Richland County zoning committee reviews draft ordinance; discusses campers, tiny homes, R‑1/R‑2 and septic rules

Richland County zoning committee members spent more than an hour Wednesday reviewing a draft rewrite of the county zoning ordinance, focusing on ambiguous definitions, minimum lot sizes, and how to treat temporary dwellings such as campers and tiny homes.

A committee member introduced Electra Gray, the county's new zoning administrator, saying, “This is our new zoning administrator. This is Electra Gray. Welcome.” Electra Gray started on the sixth of the month and reviewed the draft as a “fresh pair of eyes,” the committee said.

The committee’s discussion centered on a handful of recurring issues that members said require clearer language before the ordinance is released for broader review. Those included how to define “principal structure” on properties where agricultural use has changed; inconsistent minimum lot sizes in the draft’s setback and lot-size tables; whether R‑1 and R‑2 residential districts are serving their intended purposes; and multiple provisions that affect temporary or mobile dwellings.

Committee members flagged several concrete inconsistencies in the draft. The chart of minimum lot areas lists commercial and residential minimums that do not match narrative language elsewhere; one passage lists a 2‑acre minimum for lots not served by public sewer while another line in the same section appears to allow smaller lots. Members asked staff to correct typographical errors and to harmonize the table and text so that the ordinance consistently shows minimum lot sizes for lots served and not served by public sewer.

On temporary dwellings, the draft currently allows conditional placement of a manufactured or mobile home (often cited as a structure under 24 feet) while other sections treat temporary campers differently. The draft includes a seasonal removal requirement for campers (removed between Dec. 1 and March 1) and a provision that allows a camper to remain without a permit for up to 14 consecutive days in any one year. Committee members noted that enforcing a 14‑day limit would be administratively difficult and discussed handling temporary dwellings through conditional‑use permits so staff can evaluate septic, heating and safety on a case‑by‑case basis. The committee confirmed the conditional‑use permit fee is $500 and that permits would attach to the property rather than to a particular camper.

Tiny homes on wheels and other nonstandard dwellings also drew attention. Members said the draft needs a clear definition and, where appropriate, a size threshold (the draft references a 600‑square‑foot minimum for some districts and 960 square feet in others) so planners and property owners know whether a tiny home counts as a single‑family residence or a separate category.

Members debated R‑1 and R‑2 district uses and whether the only real distinction in practice is the treatment of mobile homes. The committee discussed leaving both districts in place but using this rewrite to clarify where R‑2 is appropriate (subdivisions and village areas) and where R‑1 applies (more rural single‑family residential), and to make conditional‑use rules transparent when mobile homes are proposed.

The committee also reviewed nonconforming use provisions and asked staff to document the triggers that would require a legal nonconforming use or structure to come into compliance (for example, if a structure is removed and later rebuilt, or if a nonconforming use ceases for an extended period). Members discussed accessory dwelling units, septic system limits governed by state statutes, and using the state’s acceptance of NSF‑certified composting toilets as one option where septic capacity is limiting housing choices.

Several members asked staff to coordinate further reviews with the county surveyor and with state agencies (HHS, DNR) where relevant, and to circulate a near‑final draft to townships for input before a final vote. No ordinance adoption vote occurred at this meeting.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved the meeting agenda by voice vote and later moved to adjourn; both procedural motions passed by voice vote.