Under current zoning law, if you have property zoned R-R and have 4 or more acres, you can subdivide the property and put another residence on the property. The same is true with A-1 and A-2 zones when you have 10 or more acres. This type action does not have to come before the P and Z or the BOC. All you have to do is survey and record the deed, get the proper permits and start building. This process can cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. The proposed change gives the landowner an easier option if he should choose to do so.
Rather than subdividing the property, if the landowner meets the conditions spelled out in the ordinance, the building permits can be obtained. All this does is give the landowner an option as to the process of putting another residence on the property.
For example, if the county now has 5,000 parcels that would meet the criteria in the proposed ordinance as of the time you’re reading this, under current zoning law these parcels could be subdivided without getting permission from anyone and we could have between 10,000 and 20,000 parcels depending on the acreage in the original parcel. Under current zoning, any parcel can be subdivided into four parcels as long as the minimum acreage for the zoning classification is met.
I have heard it said that the proposed zoning ordinance will increase the number of mobile homes in the county as well as rental units, although I’m at a loss to understand why this is an issue since we have a lot of honest, hard-working people in our county who live in mobile homes and rental units.
The proposed ordinance requires the landowner to live on the property before the accessory dwelling unit can be built and only one accessory dwelling unit is allowed. Using the same 5,000 parcels as above if everyone took advantage of the ordinance we would remain at 5,000 parcels.
In reality, not everyone would take advantage of this proposed ordinance since another residence could affect land in the conservation program and some people just would not want another residence on their property. This ordinance change might lead to the building of some additional stick-built homes since the current hardship and caretaker conditions require the second home to be a mobile home because when the hardship or caretaker no longer exist the home has to be moved from the property.
Of all the reasons given not to accept this change only two reasons have any validity. The first reason is this change will allow property owners to do something for free that they ordinarily have to pay for in upfront costs as well as pay ongoing costs due to tax increases that are applied to smaller tracts of land, and secondly, the honest hard-working landowners should give up their rights to prevent the actions of those who would violate the zoning law. Simply stated, opponents of the ordinance change think landowners should be made to pay to use their land as well as paying the county for the use of the land. If you believe this, then oppose the ordinance. It’s true, an extremely limited number may try to abuse this ordinance, and that’s why the prescribed enforcement is in the ordinance.
This ordinance change could be compared to renewing your driver’s license. You can go to the Driver’s License Office and stand in line for several hours or you can renew them by mail and avoid the hassle of a long wait.
Sincerely,
Wayne Douglas
Chairman of the Madison County Planning and Zoning Committee
