Richland County committee approves two rezoning requests and begins zoning ordinance review

Members of the Richland County Natural Resources Committee approved two rezoning petitions and signaled a broader review of the countyzoning ordinance during a meeting where members and staff discussed the consequences for managed-forest parcels and smaller, grandfathered tracts.

The approvals covered a request by Ray Smith to rezone 3.33 acres from ag-forestry to residential-1 and a request by Greg Nedland to rezone 10.67 acres (town-zoned parcel) to agricultural/residential. Committee members moved and approved both requests; the town-zoned petition was noted as proceeding to the county board for final action.

Committee members said the approvals raise recurring questions about how the county handles parcels smaller than the 35-acre threshold for managed-forest or ag-forestry status. Several speakers asked whether dividing or later selling parts of larger parcels would require rezoning when ownership changes or when applicants seek building or sanitary permits. Staff said that, under current practice, some smaller parcels remain nonconforming until an owner applies for a permit or the county is otherwise notified; staff recommended targeted ordinance clarifications and a process for resolving those nonconforming lots when permits are requested.

Katrina and other staff described plans to draft ordinance edits to align written rules with past practice and to bring proposed language back to the committee before forwarding it to the county board. Committee members also discussed the separate role of municipal (town) zoning: several town-zone petitions are first considered locally and then forwarded to the county for a final stamp of approval; staff reminded the committee the county may still remand a town decision if county review finds unresolved issues.

The committee recorded no detailed roll-call vote in the transcript; the motions were carried after members voted "aye." The town-zone petition was scheduled to go before the county board on Aug. 20 for final action.

The committee also flagged related items for further work: clarifying when contiguous land under the same ownership must be rezoned after partial sales, updating the nonconforming-parcel resolution process, and checking how zoning changes interact with farmland-preservation tax-credit eligibility.

The committee asked staff to return with proposed ordinance language and to prepare a simpler, lower-cost option for owners who need a formal resolution rather than a full survey to avoid imposing unnecessary costs on minor corrections or clerical issues.