MAPC tables rezoning request for 5349 1/2 West Carrier Road after neighbors raise access and lot-size concerns

The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on its March meeting voted to table a request to rezone property addressed as 5349 1/2 West Carrier Road from A-1 (General Agricultural) to A-2 (Suburban). The applicant, Jeremy Dersham (on the phone), has also applied for a lot-split that would seek to divide the roughly 21.47-acre parcel into multiple residential lots.

Jacqueline Porter, community development director, told commissioners the rezoning would permit residential uses that are not allowed under the existing A-1 zoning and that the applicant had filed a separate lot-split application. "The subject property is roughly 21.47 acres," Porter said, and noted that "if he divides it into 9 lots it would create non conforming lots in the A-one zoning district where the minimum lot size requirement is 20 acres." Porter also summarized the site location as between North Oakwood and North Garland Road, with a private access to the vacant property.

Neighbors and the applicant debated several practical issues that Porter said would be addressed later in the lot-split review. Dustin Connor, who identified himself as a property owner at 7511 Long Branch and as the owner of a 22-acre tract immediately south of the parcel, told the commission "There is no access there, because those, all those are gone now." Connor said the former oil-lease roads and well-site easements have been eliminated after wells were plugged, and he warned that the rezoning would allow future owners to pursue much smaller lots than surrounding owners expected.

Bridal Wright, speaking at the meeting for the applicant, said the developer intends to provide a road and that "the maintenance is in in case in the covenant, to my understanding." She said an east–west road would be installed behind the property and that maintenance costs were intended to be shared under proposed covenants.

Jeremy Dersham, on the phone, said he had discussed utilities and fire access and described the planned lot layout as flexible. "I've already talked to O'Genie about how it would be gotten in there," Dersham said, and added that, because of topography, "there will be some land that we actually probably end up putting 2 lots together" and that the 9-lot overlay was a starting point. He told the commission he expected the realistic final development to be closer to five to seven lots.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly distinguished the rezoning decision from later lot-split and infrastructure reviews. Porter said the rezoning primarily addresses allowable uses and lot-size standards; access, road construction, maintenance obligations, septic/well approvals and utility service would be examined during the lot-split and permitting phases. Commissioners noted the county and state review steps that follow a rezoning: fire-code and road-turnaround standards are reviewed by the state fire marshal, and lot-split approvals require evidence of access and utility feasibility.

Several speakers raised uncertainty about whether proposed covenants have been executed. Wright said sample covenants had been emailed to staff and that some terms were intended to assign shared road maintenance. Connor and another adjoining owner said they had seen proposed covenants but that the documents had not been signed by adjoining owners and therefore might not be enforceable.

After extended discussion and public comment, commissioners voted to table both the rezoning and the associated lot-split item to allow further conversations among the applicant, adjoining property owners and staff. The motion to table was made and seconded on the record and passed by voice vote.

The commission closed the public hearing and indicated the item will return to a future meeting, at which commissioners said staff would present any new surveys, recorded easements, executed covenants or other documentation relevant to access, maintenance obligations and utility feasibility.