Conditional use permit measure clears first round
A bill that would set new requirements for county boards and commissions when considering conditional use permits for livestock siting advanced to the second round of debate Jan. 28.
Whitman Sen. Tanya Storer, sponsor of LB663, said the measure would ensure “fairness, transparency and accountability” in the application process for such permits.
As introduced last session, the bill would:
• set an educational requirement of two hours per term for county commission and county board members on matters relevant to the bill’s provisions;
• require county officials to base conditional use permit decisions solely on county zoning regulations;
• prohibit requiring a federal, state or other local permit when deciding on a conditional use permit; and
• set a timeline for county commissions to follow when processing an application.
Under the measure, county officials would have 30 days to determine if an application is complete and 10 days to relay that information to the applicant. Once an application is deemed complete, counties would have 90 days to approve or deny the application.
If a county fails to act within that timeline, an application automatically would be deemed approved.
Storer said decisions on these types of applications have the potential to tear communities apart and that subjective concerns need to be taken out of the process.
“This is simply a bill that safeguards applicants’ rights, the rights of those who support and those who oppose applications and it creates better government efficiency,” she said.
A Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee amendment, adopted 36-2, would require that county attorneys also receive continuing education and would limit the bill’s provisions to counties that have enacted zoning requirements. The amendment also would add county zoning administrators to the application review process.
St. Paul Sen. Fred Meyer supported the bill, saying he has seen county boards “drag their feet” to prevent approval of feedlot siting applications based solely on “populist opposition.” LB663 would remove uncertainty from the application process for operations that would like to expand, he said.
“The requirements that come down from [the state] or a county that already has those requirements in place are very defined,” Meyer said, “and if an operation is able to meet those, they are certainly entitled to a swift … conclusion.”
Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha opposed the measure, saying he was not in favor of placing artificial time constraints on government decision making. In addition, he said, while the elimination of “unnecessary hurdles” to development is a worthy goal, deciding what fits that definition is itself subjective.
Storer offered an amendment to the committee amendment to provide what she called a “fire exit” for county officials.
Under the amendment, if officials obtain information that materially affects an application before the 90-day deadline for its approval, they could require submission of a new application. Doing so would restart the approval deadline time clock, providing an additional 90 days for officials to review the new application.
Storer said the amendment removed previous opposition to the bill from the Nebraska Association of County Officials.
Following the 34-2 adoption of the Storer amendment, senators advanced LB663 to select file on a 35-2 vote.
