Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access‑policy‑variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance for Mickley Road parcel that would create fourth tier flag lot
Summary
A request to subdivide a 2.7‑acre parcel on Mickley Road into a new 0.8‑acre lot using an existing flag‑lot easement was denied after commissioners concluded the application did not demonstrate extraordinary exceptional conditions and alternatives (private road) were available.
Lexington County planning commissioners denied a request for multiple access‑policy variances that would have allowed an additional parcel to be served by an existing flag‑lot easement on Mickley Road.
The applicant, represented by Matt McCauley of Permit Expeditors of South Carolina LLC, sought variances to allow an access easement to serve more than one landlocked parcel (items 2 and 3 of the county’s access policy) and to permit more than two or three tiered groups of parcels to be served by flag‑lot driveways (item 14). The commission voted to deny the variances, finding the applicant failed to meet the county’s five criteria for a variance.
Staff materials and submitted exhibits show the subject parcel is about 2.7 acres; the proposal would create a 0.8‑acre lot and leave a remaining parcel of approximately 1.9 acres. The existing flag‑lot driveway would become a four‑tier access configuration that would require two landlocked parcels to cross other parcels to reach the public road.
Representing the owners, McCauley said the proposal was intended to house a family member and that the properties are under single ownership (an LLC). He argued the parcel configuration and mortgage requirements made subdivision necessary. Commissioners questioned whether those circumstances constituted the extraordinary and exceptional conditions required for a variance and whether the financial needs of a mortgage applicant should drive a change to a longstanding access policy. Staff and commissioners noted a private‑road alternative existed but that building a private road would require paving to meet county private‑road standards because the access originates from a paved road.
Several commissioners said the access policy is intended to limit multi‑tier flag‑lot configurations and that the application did not justify changing the rule for this site. A motion to deny the variances carried; the recorded vote shows Commissioners Cox, Beatenbaugh, Pike, Otto, Hutto and Chairwoman Mitchell voting to deny. Staff advised that if the variance is denied, the owner may pursue a private‑road variance or other alternatives, and that an identical access‑policy variance could not be refiled for 12 months under county rules.
The commission’s denial leaves the property as configured under current access standards; the owner may return with an alternative plan that meets access or private‑road standards, or pursue engineering and permitting for a private road if feasible.
