Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Lot Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission begins review of agricultural lot-split rules, flag-lot and setback concerns
Summary
Reno County planning staff introduced proposed text amendments to Article 13 and related subdivision rules on March 20 to address the county's 3-to-7-acre agricultural-lot split standard, minimum road frontage and width-to-depth ratios; commissioners discussed options including one-time boundary adjustments for prior splits and further study.
County planning staff on March 20 introduced a proposed text amendment package that would revise the county's rules governing agricultural lot splits, minimum road frontage, lot width-to-depth ratios and setbacks.
Mark Vayachin, county planner, outlined concerns staff is aiming to address in Article 13 and related subdivision regulations: a long-standing standard that limits agricultural lot splits to between three and seven acres for a new house on an agricultural parcel, a width-to-depth ratio intended to prevent long, narrow "flag" lots, and a minimum road-frontage requirement (currently 65 feet). Vayachin said the three-to-seven-acre rule, established to preserve farmers' productive land while allowing a home site to be split off, has led some landowners and surveyors to record separate legal descriptions to obtain additional acreage outside the allowable split. "They're creating an illegal 5 acre split behind them by separate legal description," Vayachin said, adding that the practice produces illegal land divisions that are not eligible for building permits under county zoning.
Commissioners discussed possible paths forward, including eliminating the seven-acre cap, retaining a minimum (for example three acres) while allowing larger splits, and offering a one-time boundary-adjustment process for property owners who previously used the ag-lot split and now want to combine additional acreage without creating a new buildable parcel. A boundary adjustment would transfer acreage between existing parcels without creating a new buildable lot; staff and commissioners described that as a potential remedy for owners who completed a 3-to-7-acre split in the past but later wanted more acreage.
Other topics in the staff presentation included the relationship between agricultural setbacks (typically 50 feet from the road and 30 feet on other sides) and residential setbacks (30 feet from the road, 8-20 feet on sides and rear), and the practical effects of the 65-foot road-frontage minimum (previously 60 feet). Commissioners said the changes could affect many legal nonconforming parcels and that any amendment should consider septic/well placement, fire and access issues, and the county's subdivision rules.
No formal action was taken; the commission directed staff to compile commissioner comments and suggested issues for further review. Vayachin said staff will prepare draft language for future meetings and invited commissioners to send written comments in advance of the next discussion.
The item was presented for discussion; the planning commission did not vote on code changes at the March 20 meeting.
