Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashland County committee reviews minimum lot sizes, farmland-preservation options
Summary
Committee members reviewed rules that allow homes on 30,000-square-foot lots when served by private sewer, discussed farmland-preservation goals and incentives for denser development, and noted barriers such as mound septic costs and varied town zoning.
Ashland County Land Records Committee members discussed county rules that allow residential construction on lots as small as 30,000 square feet (about three-quarters of an acre) when a private sewer system is used and explored whether county policy could help preserve farmland and contiguous woods while encouraging more concentrated housing.
County staff pointed committee members to Subdivision Control Ordinance 7.1 as the rule most rural lots fall under and explained that lots not served by public sewer may be built on when a private septic system is feasible. Committee members also noted Subdivision Control section 6.2, which requires a certified survey map when creating lots of five acres or less.
The discussion — requested by members of the committee's Farmland Preservation subcommittee — centered on competing goals: reducing the fragmentation of farm and forest land while supporting modest population growth. One committee member said shared wells and driveways are common in family clusters and can reduce costs; another cautioned that mound septic systems often add substantial upfront expense, which can deter development away from city sewer service.
Committee members noted that some local municipalities maintain their own zoning (the City of Ashland, the city of Mellen, the Village of Butternut and the Town of La Pointe were cited in the meeting), while townships without zoning fall back to county rules. Members said that public awareness of the county ordinance is uneven and that some residents mistakenly believe a five-acre minimum applies to all building outside municipalities.
Participants discussed possible incentives to encourage denser development in targeted locations, including identifying county-owned parcels that could be developed for multiple homes, reimbursing initial survey costs, or offering other non–property-tax incentives. Committee members said legal limits prevent direct refunding of property taxes to incentivize improvements, citing “state law” in the discussion; they did not propose a specific incentive program at the meeting.
Committee members also compared Ashland County to neighboring Bayfield County, which has stricter minimum-lot rules and has experimented with giving property to developers who build multiple units. Members emphasized that decisions about any changes would require clarifying long-term goals for zoning and coordination with town governments.
The committee did not adopt new policy or make a motion on lot-size rules at the meeting; members said they intended to continue the conversation in the Farmland Preservation Committee and the comprehensive-plan process.
