ARCHIVE

Two commissioners remain steadfast with acreage issue

Dallke, Holub would like 16 houses per section

Staff reporter

Emotions ran high Monday during the Marion County Commission meeting when officials discussed land use issues.

Following a teleconference with planning consultant Jim Kaup, discussion was heard between commissioners Randy Dallke and Dan Holub and county planning commission chairman Eileen Sieger.

Net density of housing on sections of land was the burning issue. Dallke and Holub want more lenient rules to give landowners opportunities to sell smaller parcels of land for housing.

Sieger commented that if a person can't afford to purchase 40 acres, they can't afford to build a new house.

Dallke said he was insulted by her comment and that he has built three $125,000 homes on less acreage because he couldn't afford and didn't want to maintain 40 acres.

Holub objected to Sieger's comments and said his was a similar situation.

The issue has been ongoing since Dallke and Holub took office in January. They have requested a change in the county's zoning regulations, without changing the county's comprehensive plan, to allow more ease in rural residential development.

Current zoning regulations require a 40-acre minimum for owners to sell parcels of their land. All requests for lot splits are approved by the planning commission.

David Brazil, county zoning administrator, and Kaup had presented a proposed amendment to the zoning regulations that would allow one five-acre lot split per 40- acre tract. This would not require changes to the comprehensive plan.

Dallke and Holub rejected the proposal and remained adamant about allowing more development.

"We have farmers wanting to put up a house with an existing structure but it's still one house per 40 acres," said Dallke to Kaup.

Kaup suggested the commission allow a second dwelling if it was owned by the primary property owner.

Holub asked Kaup where the 40-acre rule came from. He asked if the net density could be for the entire section at 16 houses per section (640 acres) instead of one house per 40 acres.

Kaup responded it was a uniformity issue. If net density meant 16 houses per section, it could be a rush to development with others being left out.

"This may not allow others to develop their property because someone else may build the maximum structures on one parcel," Kaup said.

Kaup also suggested the commission consider development areas that are predominantly used for residential purposes rather than agricultural. Additional development could be allowed on those parcels. He also advised the commission it would want to tie infrastructure to the decisions.

"You've got wide open areas used for agriculture," Kaup said. "It would protect those areas."

Dallke looked at a county rural directory and noted there weren't any sections with 16 houses.

Kaup added, if the commission approved this approach, there may be a need to "tweak" the language of the county's comprehensive plan at its annual review.

Holub asked if the comprehensive plan could be changed from one house per 40 acres to 16 houses per section. Kaup said he couldn't answer the question without doing additional research since he wasn't a part of the planning process for the plan.

Holub also added that 40 acres does not constitute a farm.

"You can't make a living with a 40-acre farm," Holub said.

Kaup said he agreed and the 40 acres is used as a threshold to protect agriculture producers.

He discouraged the "shot gun" approach to development because it could lead to an increase in infrastructure costs, particularly roads.

Another proposed change presented by Kaup was allowing development on three to five acres in areas that formerly were farmsteads. He also suggested a road impact fee be charged to the developer to cover road costs.

"We have to be able to make rules as we go," said Dallke. He said he was concerned about people going a few miles out of county to develop property because of the county's rules.

"The plan calls for development in cities and development areas," Kaup said. "Public policy is to protect ag land. Having a bunch of piano key lots on a dirt road can cause problems."

Roads are the big issue, Kaup said, that cost taxpayers the most for development.

Brazil said he would like to see a level playing field with the same rules for everyone.

"There may be a reality where different areas of the county are more developable than others," Kaup said.

Holub presented a list of the townships and the number of existing houses. Currently there are approximately 1,421 rural houses in the sections, with 95 percent having eight houses or less. He also noted there were no sections with 16 houses.

The average number of houses per section was 1.66.

"This gives us an idea of how big our county is," Holub said. "People are going to move onto two to four acres of waste land. Farmers aren't going to sell bottom land and farm around it.

"We're worried about something that may never happen," said Holub.

He added the county needed to simplify by going to 16 houses per 640 acres instead of one per 40.

"The board needs to change with times," said Dallke.

"You have to look at what's leftover," Sieger said. "We're all about land use. We're not about restricting economic development."

She added if land use is opened up too much, the results may be undesirable.

"Water is a real key issue," Sieger said. "If you've got a lot of homes in one area, will individual water be required for each home?"

She suggested the commission check with other counties about these issues.

"I don't want to see you (or other commissioners) sitting there and having to face outcries, demanding more roads for development," Sieger said.

The commission was advised by Kaup and Brazil to provide a concept plan and allow the planning commission to come up with the details.

Quantcast