Ordinance committee backs drafting of zoning text amendment to tighten rural lot rules

The Woodford County Ordinance Committee voted unanimously Thursday to direct the county attorney to draft an ordinance formalizing proposed amendments to Articles 2 and 7 of the county zoning ordinance, after staff outlined changes intended to reduce scattered rural subdivision and resolve existing nonconforming lots.

The committee’s discussion focused on exception-lot ("in-family conveyance") provisions, the conservation (CO) zone, the rural-cluster (RR) zone, small-community rules, accessory dwelling allowances on larger rural lots, and countywide subdivision and fire-hydrant standards. Planning and Zoning Director Steve Hunter presented the draft language and data supporting the changes and answered questions from committee members.

The amendments would: keep a 1-acre minimum for some exception lots but cap the number created under the in-family rule; eliminate the A2 agricultural zone (50 parcels) and convert those parcels to agriculture/CO rules; reduce the CO minimum lot-size threshold from 30 acres to 5 acres to reflect existing platted lot sizes and to reduce the number of nonconforming residential parcels; change the rural-cluster (RR) minimum from 1 acre to 2 acres and lower the maximum number of lots for such clusters from 15 to 10; add specific conditional-use standards for campgrounds in CO; allow accessory dwellings on certain rural zones (one accessory dwelling per principal dwelling and up to 10 tenant houses on working farms); and rely on recently adopted subdivision regulations for countywide fire-hydrant requirements (generally requiring hydrants or commitments to install them when plats put development within defined distances).

Hunter said the draft keeps the 1-acre option for property owners who want small exception lots "because that is a need folks have," but it caps how many such lots can be created from a larger tract. On the conservation zone he told the committee, "we're proposing the CO zone go back to a 5 acre threshold," arguing the change would reflect existing, largely small platted lots near waterways and reduce the number of properties that are currently nonconforming under the existing 30-acre rule.

Hunter summarized staff data showing the county’s CO parcels are frequently small: 412 of roughly 641 CO lots fall in the 0–5 acre range and average about 1.3 acres, he said. Staff and committee members noted the current 30-acre standard had made many small, older platted lots functionally nonconforming — for example, owners facing major damage could be prevented from rebuilding without variance approval. Kenneth (Planning staff) explained that split-zone parcels (parcels partially in CO and partially in A1) would be treated by majority zoning: "if 90% of that property is A1 and a little sliver CO, you follow the A1 rules," he said.

On campgrounds and RV parks, Hunter explained the draft adds scale limits for campgrounds in the CO zone (minimum site size 5 acres and a cap of 25 campsites or cabins under a CO conditional-use permit), and reserves larger, park-scale RV regulations for a separate zone or section so a proposal for a 100- or 500-site RV park would be reviewed under different standards.

For the rural-cluster (RR) zone, staff proposed increasing the minimum residential lot size to 2 acres and lowering the cluster cap from 15 to 10 lots; the 80/20 residual-farmland concept remains (for each buildable lot there must be proportional residual acreage). Committee members raised enforcement and implementation concerns: staff said some developers are carving residual acreage into small backyard parcels via deed rather than formal platting, which can circumvent review; staff recommended coordination with the planning commission and possible legal follow-up on platting requirements.

The draft also opens small-community (A4) footprints — the county’s small, historic nodes such as Millville and Nonesuch — to limited conditional uses (for example a small clinic, convenience store or restaurant) subject to size limits (staff suggested a 2,500-square-foot cap) and septic/utility constraints. Hunter said that change aims to allow modest services inside existing community footprints while keeping scale small.

On accessory dwellings, staff proposed allowing accessory dwelling units on A1, CO and A4 lots (but not the small RR one-acre cluster lots), with the accessory unit limited in scale and the rule tied to a principal dwelling. Hunter said the county is allowing one accessory dwelling per principal dwelling and retains the option for up to 10 tenant houses for bona fide farming operations.

Committee members repeatedly raised infrastructure concerns. Several members noted that much of the county’s county-side water distribution cannot deliver the flows that make hydrants useful; the new subdivision regulations include a countywide hydrant standard that requires a hydrant or an agreed plan to install one if a plat places development beyond the adopted distance (staff said the current implementation uses a 2,000-foot standard with an option for waivers and that some fire officials prefer a 1,000-foot standard and/or specific fire-flow requirements). Hunter said the county’s new sub-regulations now require plat applicants to show nearest hydrant distance and either install a hydrant or seek a written waiver from the fire chief and the water utility.

Several magistrates and committee members urged more analysis before adopting the text formally — for example, a count of how many existing CO lots are vacant versus already improved and a grid of how many new houses could theoretically be built if the CO threshold is reduced to 5 acres. Hunter said staff could use address and PVA data to estimate how many lots already have houses and produce a worst-case scenario buildout estimate.

After discussion the committee voted to request the county attorney prepare the draft ordinance reflecting the changes presented (with the editorial correction changing the term "accessory apartments" to "accessory dwellings" where noted). The motion to direct the county attorney to draft the ordinance passed unanimously; the committee did not specify the mover or seconder on the record. County staff and the county attorney discussed logistics for a public hearing; the committee indicated a preference for holding a public hearing ahead of the next fiscal-court meeting (staff suggested a 4:30 p.m. hearing the day of court to avoid conflict with a widely watched UK basketball game). Hunter and staff will provide the county attorney the finalized draft in ordinance form and follow up with requested maps and parcel analyses.

The committee’s recommendation was procedural: it moves the text amendment from the ordinance committee to the county attorney for formal drafting and onto the full fiscal court agenda, not a final adoption. Any subsequent first reading, public hearing and second reading will be separate steps under the county’s ordinance process.

Editor’s note: direct quotes and paraphrases in this report are drawn from the committee meeting transcript of July 21, 2025; roles and spellings (for example, "Woodford County" and local place names) follow the meeting record and local usage noted by staff.