Prosecutor seeks outside legal opinion on county code

In a rare submission into public record, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney True Pearce read a prepared statement to the Washington County Commissioners during the Monday, May 5, regular weekly commission meeting.

 Pearce said his office has devoted hundreds of hours analyzing Washington County’s land use ordinances, most specifically to A1 zoning and building permits. The statement claims a consistent interpretation of the code has been lacking due to “conflicting opinions and inconsistent guidance.”

 Engaging an outside law firm, Holland & Hart LLP, to conduct a third-party legal review of a memorandum Pearce had prepared, he submitted an attached opinion from Holland & Hart partner Mary York and Associate Kyle Kindred, along with his statement. A copy of the original memo was not available to the public on Monday.

 The attorney’s opinion summarizes three parts of his memo’s conclusions, first saying the county’s practice of issuing building permits as “attached” to parcels and conducting title research to locate them is not supported by the county’s code, adding “there is no discretion to deny them based on past land divisions.”

 The opinion submits that the county’s code permits a single-family dwelling on A-1 parcels that are 20 acres or larger, as well as “structures and agricultural uses consistent with the zoning designation,” but takes issue with the term “residential subdivision” within the code.

 Lastly, the conclusion suggests Pearce’s memo identifies inconsistencies in the code’s provisions for splits in “original parcels.” Original parcels in Washington County date back to contiguous properties under one ownership as of April 9, 1979, the date land use planning went into effect in the county, and, in the beginning, four total splits were allowed per parcel before requiring a “subdivision” application process for building right(s).

 The attorney’s opinion recommends the county remove the definition of “residential subdivision” from sections of its code.

 In their response, York and Kindred state they reserve the right to amend or supplement the analysis and conclusions if additional information or details are provided. As well, they state they “can’t offer a guarantee as to how a court may rule in any potential legal challenges the application of the interpretation of the ‘memo.’”

 After Pearce’s presentation, the commissioners entered into an executive session, and no action was taken by them on the record when they returned to regular session.