Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance committee recommends sending in-family conveyance issues back to planning and zoning
Summary
After extended discussion the Ordinance Committee recommended keeping current in-family conveyance rules in place and directed planning and zoning to return a revised in-family conveyance provision; the committee also asked staff to notify the court of each in-family conveyance application.
The Woodford County Ordinance Committee spent the bulk of its meeting discussing proposed zoning text amendments to Articles 2 and 7, with extended debate focused on the in-family conveyance provision.
Committee members and the county attorney said the planning commission's draft contains many revisions the court supports, but members and several public commenters said the in-family conveyance provision as drafted could be abused to subdivide farmland. Proposals raised during the committee meeting included setting a minimum primary farm parcel of 30 acres, limiting conveyed parcels to 5 or 10 acres, requiring an affidavit demonstrating farming activity, restricting conveyances to direct descendants (children and grandchildren), and lengthening a holding period for both the primary and conveyed parcels (options discussed ranged from 10 to 25 years).
The county attorney advised that removing or changing the in-family language interacts with cross-references elsewhere in the ordinance and that staff could prepare substitute language quickly if the court gave a clear directive. Planning staff said they could return a revised paragraph to the court following public hearing and advisory committee review, with a target two- to three-week turnaround if the court provided clear direction.
Committee members considered three options: (1) approve the planning commission draft as written and then work on fixes, which could act effectively as a moratorium on the old in-family option; (2) adopt the text amendment while striking both the old and new in-family conveyance language and direct planning and zoning to draft a replacement paragraph; or (3) keep the current law unchanged and send a directive to planning and zoning to return a revised in-family conveyance provision. The committee voted to recommend option 3: keep the law as currently written and send a directive to planning and zoning to produce revised in-family conveyance language.
The committee also passed a separate motion requesting Director Steve Hunter notify the fiscal court of every in-family conveyance application filed with planning and zoning so the court can track activity while the ordinance work continues.
The committee chair emphasized that a first reading of any text amendment would not be final action; planning staff said any revised paragraph would require public hearing and advertisement before it returned to the court.
