Reno County planners begin review of Article 13 setbacks, lot-dimension and lot-split rules

Reno County planning staff opened a broader policy discussion April 17 about possible changes to Article 13 of the county zoning regulations, which govern minimum setbacks, lot area and lot-dimension (width-to-depth) rules that apply to subdivisions, lot splits and boundary adjustments.

Planner Mark (Mark Von Atchin) explained the three administrative processes frequently used when land is reconfigured: boundary adjustments (where no new buildable parcel is created), lot splits/agricultural lot splits (where a parcel smaller than 40 acres is created), and homestead lot splits (larger discretionary splits used in special circumstances). He described how current requirements'1including minimum lot areas, frontage and depth/width ratios (3:1 in residential designations, 4:1 in agricultural zones) and a 7-acre maximum for agricultural lot splits'can constrain practical parcel configurations and complicate transfers of land for farm operations or retirement planning.

Staff said the 7-acre maximum for an agricultural lot split originated as a compromise to allow a homestead parcel around an existing residence while preserving most farmland; planners noted it was not arrived at by scientific formula but as a policy judgment to balance farm viability and residential needs. Commissioners raised that some landowners now seek larger splits than the 7-acre cap and asked whether the county should allow a single split on an agricultural parcel with a 3-acre minimum rather than a fixed maximum.

Discussion focused on real-world problems created by the width-to-depth ratio and frontage requirements: narrow, deep parcels or parcels separated from road frontage by long driveways can become difficult to split or sell under current rules even when a split would appear logical to neighbors. Commissioners requested visual examples showing how the ratios are calculated and edge cases where the rules block reasonable configurations. Staff offered options for next steps: prepare graphical examples, provide the historical record of how the 2016 regulations were adopted, and return draft amendment language for the commission's review. Commissioners agreed to continue the discussion at the May meeting and requested background materials to avoid re-litigating prior policy choices.

No formal action was taken; the commission asked staff to present concrete illustrations of affected parcel geometries and to provide a menu of policy options, including removing or adjusting ratio requirements, changing the ag-lot-split maximum, and harmonizing subdivision and zoning provisions before any draft amendments are released for public hearing.