Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Address Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Wexford County to remove 800-square-foot limit from address ordinance; commissioner seeks agenda item
Summary
A resident urged the board to amend Address Ordinance No. 30 to remove minimum-square-footage and vacant-land restrictions for issuing addresses; a commissioner asked that the proposal be added to a future agenda for consideration.
A resident asked Wexford County commissioners to amend Address Ordinance No. 30 to remove language that ties address issuance to minimum building square footage and to allow addresses for vacant land and smaller dwellings such as campers and mini-homes.
Nick Skolbach told the board he sought changes that would remove three paragraphs from section 7 of the county’s address ordinance, including a requirement that a parcel have a structure of at least 800 square feet before an address is issued. “No county around Wexford County has in their address ordinance language concerning square footage, address for vacant land, address for campers or mini homes,” Skolbach said, asking the board to amend the ordinance and delay implementation for four months to allow townships time to respond.
Why it matters: Skolbach said the county’s current rule prevents Consumers Energy from provisioning electricity to some vacant parcels and that other counties in the region do not use square-footage limits in their address ordinances. He said Consumers Energy currently has about five requests for power to vacant land that cannot proceed because of the county ordinance.
Skolbach urged the board to allow townships to retain zoning control and suggested the county amend the ordinance while giving townships a period to opt in or adopt local restrictions. He listed several nearby counties and local township zoning authorities and argued the county’s ordinance is stricter than surrounding jurisdictions.
Commissioner Nelson responded during the meeting that the topic should be placed on a future agenda for formal consideration: “I think it's time we address this address ordinance that's been brought to the board... I think we need to put on the agenda and go down the changes that Mr. Riggs would like to see,” Nelson said, urging action in upcoming meetings.
The meeting transcript did not include a board vote on ordinance language; Nelson asked that the item be scheduled for a future meeting so the board can consider the proposed amendments.
