members discussed inviting Dunn or another fire representative to a future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to explain the recommendations.
Questions Submitted but Not Answered
Arons repeatedly questioned why committee members had not received responses to questions previously submitted about the draft.
Groeteke said he had sent questions from committee members to the appropriate parties but had not received answers.
Members said future meetings would be more productive if county planning staff or consultants were available to explain the proposed zoning system, supplemental standards and overlay districts.
Groeteke said the attendance of county employees is controlled by the county executive, although the committee could formally compel testimony if necessary. Members said they hoped that would not be required.
Committee members also criticized the organization of the draft, saying definitions and regulations involving the same type of development are sometimes separated by several pages.
County legal staff said planning employees had already communicated similar concerns to the consultant and wanted the final document to be easier for residents, developers and county employees to navigate.
Brown said the committee should review the document in smaller sections rather than attempting to address the entire UDO at once.
Groeteke agreed, warning that the county could be left with regulations officials later regret if members do not closely examine the details before the document reaches its final stage.
“There’s a lot of paper here, and we vote on something that gets passed,” Groeteke said. “If it turns out to be not what people want, we’re all going to pay the price for that.”
The committee adjourned shortly before 8 p.m. after agreeing that additional questions, professional guidance and revisions would be needed before the proposed UDO is ready to move forward.
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.