Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance committee recommends changes to in-family conveyance rules, forwards proposed text amendments to planning commission
Summary
The ordinance committee approved a set of recommended changes to in‑family conveyance rules (articles 2 and 7) — including acreage thresholds, minimum conveyed-lot size, residency/holding periods and deed/plat restrictions — and voted to send the revised language to the planning commission for consideration and numbering.
At a recessed session the Woodford County ordinance committee reviewed proposed zoning text amendments (articles 2 and 7) and approved a set of recommended special provisions for in‑family conveyances to forward to the planning commission.
The committee’s recommended package includes seven core provisions: the applicant (property owner) must be a Woodford County resident; an affidavit in a planning-and-zoning format must certify that parcels are being used agriculturally at the time of application; in‑family conveyances are limited by parcel size (not approved on farm parcels less than 35 acres; 35–49 acres eligible for one in‑family conveyance; 50+ acres eligible for two); a conveyed lot must be at least 5 acres with legal frontage on a platted right of way (allowing private platted roads that meet requirements); a holding/residency requirement such that both the primary parcel and the in‑family conveyance lot “must be held and resided upon for at least 10 years without transfers after recordation of the deed conveying the in‑family conveyance lot,” with exceptions for transfers between original in‑family parties and forced sale due to judicial action; conveyances limited to parent→child (natural or legally adopted) or grandparent→grandchild; and plat restrictions must note the limits, with restriction number 5 (the 10‑year hold/residency rule) also set forth in the deed.
Committee members and the assistant county attorney discussed technical drafting questions — for example, whether the 10‑year clock should start at recordation or at occupancy — and resolved language to require residency/hold as stated in the proposal. The committee also asked that planning and zoning consider placing the provision under a new special-provisions subsection (for example, 704.7.d) and correct two remaining word‑choice items (changing “apartment” to “dwelling” in a related subsection).
After discussion the committee voted to recommend forwarding the redrafted special provisions to the planning commission for numbering and formal review. The committee’s recorded motion to recommend sending the proposal carried.
