Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners debate loosening building‑eligibility transfers; commission asks staff for township‑limited option
Summary
Lincoln County planners spent extensive time debating a draft ordinance to allow moving building eligibilities (density units) without same‑owner rules; public commenters warned of tax and clustering impacts and commissioners asked staff to return with written alternatives that would limit transfers to townships or retain adjacency rules.
Lincoln County planners reopened a multi‑month debate over rules that limit residential 'building eligibilities' — the county’s decades‑old density control that generally allows one building eligibility per 40 acres — and heard sustained public concern about tax impacts, clustering and future density.
Toby Brown of the county planning office reviewed the proposal, which would remove the long‑standing same‑ownership requirement for moving an eligibility and require the receiving parcel to be a buildable site and to accept a right‑to‑farm covenant. Brown said the change aims to make it easier for family members to move back onto family land or to place an eligibility on a genuinely buildable lot.
But residents and trustees from multiple townships urged limits. Rodney Miles and others said unrestricted transfers could shift school and township tax revenue from one jurisdiction to another; Anthony Ventura asked that transfers be kept within the township or restricted to adjoining parcels to avoid a ‘stacking’ effect. “I think the transfer should be from one 40‑acre parcel to another 40‑acre parcel so you don't get that stacking effect,” Ventura said during public comment.
Commissioners raised similar concerns about clustering and long‑term density changes. Several commissioners said they supported allowing transfers to help family farms but opposed opening transfers to the entire county without guardrails. One common compromise proposed during discussion was to prepare two alternate drafts for public review: Option A would proceed with the current draft (remove same‑owner requirement but retain adjacency), while Option B would permit transfers within the same township (removing the same‑owner rule but restricting transfers to the receiving parcel’s township), and both options would include buildable‑lot safeguards and the right‑to‑farm covenant.
The planning commission did not adopt an ordinance change at the meeting. Instead, commissioners directed staff to prepare the alternate redlines and return next month so the public and commission members could see the language and possible impacts before a formal recommendation to the board of county commissioners.
What to watch: staff will prepare written options that either (a) preserve adjacency or (b) permit transfers inside the same township while dropping the same‑owner requirement; the commission will consider those redlines and further public testimony at a future meeting.
