Supervisors eye guidelines for land-use permits
Policy document analyzed during work session
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors reviewed a proposed document setting out permitting and enforcement policies for the county Department of Development Services Monday, during a work session after its regular meeting.
Work sessions are held for extended discussion on a particular subject, where no binding votes are cast, but county staff can use board input to shape policies brought back for a vote.
The policy document has been created in response to a series of subcommittee meetings held by the County Planning and Zoning Commission, including three commissioners along with Planning and Zoning Director Maggie Castro, Chief Building Official Pat Headington and Barry Olsen, an attorney representing local developers.
The document sets “uniform guidelines” for how the department will issue building permits and related permits, as well as sets priorities for how zoning violations will be enforced, since the county can’t afford to pursue every one.
“Within this, we need to keep in mind that the purpose of regulation is to balance the rights of property owners against the needs of the community, to protect the public interest, safety, and character of neighborhoods and subdivisions,” Development Services Director Craig Sellers said at the start of the meeting.
The 14-page document, including a six-page appendix listing applicable state statutes and county procedures, sets out the different kinds of land-use permits offered by the county, and the meetings and plan reviews necessary in order to secure them.
It also sets parameters for how zoning inspections are to be conducted and whether zoning violations found are to be reported, in an effort to ensure laws are enforced equally around the county.
Under some circumstances, the department is directed to send out a “courtesy notice” when a violation is noted and keep it on file, rather than issue a civil citation.
For example, if a violation is found by a staff member inspecting a property with a single-family home where the owner is seeking a permit for new construction, a notice will be sent to the owner unless it’s somehow related to the proposed use. If it is, then a violation notice can be filed with the county hearing officer.
This policy addresses one of the developer group’s key concerns: What happens after a property owner applies for a new permit, unaware of code compliance issues dating back to before they purchased it?
This was the core issue in a 2015 zoning enforcement officer’s decision fought up to the state Court of Appeals by both the defendant and county officials. Olsen represented the defendant, who ultimately prevailed.
While subsequent owners of a single-family property would simply get a courtesy notice, the policy indicates commercial, industrial or multifamily structures would not get the same leeway.
The proposed policy document also states: “Staff observation should not vary between sites of similar development and zoning characteristics. Staff are not to patrol for violations, or go out of their way while pursuing their duties to identify violations.”
This drew some surprised laughter from the board when read aloud by Sellers, who explained this wouldn’t mean inspectors would have to walk around with blinders on, but that some problems would be reported first to their bosses.
“We’re not asking staff to ignore things in the normal course of business. We don’t feel that’s ethical,” he said. “We have our people that are going their normal routes to go to a job site and they see something, they need to be able to turn that in to a supervisor and say ‘I saw this,’ and have us review it.”
The document also states that staff “may” report every violation related to environmental health, floodplain, floodplain or right-of-way encroachment, or manufactured home installations they’ve seen.
This is because not doing so would violate enforcement delegation agreements with state or federal agencies and could jeopardize disaster relief funds.
Complaints filed anonymously by members of the public will still be accepted by the county, contrary to the developers’ wishes, and if verified through inspection, owners “will be given a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance” by the county.
If progress is not being made during the alloted time or the violation remains when time is up, county officials can file the complaint with the zoning hearing officer and begin enforcement, the document says.
The proposed policies have already been reviewed by the county Planning and Zoning Commission, and are scheduled for a second review at its July 23 meeting. After that, it will be reviewed a second time by the board of supervisors, then adopted as policy by Sellers for the department.
At a previous Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors said they wanted to adopt these changes as a board policy so it could not be undone by a future Department of Development Services director.
But after Yuma County Supervisor Russell McCloud brought up the issue on Monday, several at the meeting said if it was endorsed at the board level, the implications would be much farther-reaching.
Deputy County Attorney Ed Feheley said, “If this is just a DDS policy that you’re getting briefed on, it’s a lot different than if it’s going to be your policy. If it’s your policy, then it’s going to be adopted in the same manner as the zoning ordinance.”
Board Chairman Tony Reyes said a board policy would be more in flux, subject to the outcomes of future elections.
“I feel the opposite way, actually, that a different board would do different things, and that if there’s a policy at that level than this level, then it would actually be more stable,” he said.
Yuma Sun reporter Blake Herzog can be reached at 928-539-6856 or bherzog@yumasun.com.