Chair leads review of Marion County planning bylaws, membership rules and NDA concerns

The Marion County Planning Commission spent the opening portion of its meeting reviewing redlined revisions to its planning and zoning bylaws that define membership, term limits and disqualification procedures.

The chair walked through proposed language specifying an 11-member planning commission (two members appointed from each of five county commission districts and one at-large member), three-year terms for commissioners, and a maximum of three consecutive three-year terms. Commissioners discussed residency requirements that would allow one district appointee to live inside an incorporated city's corporate limits in that district while all others must reside in unincorporated Marion County.

Commissioners pressed staff for a clear rule on what constitutes a member "in good standing." One commissioner noted that the disqualification clause in Article 1, Section 3—vacating a seat after being absent for more than three consecutive regular meetings—was already in the draft. A staff member highlighted the statutory process for notifying the governing body and recommending appointment of a replacement when a vacancy is declared.

The chair proposed adding a sentence tying the definition of ‘‘good standing’’ to the disqualification language so the bylaws explicitly state that a disqualified member is no longer in good standing. Several commissioners supported inserting that clarifying sentence into Section 3 to reduce ambiguity.

The meeting also covered the Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals: a five-member board with one representative from each commission district, three-year terms, residency requirements outside incorporated city limits, and vacancy appointment procedures consistent with KSA 12‑79(a). Commissioners confirmed a single meeting can open and close hearings for both the planning commission and the board of zoning appeals in sequence when needed.

On the ethics front, the chair raised concerns about county officials signing nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with companies seeking to do business in the county. Commissioners debated the effect of NDAs on public discussion and whether an NDA should automatically require recusal. A staff member noted that public officers must file substantial-interest disclosures under state law; commissioners agreed to monitor the issue and to seek clarification from the county commissioners or legal counsel before changing bylaws.

A commissioner moved to accept the revised bylaws after the discussion. The transcript records the motion but does not include a subsequent roll-call or recorded outcome for that motion in the available text. The chair closed the bylaws discussion and moved the body into a scheduled working session on energy storage and data centers.

The commission asked staff to assemble a list of current members and term expiration dates for distribution, to clarify any outstanding language, and to bring statutory references or model language where helpful. The commission also directed staff to follow up on NDA and disqualification questions with legal counsel or the governing body as needed.

The next procedural action recorded earlier in the meeting—approval of the prior meeting minutes—was moved, seconded and approved by verbal aye votes.