Planning Commission members on Sept. 15 were told the county has approved and will post a request for proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to rewrite the subdivision and zoning ordinances, and commissioners pressed staff to prioritize review of buffers and related sign and design standards during that process.

Staff update and timeline: A planning department staff member told the commission, "We did receive approval for the RFP today from our legal team. So that should be posted by the end of the week," and said the consultant selection and negotiations would take place over the following weeks with an anticipated start of work "potentially beginning in November." The staff member estimated an 18-to-24-month timeline to complete the rewrite, modeled on the scope and public engagement used for the comprehensive plan update.

Why it matters: The development-ordinance rewrite will consolidate the county’s zoning and subdivision regulations, clarify ambiguous provisions, and is intended to reduce piecemeal amendments. Commissioners said the rewrite is an opportunity to address recurring issues they encounter in daily review and enforcement, including buffer widths and related landscape standards.

Commissioner interest and proposed next steps: Commissioner Susan Townsend asked the commission to form a small subcommittee to review the buffer rules and nominate a few members to start outlining concerns. Townsend said she would "like to see us move forward to maybe do a subcommittee to review the buffers zoning ordinance" and offered to compile annotated notes for staff. Reverend Hathaway and other commissioners supported early engagement so commissioners would not be asked to absorb the full rewrite at the end of the vendor’s work.

Staff cautioned about scope and staffing: The staff member said planning has limited personnel to manage both daily workloads (site-plan reviews, enforcement and public inquiries) and the rewrite effort, which is why county leadership authorized an outside consultant to do the comprehensive work rather than pursue many piecemeal text amendments. Staff said targeted stakeholder engagement will be part of the consultant’s scope and suggested the planning commission will have a heavy involvement in review as drafts are produced.

Process questions: Commissioners asked whether a small subcommittee would constitute a meeting requiring public notice; staff said they would check legal and bylaw requirements and report back. Commissioners discussed two options: (1) each commissioner flags priority ordinance sections for staff and the consultant to address; or (2) form an internal subcommittee to develop a coordinated set of issues for the consultant. Staff said either approach is workable and that the commission will be given drafts with time to review before public hearings.

Next steps: Staff will post the RFP, work with the vendor selection process, and return with details on stakeholder engagement and any subcommittee rules. Commissioners were encouraged to send annotated ordinance sections or priority topics to planning staff in the interim so the consultant can consider them during scope and sequencing.