Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Minimum Lot Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashland County committee reviews minimum residential lot sizes, farmland preservation and shared-well options
Summary
Committee members discussed the county's subdivision rules, which allow homes on private sewer systems on 30,000-square-foot lots, and explored policy options to discourage sprawl and encourage clustered housing and shared infrastructure.
Ashland County committee members discussed whether the county's minimum lot-size rules are helping or hurting farmland preservation and housing availability.
Committee members reviewed the county's subdivision control ordinance and were reminded that lots not served by public sewer fall under section 7.1, which allows building on 30,000-square-foot parcels with private sewer systems. A staff speaker said, "If you have a private sewer system, you can build on a 30,000 square foot lot, which is about 3 quarters of an acre." The discussion noted that the county's zoning map includes a forestry-recreation district (purple) and an unrestricted district, and that much of the land along Highway 13 is in the unrestricted district.
The committee discussed farmland fragmentation caused when large parcels are subdivided into single-house lots scattered across rural land. Members said this pattern can break up contiguous forest and farmland. One committee member described common rural practice: parents or landowners dividing off roughly 5-acre parcels so family members can remain close while avoiding a full certified survey. Members also discussed shared infrastructure, including wells and driveways, as a way to reduce development footprint and costs.
Speakers raised implementation obstacles: soil conditions outside city sewer areas often require mound septic systems, which significantly raise upfront costs and can deter multi-unit or clustered development. A member summarized: developers often "back right out" when they learn of higher on-site septic costs driven by clay soils, and prefer parcels with city sewer access. The committee compared Ashland County to neighboring jurisdictions, noting one county's program that conveys county-owned parcels to developers if they build at least four units.
Committee members discussed possible incentives, including reimbursing surveying costs or identifying county-owned parcels that could be developed as clusters of homes, but noted legal limits and practical constraints. A member said state law prohibits direct refunds of property taxes to incentivize improvements, though other non-tax incentives might be feasible. Several speakers emphasized that public notice and clearer information would be useful because some residents do not realize the county's ordinance allows smaller buildable lots and that shared wells are permitted.
The discussion concluded with a proposal to carry the item into farmland-preservation committee work and to publicize the county rules so residents know the options for shared wells, driveways and clustered development.
Members did not take a formal vote on zoning changes at this meeting.
