[Note: This is the fifth in a series of Research Notes by Platte’s intern, focusing on county zoning and agriculture issues. The final (sixth) note will include discussion of a bill currently before the Legislature.]
In addition to Iowa, Nebraska’s other neighboring states have faced zoning challenges related to permitting new livestock operations. While Iowa implemented a uniform statewide matrix to evaluate such projects, Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado have taken a different approach: delegating full authority to county governments.
Although this approach has presented significant inconsistencies between county lines in both Nebraska and Iowa, these three states have nonetheless allowed their counties to independently manage their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) processes. In practice, the responsibility to approve or deny CUP applications lies with local planning commissions, zoning boards, and county commissioners.
Although every county is responsible for outlining its individual CUP application process, the counties in Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado still share several consistent components. The first similarity is the application itself. Most counties require the following in their CUP applications:
- A completed application form,
- Application fees (when applicable),
- A detailed description of the property,
- A written narrative outlining the proposed land use,
- An impact analysis, and
- A site plan and map.
Once an application is submitted and deemed complete by the relevant county official, a public hearing is scheduled. These hearings provide an opportunity for county boards to question applicants and hear public feedback. After the hearing, the board votes on a recommendation, which is then forwarded to the city council. Based on this recommendation and public input, the city council issues a final decision on the CUP application.
While each county’s standards are different between the three states, the City of Augusta, Kansas’s Conditional Use Permit Workbook summarizes their standards well in establishing that a project must not be “detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding area.” Thus, in each county, the applicant carries the burden of proof to show that their project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the public.
Given the challenges faced by Nebraska in attempting to standardize its permitting processes, Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado offer a notable contrast. Their experience suggests that, while certainly not free of flaws, a process that prioritizes local control, when well-structured, can function effectively. These states highlight that although uniformity can promote consistency, empowering local decision-makers may also lead to efficient and responsive permitting outcomes.
Sources:
