Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Family Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board restores 170 Hendricks Lane variance request to agenda and approves one-acre carve-off for family member
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals untabled and approved a variance to permit carving roughly one acre from a parcel at 170 Hendricks Lane so a family member can build a home; the applicants said the parcel will include a 50-foot access strip and deed language to revert the lot to the family if certain conditions occur.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 18 voted to bring back and approve a variance allowing a roughly one-acre lot to be carved from a property otherwise subject to a five-acre minimum at 170 Hendricks Lane. Nicholas Northcutt, who identified himself as representing the Hendricks family, told the board the family seeks to convey the acre to the son of the property owner so he can build near a pond and wooded area and help with family farm work. The request was untabled from a prior meeting and returned to the agenda by motion; board members then voted to approve the variance. Board discussion described the parcel layout, a proposed 50-foot access strip and deed language stipulating that, if “anything happens” to the senior owner, the carved lot would revert to the parent owner rather than be sold. Chair Mayer read the variance standards required by the zoning resolution into the record before the vote. Nut graf: The grant allows a smaller-than-required lot split for family use and rests on the board’s finding that the variance standards are met; the applicants emphasized family support needs and deed restrictions as the basis for approval. Board members discussed the access arrangement and the deed restriction. Nicholas Northcutt said the plan provides 50 feet of road frontage for the new lot; the applicant’s representative said the family will include language drafted by a lawyer so the parcel “comes back to me” if the family owner dies or if the grantee tries to sell. The applicant told the board the son currently lives about an hour away and would move nearer to help with childcare and farm work. The record shows the board read the local variance standard labeled D‑1 aloud and relied on it before approving the request. The motion to untable the item and the subsequent motion to approve were carried by voice vote; the minutes record the board’s vote as in favor with no recorded roll-call tally. Ending: The board’s action restores and approves the one-acre split; the applicant will supply deed language and any attorney-prepared documents needed to finalize the conveyance and comply with county recording requirements.
