Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development Covenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates covenants versus development agreement for Barton Township housing lots; agrees to consult townships and stakeholders
Summary
Hubbard County HRA discussed draft covenants and a development agreement for seven new lots in Barton Township, weighing minimum house size, garage requirements, poultry restrictions and enforcement; the board favored further consultation with townships and stakeholder groups including Habitat for Humanity.
The Hubbard County HRA debated whether to adopt restrictive covenants or a development agreement to guide construction and long‑term character for seven proposed Barton Township housing lots and agreed to consult township officials and other stakeholders before deciding.
Mary, HRA director, presented a set of sample restrictive covenants used elsewhere and identified clauses that merit board consideration: minimum dwelling size, attached two‑stall garage requirements, prohibition on poultry or livestock, restrictions on pole buildings/metal sheds and rules governing modular vs. mobile homes. She pointed out many example covenants set minimum dwelling sizes in the 1,300–1,500 square‑foot range, but noted market trends toward smaller homes near 1,000 square feet and asked whether the board wanted to set a larger or smaller minimum.
Board members raised practical questions about enforcement and neighborhood fit. One member asked whether covenants would be enforced by neighbors and noted enforcement is generally a civil matter that can lead to neighbor complaints or lawsuits. Mary and other board members expressed concern about creating onerous rules that the county would have to police, and suggested a development agreement — requiring owner‑occupancy and minimum improvements within a set timeframe — might better accomplish HRA goals without transferring long‑term enforcement burdens to the sheriff’s office or county staff.
The board discussed specific tradeoffs: allowing modular homes with site standards while excluding mobile homes, permitting a limited number of backyard poultry (e.g., up to six chickens) versus an outright poultry ban, and whether attached garages should be mandatory given cost concerns and buyer preferences.
Members also discussed lot size and layout: the proposed lots are roughly 80,000 square feet (just under 2 acres) each for the first seven lots, and the HRA is considering future phases across the road with different density options. Mary suggested the HRA reach out to the township, the county sheriff, environmental services and local nonprofits to gather further input.
Board members expressed interest in involving Habitat for Humanity; Mary said she and a staff member recently met the county’s Habitat director and will assist with a Federal Home Loan Bank application. Habitat for Humanity was scheduled to present at the HRA’s April meeting. The board did not adopt covenants or a development agreement at this meeting and directed staff to consult the township and return with options.
The board emphasized flexibility: many covenant clauses are optional and could be tailored to encourage owner‑occupied, modest housing without creating an excessive enforcement burden for county government.
