Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shared Driveways Lot Splits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning panel approves shared-driveway text amendment; lot-split dispute spotlights enforcement gaps
Summary
The Morgan Township Zoning Commission approved sending a revised text amendment on shared driveways to the township trustees and carried on a heated discussion about recent lot splits — particularly a Howard's Creek property — that commissioners say undercut a decade of policy aimed at limiting private drives.
The Morgan Township Zoning Commission on Sept. 3 voted to send a revised text amendment on shared driveways to the township trustees and debated a related lot-split at Howard’s Creek that several commissioners said should have come before the panel.
The commission voted to forward the amendment, Resolution MTZ2025-05, which would allow shared driveways connecting no more than two parcels, subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The commission completed a roll-call vote approving the motion to send the text to trustees.
The amendment’s key language, as approved by the commission for transmission, reads in part that a shared driveway must “not exceed two parcels” and “shall require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals.” Commissioners said they added that clarity at the trustees’ request so the BZA is the approving body.
The vote to transmit the revision followed extended drafting and redrafting of the amendment’s language. Commissioners discussed variants — including whether the wording should state that hardship “must” be proven before the BZA or whether the conditional-use placement alone was sufficient to require BZA review.
The meeting then turned into an extended dispute about lot splits and an example on Howard’s Creek. Several commissioners said a recent three‑lot split that includes shared driveway arrangements was approved without bringing the split to the zoning commission for review. Commissioners said the approval effectively removed subdivision-level stormwater and design controls that would have applied under a subdivision process.
“Anything to do with that should have at least warranted an email,” a planning commissioner said during the meeting, arguing the board was deprived of the opportunity to review the split before approval. Resident Mike Jones, who spoke during public comment, said developers who get access to heavy equipment “will cut corners any way they can. And, it will be terrible.”
Commissioners pressed for policy changes to prevent future unilateral lot splits. At the meeting one member moved that all lot splits must come before the zoning board; commissioners agreed to draft specific verbiage and to place the requirement in multiple sections of the code so it appears “front and center” after each district purpose statement.
Discussion versus action: the formal action taken at the meeting was limited to forwarding the shared‑driveway text amendment to the trustees (Resolution MTZ2025-05). The lot‑split requirement was directed as a next step — commissioners agreed to draft language for code amendments and to place the requirement in the enforcement section (Chapter 20) and after each district purpose; no final code language or trustee action on that change occurred at this meeting.
Background: Commissioners said the township has spent years tightening rules to reduce private drives and driveway proliferation. Several members described the Howard’s Creek split as undermining those efforts by turning what might have been a subdivision, with required roads and utilities, into independent lots served by shared/private drives.
Next steps: The shared‑driveway amendment will go to the township trustees for consideration. Commissioners also directed staff to draft language requiring all lot splits to be presented to the zoning board; that drafting work and placement in the code were assigned, but no vote on the lot‑split wording was taken at the Sept. 3 meeting.
