Warren County supervisors table driveway‑variance requests after site‑distance and disclosure concerns

Chris Cruz, the buyer of roughly 92 acres in Warren County, asked the Board of Supervisors to approve changes to two field entrances so he could use and eventually develop lots on the property. The board voted to table consideration of items 3 and 4 to allow staff and the applicant to gather more documentation and explore alternatives.

The request stemmed from a denied permit for an altered entrance. County staff said one existing field entrance “has about half the site distance required” and that county ordinance only allows existing field entrances to remain “exactly how they are” without being altered. Staff member Tim told the board, “I don't recommend approving things that are 2 50 feet of sight distance. That's dangerous. I always look at it as if my daughter were pulling out of this driveway, would I want them to pull over a blind hill and potentially get hit?”

The issue matters because the buyer said the property was advertised as buildable and that earlier correspondence from the seller’s side indicated prior planning contact; the board and staff said they need to reconcile what county approvals, if any, were communicated to the seller or listing agent. The applicant said he received correspondence after the permit denial that appeared to show earlier communications about buildability.

Board discussion focused on three paths: (1) deny the north entrance because it does not meet site‑distance requirements; (2) allow a southern entrance with a variance and create a shared driveway teeing off an existing permitted entrance; or (3) accept documentation showing prior county approval that would justify the north entrance despite staff concerns. Supervisor McIntyre said he was not supportive of the north site given the county engineer’s assessment but would be “amenable to doing something that's not perfect on the sight distance on the southern one and do a shared driveway to the two” as a compromise.

Specific technical and factual points raised during the discussion include: the property is approximately 92 acres; staff noted existing site‑distance measurements in the packet as roughly 250–285 feet versus the 500 feet referenced as desirable for the proposed use at the posted speed; the application referenced FE application 1961; past plat/plat‑review paperwork may have been routed differently and not reached current staff. The applicant said a water meter and the north entrance are currently in place and used, while the south approach would require clearing and “a very substantial expense” to put in a new drive.

The board moved to table both items so staff can locate prior correspondence and the applicant can pursue either documentation from the county or neighbor agreements for a shared drive. The motion to table items 3 and 4 passed; the board scheduled follow‑up within two weeks or at a work session to revisit the request. Supervisor McIntyre invited the applicant to obtain any county correspondence about prior approvals or to attempt to negotiate a shared access with the neighboring property owner.

Next steps: the board directed staff and the applicant to assemble documentation (any prior county correspondence, plat/plat‑review records), to explore the feasibility and cost of building a shared driveway from the southern approach, and to return with that information at the next meeting or work session.