Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parcel Split Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oklahoma County approves two plats after debate over including road right-of-way in lot size
Summary
Oklahoma County commissioners approved amendments and then approved two related plats after staff flagged that the parcels’ advertised sizes include a statutory road right-of-way, prompting discussion about precedent, tax treatment and whether the property owner should seek a Board of Adjustment variance instead of rezoning.
The Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners approved amendments and then voted to approve two related plat items after staff and the property owner clarified that the parcels’ advertised acreage includes statutory road right-of-way.
County planning staff told commissioners the site totals about 4 acres when the statutory right-of-way is included but that the two buildable lots measure about 1.6 acres each without the right-of-way. "What makes this unique is the total amount of property that we're dealing with includes the right of way," the staff member said, noting the county typically measures only the lots themselves for zoning calculations.
The question before the board was whether to proceed with the administrative platting process or send the applicant to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Staff advised commissioners that residential rezoning in the county normally requires a minimum of 10 acres for a rezoning request and that the Board of Adjustment commonly handles variances where a proposed lot is smaller than the zoning minimum. "If you go to the board of adjustment, what you're asking there is it becomes more of a zoning question in regards to placing a home on a piece of property that is zoned R-2 but is smaller than 2 acres," the planning staff said.
Gary Thornton, who identified himself as the property owner, told the board he owns adjacent parcels and that the split would allow him to build a residence suitable for his needs. "I'm, military disabled, and I'm gonna have to build me some place that I can deal with, live in," Thornton said.
Commissioners raised repeated concerns about precedent if the board were to treat the right-of-way as part of the lot for zoning purposes. One commissioner asked whether approving the plats would "set a precedent" for future applicants; staff replied that similar applicants might point to the decision but that the county's legal and engineering context (including statutory section-line roads and required dedication widths) would distinguish cases.
Board action came in two steps: first a motion to accept an amendment and then a motion to approve item number 9 as amended; roll-call votes recorded unanimous "yes" votes from the commissioners present. The board then moved to make item number 10 identical to item number 9 and approved that item by roll call as well.
The planning staff told the board the deeds and surveys show the legal descriptions in which the acreage figures are written; staff also noted property taxes have been assessed on the full acreage that includes the right-of-way and that the plat approvals would not change tax liability.
The board’s approval does not remove the option for future applicants to pursue variances through the Board of Adjustment. Commissioners directed staff and the applicant to consider rewording the plat verbiage to make the county’s measurement approach and the role of the right-of-way clear on the face of the plat record.
The board moved on to subsequent agenda items after approving both plats.
