Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves substandard 1‑acre agricultural lot split for 4‑H use, bars septic
Summary
The Ellis County Commission granted a requested ~1‑acre lot split for a proposed 4‑H structure after an appeal, requiring survey, recorded deeds, a zoning certificate and a restriction that no septic system be installed on the new parcel.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Ellis County Commission approved a substandard agricultural lot split requested for a parcel just under one acre, allowing the landowner to place a small structure for 4‑H livestock use while prohibiting any septic system on the new parcel.
Justin Craig, Ellis County Environmental Services Director, told commissioners the district requires a three‑acre minimum and said he had advised the owner he would deny the split on administrative grounds but that the owner could appeal to the commission. "I did advise him that I would have to deny the lot split, due to the size of the parcel," Craig said, noting survey, recording and zoning‑certificate requirements if the commission approved the appeal.
Property owner (introduced in the record as Kyle Zimmerman) told the commission the parcel sits across from his shop and house and that he has discussed extending city water; he also said his daughter wants to participate in 4‑H on the property. "My daughter's wanting to get more involved in 4‑H," Zimmerman said, and he reported the city had indicated they could bring water to the site.
Commissioner Bobby moved to approve the substandard lot split and add a restriction barring any septic system on the new parcel; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The approval included requirements that the lot be surveyed, the lot‑split form be recorded with the register of deeds and that a zoning certificate be obtained before construction.
The action resolves the immediate land‑use request but leaves the no‑septic restriction in place; commissioners noted the restriction could be revisited only if the parcel were annexed into city limits and tied to city sewer.

