Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York County begins rural‑zoning rewrite; staff seek council direction on lot size, agricultural character and event centers
Summary
Planning staff presented early survey results and a compressed timetable for rural‑zoning text amendments. Council members debated lot‑size thresholds, family transfer exemptions, event‑center rules and the need for more public engagement before staff drafts code changes.
York County planning staff on March 11 presented initial results from a public and Planning & Zoning survey and urged county council to give specific direction for a planned round of rural‑zoning text amendments.
Tom Couch, assistant manager over development services, and Jonathan Buono, planning director, walked council through a schedule that aims to deliver draft code text to the Planning & Zoning Committee within a few months, followed by Planning Commission review and a public hearing process. "We want to get your more specific input than what was available in the survey because it’s critical to staying on the schedule," Couch said.
Why it matters: the county’s rural‑zoning rules shape permitted uses, subdivision patterns, lot sizes and design standards across unincorporated York County. Council and staff said clarifying definitions and streamlining the code could reduce lengthy conditional‑use and variance requests and align zoning with the county’s comprehensive and parks plans.
Survey findings and council questions
Jonathan summarized survey responses that asked residents and commissioners to identify features of agricultural and rural character. Photographic examples showed respondents divided on whether 1–5 acre lots read as rural versus agricultural; some respondents equated rural character with trees and open space while others emphasized working farms and pastures.
Staff said the highest priority item from the survey was the "family exemption" — the mechanism that allows limited transfers of development rights within families — and noted that respondents also ranked large‑lot standards, design standards and event‑center rules among top issues.
Council concerns and staff follow‑up requested
- Lot sizes and grandfathering: Several council members said the code has become overly complex and sometimes produces unpredictable results. One council member urged restoring simpler options that resemble pre‑2019 rules (for example, a roughly 3‑acre average option was described as a common preexisting approach), while others emphasized preserving agricultural land and suggested acquisition‑based tools such as purchase of development rights as a policy tool rather than restricting private property rights.
- Family exemption and small AG parcels: Council members said many smaller agricultural parcels exist and that families seek a predictable, administrable way to transfer parcels to heirs without triggering full rezoning. Members asked staff to craft language that distinguishes family transfers from developer activity.
- Event centers and rural commercial uses: Multiple council members asked staff to identify what code changes would permit event centers and similar uses that some constituents now travel outside the county to access. Council asked for clear standards on scale, parking, noise and traffic so staff can draft objective criteria.
- Public engagement and timing: Several council members asked for broader public outreach, especially to landowners in rural districts, but staff said the timeline was compressed and said public hearings and website postings will be part of the adoption process. Staff agreed to add more outreach if the council prefers a slightly longer schedule.
Staff next steps
Couch and Buono said staff are compiling detailed, open‑ended survey responses and conducting code research on alternative approaches (cluster subdivisions, transfer/purchase of development rights, conditional uses and family transfer language). They asked council to submit specific priorities within the next week so staff can incorporate them into the draft options the Planning & Zoning Committee will review.
Ending: Council members generally agreed the rewrite should make the code clearer and less burdensome, while preserving tools to protect important farmland and natural resources. Several members emphasized the need to identify concrete problems the code is intended to solve and to avoid adding restrictions that are hard to administer or that unintentionally create lots of marginal nonconformities.
