Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Addressing Ordinance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners reject change to Wexford County address ordinance allowing addresses for vacant parcels

2322343 · February 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed amendment to Wexford County’s address ordinance that would have allowed issuing addresses for vacant parcels failed after commissioners raised legal and administrative concerns; the motion lost on a 6-3 vote.

A motion to amend Wexford County’s address ordinance to permit assignment of addresses to vacant parcels failed after the board voiced concerns about legal review, departmental support and procedural steps.

Commissioner Jason moved to amend Wexford County Address Ordinance No. 30-A by changing Section 7, paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 to allow addresses for vacant properties. The motion drew immediate concern from other commissioners about the process: one commissioner said the change had not been routed to the board’s HR/legal review process or a subcommittee and that neither the county building inspector nor the 9-1-1 administrator supported the amendment.

A member of the public who spoke during the item summarized what he said were key provisions of the current ordinance, noting that the ordinance as read requires addresses to be issued by the county building department or equalization department acting under delegated authority and that an address would be issued only to parcels with a structure of at least 800 square feet permanently attached to approved footings. The speaker said the ordinance does not allow issuance of addresses to campers, mini-cabins or similar units and that applicants must submit an application to the building department or a zoning permit; those statements were presented by the commenter as a reason to oppose the amendment.

Commissioners also said they lacked a legal opinion and had not received support from administration for the proposed policy change. After roll call, the motion failed on a recorded vote of 6 to 3.

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: Several commissioners raised procedural concerns — lack of legal review, absence of a subcommittee referral and lack of endorsement from the building inspector and the 9-1-1 administrator. - Decision: The amendment to Ordinance No. 30-A failed by recorded vote, so the ordinance language as previously adopted remains in effect.

What the transcript records about the ordinance language The public commenter (identified in the transcript as a resident) read or summarized portions of the ordinance as follows: addresses are assigned by the county building or equalization department under delegated authority; addresses are not issued to vacant parcels unless an application is submitted; addresses are only issued to parcels with structures of a minimum of 800 square feet with approved footings; and addresses are not assigned for campers or similar small units. These details are recorded as the commenter’s summary and are reflected here as such; the transcript does not include a county staff reading of the ordinance text nor a separate legal opinion in the meeting excerpt.

Next steps Commissioners indicated the item needs further research, legal review and administrative support before it could be brought back for consideration.