Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Driveway Modification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves narrower use‑in‑common driveway for VanAller 2 subdivision to reduce environmental impacts
Summary
The commission granted a modification to allow a 10‑foot wide use‑in‑common driveway instead of the 12‑foot standard, citing site constraints and agency concurrence; the vote was 5 yeas, 1 abstention.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on May 20 approved a modification to the county’s use‑in‑common (UIC) driveway standard for the VanAller 2 minor subdivision in southern Carroll County, allowing a 10‑foot driveway in lieu of the 12‑foot requirement.
Laura Mathias of the Bureau of Development Review presented the subdivision request and explained that the application covers three parcels owned by the same family. The existing paved private driveway that serves the current residence is roughly 10 feet wide. The developer proposed to reuse most of that existing driveway and perform a small relocation that would pull the driveway off a corner of adjacent state‑owned land and thereby avoid a new crossing of wetlands and a stream.
The applicant’s engineer, Dan Staley, told the commission the narrower configuration reduces limits of disturbance and overall impervious surface by avoiding a longer new driveway alignment that would have crossed environmentally sensitive areas. Mathias said the request was circulated to technical reviewers: the Office of Public Safety and the Bureau of Resource Management offered no objection, and county engineering found the width reduction acceptable provided all UIC standards — including turnouts, emergency access and surfacing — are met during the subdivision plan process.
Why it matters: strict UIC standards call for a 12‑foot minimum width to support multiple users and emergency access. The code allows a planning commission modification when unusual topography, shape or other site features make strict compliance an extraordinary hardship and when technical agencies concur.
Commission discussion centered on emergency access and the length of the driveway. Commissioners asked whether fire and EMS had reviewed and whether a turnaround or pull‑off would be required. Mathias and the engineer said emergency services had no objection; the applicant plans to install a turnaround and meet any required pull‑outs during the final plan process. The presentation traced the history: the southern parcel had been sold at auction years earlier and later purchased by the current owner to preserve the current driveway alignment rather than force a new crossing of sensitive areas.
Motion and outcome: the commission approved the requested modification, allowing a 10‑foot UIC width under Chapter 155.025 of the development manual. The motion passed on a voice vote recorded as 5 yeas and 1 abstention.
Next steps: staff said the subdivision will proceed through the minor‑subdivision technical review; the chair may approve the minor subdivision once technical agency comments are addressed. Mathias said staff will report back to the commission if the applicant secures a state right‑of‑way that would obviate the need to relocate the driveway.
