Mel Wren didn’t ask for anyone’s permission before building his barn northwest of Lawrence, and the longtime farmer, educator and horseman wants to keep it that way.

No matter what a powerful Douglas County commissioner says.

“It’s taking away independence,” said Wren, who lives on 12 acres in the Pine-Ne-Wa subdivision. “There’s more things being pressed on us all the time, more controls. We don’t need another one.”

At issue is a suggestion to require building permits for construction of any structure in rural Douglas County, including barns, sheds and other outbuildings currently exempt from county rules because of agricultural uses.

The idea is being pursued by Bob Johnson, chairman of the Douglas County Commission, who maintains that requiring such permits would boost public safety, encourage better planning and add value to properties that might be sold in the future.

But he knows that many rural residents, such as Wren, will oppose the concept — at least initially. That’s why Johnson is hoping to build a foundation of information that could lead to enough support to get the new rules in place.

“I think it’s an issue that’s time has arrived,” said Johnson, who’s backed by fellow Commissioner Charles Jones. “I’m anxious to open the door — have the debate occur, have the conversations occur — and if there are good, legitimate, strong reasons not to do it, that’s fine. I’ll back off.

“But if not, I think we all ought to get on the same page and see that it’s done.”

While the concept is nothing new — Johnson has discussed the idea for more than a year — pressure is rising at the Douglas County Courthouse.

Changing uses

Last month, commissioners grappled with a case of a shed ostensibly built for agricultural uses, that ended up as storage space for equipment used to maintain apartment projects in Lawrence.

Rural Douglas County resident Mel Wren feeds one of his Arabian horses in his barn. Wren built the barn in 1975 when agricultural buildings in the country were exempt from building permits. At least two county commissioners are trying to make building laws stricter in the county.

Such cases are far from the exception, said Keith Dabney, the county’s director of zoning and codes. Dozens of people build barns or sheds under the guise of the county’s “agricultural exemption” — even sign sworn affidavits that the structures will be used only for crops or animals — then switch gears and set up auto-repair operations, reception halls or other businesses that would require a permit.

The county tightened its home-occupation rules in recent years, Dabney said, but people still take advantage of the system.

“There is no question that the claim of being ‘ag exempt’ is just grossly, grossly violated, over and over again,” he said. “Something needs to be done.”

But Johnson and Jones are taking a different tack.

Johnson, a retired insurance executive, argues that requiring permits for all new structures would best serve the overall community — and the individual property owners who would be forced to adhere to new rules.

Here’s how: As Lawrence, Baldwin, Eudora and Lecompton expand and rural areas give way to more urban uses, Johnson said, buildings originally intended to hold straw, shelter horses or store seeds and fertilizer soon are pressed into duty for commercial enterprises.

Obtaining a building permit from the county, he said, would help property owners steer their projects to the best locations, configurations and designs. A farmer might be encouraged to build his barn away from a flood-prone area, or far enough from a road or driveway to secure its future in case of a road’s widening 10 years from now.

Such advice could make a property “more saleable” in the future, Johnson said.

“The farming community probably takes exception to that, because they would see this as government encroachment — the commission trying to come on their property and tell them whether or not they could build a building and where they might or might not be able to build a building,” he said. “That is not my intention. That is not our intention.”

¢ Download the building requirements for unincorporated areas of Douglas County (pdf)

But Commissioner Jere McElhaney, who owns 780 acres of farmland in the county, said such assurances would be difficult to count on.

“There’s just no need for government to get their foot stuck in the door,” McElhaney said. “Once it’s in there, there will be a limit on the number of cattle per acre, and a limit on the stock you can have on your farm, and a requirement for so many grassways per acre of cropland.

“Once you start the inspection process on the farms, well, government sometimes has to justify itself for its existence. They have to justify their job. It won’t stop. I’m really afraid that’s what’s going to happen.”

Commissioners aren’t yet ready to decide anything. First, Johnson said, they need to seek input from groups such as the Douglas County Farm Bureau, Douglas County Extension Service and others with close ties to farming.

Dim view

“If the issue can be raised that says, ‘Look, this is not in the best interest of the agricultural community,’ then OK, maybe it isn’t and we’ll have to back off,” Johnson said.

For now, at least, Wren sees such a conclusion on the horizon.

Full-time farmers don’t need an inspector to show them locations of utility easements, public rights-of-way or designated floodplain areas, he said.

“He already knows,” Wren said. “He knows this from watching a creek flood.”

Instead, he said, commissioners likely are focusing on urban folks who move into the rural area, lacking the savvy to understand the realities of building — and living — in the country.

Commissioners, he said, shouldn’t sweep farm operations into the same category.

“I don’t think it’s a very bright idea,” he said. “I don’t think they quite know what’s going on.”