Boyle County planning staff explain proposed shift to 5-acre minimum for agricultural lots

Planning Director Hannah Gray told a public information session that the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended a zoning-ordinance text amendment to raise the minimum lot size in the agricultural zone from about 50,000 square feet (roughly 1 acre) to 5 acres.

The proposal, Gray said, is intended to “encourage density within the urban service area” and to protect agricultural land where utilities and road infrastructure are insufficient. “So in doing that and that it goes along with the goals and objectives of the comp plan is that we want to densify the city limits and keep agricultural as minimum density as possible,” Gray said.

Why it matters: the proposed change would only apply to parcels that remain in the agricultural zoning designation; landowners who want a smaller lot would need to request a zone change (for example to a rural-residential or R‑1 district) and submit the required surveys, technical reviews and application fees. Gray said the change is a step that reflects the comprehensive plan the Planning & Zoning Commission adopted after public comment; she described the comprehensive-plan process as multi-year outreach and said the plan and future land-use map were adopted by the commission on Oct. 22.

How the rule would work: under current joint zoning language the agricultural minimum has functioned as roughly 50,000 sq. ft.; the amendment would explicitly set the agricultural minimum at 5 acres. Gray explained that a landowner with 10 or more acres who still wanted to carve a 1‑acre parcel could apply for a zone change to an R‑1 or rural-residential designation and follow the zone-change process (surveyor, application, technical review). An attendee summarized the practical implications: a zone change “is not guaranteed,” and Gray confirmed that zone changes now trigger technical review and a Planning & Zoning hearing.

Local control and legal limits: attendees pressed whether each governing body must vote the same way. Gray and counsel said each governing body — Boyle County and the three incorporated cities that share the joint ordinance (Danville, Junction City, Perryville) — can adopt different amendments that apply only within their jurisdictions. Tom Ellis, a county magistrate who spoke at the session, warned of the political effect: “I have 65% of the county in my district,” he said, arguing that city votes can end up influencing county land beyond a city’s small agricultural perimeter.

Infrastructure concerns raised by residents: speakers at the session repeatedly returned to roads and water. Gray acknowledged narrow county roads (participants referenced many 16‑foot roads versus the 24‑foot standard often cited for through routes) and said she would like to commission a county traffic study; she also noted that some cities have already done traffic studies. On water, participants said Parksville and Junction City received ARPA funds for water-line upgrades; a speaker at the meeting stated Parksville received about $1.2 million and Junction City about $1.3 million in ARPA money for water improvements, but Gray said she could not confirm schedules because the county does not operate those utilities.

History and alternatives: several residents recounted previous rules. Participants and former officials said the county previously used a 5‑acre farm-exemption process that allowed certain 5‑acre splits to be recorded without Planning & Zoning review; the 1‑acre minimum has been in effect since the late 1980s/early 1990s in the versions the speakers reviewed. Some speakers argued the 5‑acre minimum would not in itself solve utility or road problems and urged alternatives such as restoring a “minor vs. final plat” distinction or tailoring density limits to road capacity.

Next steps: Gray said the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Boyle County Fiscal Court for consideration; she referenced a fiscal-court meeting on the 25th of the month (and later noted possible date options) and said she planned to wait for the county hearing before forwarding her recommendation to the three cities and sending letters. The fiscal court — and then each incorporated city council that chooses to act — must formally adopt any ordinance change for it to take effect in that jurisdiction.

Public-comment close: the session concluded with an invitation for written questions and a reminder to contact magistrates before the pending fiscal‑court vote. The Planning & Zoning Commission’s report and the revised future land‑use map are available on the county’s website, Gray said.

What remains unresolved: the fiscal court had not yet voted on the amendment at the time of the session; municipalities sharing the joint ordinance may adopt different minimums; and timing and scope of utility upgrades remain contingent on independent water districts and separate capital projects.