On July 19, the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing for a conditional use permit requested by Tim Ekstrom and Robert Phillips.  The permit would allow for a horse roping arena to be covered for year-round use.  The existing riding/roping arena will be enclosed within a 24,000 square foot steel building with a continuous foundation.  According to the application, the arena will essentially be used for the same purposes as it is presently, private functions and lessons.  The application does not allow for a commercial application for the venue.  According to the application, 3-6 people will participate in roping activities two to three times a week during the year.

The Planning and Zoning Staff recommended that the number of people permitted within the structure follow those numbers laid out in the application, and that the venue not be used for large 4-H and FFA events.  While the commission stressed that the venue could not be used for commercial events, some flexibility with regard to the staff recommendations was granted after the period of public comments, during which the restriction on numbers and not-for-profit youth organizations were discussed.  Many speakers expressed the opinion that the number of participants may be too low to account for family members and others who might be involved in the planned lessons/practices.  It was mentioned by a number of speakers that the property had been serving the same purpose for many years, and the only substantial difference would be that now it would be covered.  Those who spoke at the public hearing were uniformly in favor of the granting of the conditional use permit. 

Chairman Josh Paskett stated that he was not overly concerned with establishing a specific number of people as a limit for the location, but did want to ensure that other elements of the application were met: a legal approach to the facility, parking areas sufficient for 10 trucks with trailers, restrictions against commercial uses (which would not include any official prohibition against 4-H or FFA), and some form of restroom facility provided.  After stipulating those requirements, the commission unanimously voted to approve the permit.

Following the hearing, the commission opened a special meeting to explain their decisions with regard to the rezoning requests from the five July public hearings on two properties in the county.  The public hearings were very well attended, and a large number of people provided their input on the topics of the rezone requests.

In the first instance, applicant Ben Naylor had sought to rezone acreage in order to allow for a residence and a church on existing property.  This decision marks the first time the commission has officially looked at a rezoning request under the new development code.  The rezone request itself was denied, however the building project itself was considered viable.  Essentially, the commission advised Mr. Naylor that because the property had not heretofore been subject to a lot split, it would be easiest to split the property to carve out the residential request, and then file an application for a conditional use permit for the church to be built upon the adjoining property.  

The commission noted that most of the comments at the prior public hearing in favor of the rezone emphasized the need for a church, which this arrangement would still allow for.  Regardless of the creation of the lot, the church will still need to go through the conditional use permitting process, which will involve specifics about water, access, parking, etc.  This would work within the familiar development model for the county, and avoid setting a precedent for rezoning.  Churches are a conforming use in agricultural zones, so the use permit would be the only step necessary to begin that construction, while lot splits are permitted up to four times on non-split property.  

In the second instance, Allen Nielson had applied for a rezone to rural residential on a 120 acre lot to create a subdivision of 20 5 acre lots.  The commissioners began by explaining their thinking on the rezone application.  Josh Paskett pointed out that the proposed subdivision would definitely change the nature of the land and its use, and that the development itself would be a nonconforming use.  RonDell Skidmore suggested that the subdivision would be more appropriate in a location closer to the city where it could potentially be annexed.  Steve Daniels mentioned that the comprehensive plan discourages the conversion of “prime agricultural land” for development, and that this location seemed to run against that provision.  Daniels also stated that he had concerns about the water survey conducted on the property, and questions about the plans to donate the roadway out of the subdivision to the county, which may not have the resources to maintain it.  The other commissioners voiced similar concerns with regard to the water study and location of the proposed development.

Daniels made a motion to reject the rezoning request on the basis of information from the public hearing, as well as the discussion from the special session.  After the motion was seconded by Parker Venable, the rezone request was unanimously rejected by the commission.

The next step in the process is to provide a written explanation of the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will ultimately make the final decision on the property in question.  The County commissioners have the latitude to entertain further comment on the issue before rendering their judgement.  

As a first set of decisions to be made on rezoning under the new development code, those made during the special meeting seem to indicate that the commission takes the comprehensive plan’s directive to maintain the agricultural nature of the county seriously, and to approach the expansion of new developments in the jurisdiction cautiously.