Kane County Planning and Zoning advances land use changes at April 8 meeting

KANAB - The meet­ing of the Kane County Planning and Zoning Board held on April 8 had a full agenda of Land Use topics and public hearings. Following the regular opening procedures and a brief update from County Commis­sioner Gwen Brown, the board started on the agenda’s action items.

The first item was administrative, with the board considering granting Land Use Ad­ministrator Shannon McBride authoriza­tion to process amend­ments and compliance issues for the Camp Kaia Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This would streamline the CUP process, which currently specifies any plan amendments re­turn to the Planning and Zoning board, fixing the pace of prog­ress to the board’s regular meetings. The board voted to approve authorizing McBride to act on the CUP is­sues.

The board then pro­ceeded into the agen­da’s legislative items, the first of which was a zone change request from Commercial One to Commercial Two, with plans for a small campsite and family history museum by descendants of west­ern film star Clint Eastwood. There was no feedback from the public, and the board unanimously recom­mended approval.

The following agen­da item considered a change in the language of Chapter One of the County General Plan and was cause for some discourse within the board. Planning and Zoning authorities had a brief discussion on a semantic friction point now common to Kane County, the meaning of “property rights” in the county’s zoning policies. Board Commissioner Heaton opposed verbiage in the change such as “Responsibility for private land use deci­sions properly rests with those landown­ers, provided that those decisions do not negatively impact the neighboring property owners or adversely affect the established the character of the surrounding area,” claiming such wording infringes on the rights of the property owner by elevating the rights of their neighbors to the point the neigh­bors and government gain the ability to dictate the actions of the private property owner.

The board approved a positive recommen­dation, with Heaton voting against.

The next item con­sidered another land use revision, specifi­cally regarding coun­ty policy requiring land-use applicants to make progress on a project within a year or reapply. McBride brought the change before the board, stat­ing, “Since COVID … a lot of these projects just have delays and aren’t getting progress made. I thought this would make it easier for applicants and the board.” The board ap­proved unanimously.

The final item on the agenda considered the height limit on build­ings, affecting proper­ties such as church steeples and multi-story housing roofs. Some public feedback expressed the lack of practical differences between the proposed 49 feet and the current 45, and the board con­firmed certain excep­tions within a certain width such as flag­poles. The board ap­proved unanimously.

The meeting ad­journed around 7 p.m.