Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve two subdivision-variance requests for parcels on Gehrke, Yonner Kieker and State Highway 237
Summary
The court approved two subdivision-variance requests: one dividing a 32.17-acre parent tract fronting Gehrke Road and Yonner Kieker Lane into smaller lots, and another dividing an 82.69-acre tract fronting State Highway 237 that includes a small portion in Fayette County.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County Commissioners approved two subdivision-variance requests on June 24, allowing proposed divisions of an approximately 32.17-acre tract fronting Gehrke Road and Yonner Kieker Lane and an approximately 82.69-acre tract fronting State Highway 237.
Planning staff presented the first request for the Perry tract (approximately 32.17 acres). Staff said two proposed lots fronting Gehrke Road would be about 1.5 acres each with roughly 240 feet of frontage; a third lot fronting Yonner Kieker Lane would be about 2.5 acres with roughly 500 feet of frontage. The parent tract would retain roughly 26.67 acres. Planning staff recommended approval based on prior approvals and compliance with other requirements; the court approved the variance by motion and voice vote.
The second request involved an 82.69-acre parent tract in the Fleecener C survey that primarily lies in Washington County but includes just over two acres in Fayette County. Planning staff said Fayette County provided written notice deferring action to Washington County because about 95% of the parent tract is in Washington County. The proposal would split off about 1.7 acres fronting State Highway 237 with an existing driveway and about 2.3 acres lying in Fayette County fronting Hensley Road. Staff recommended approval; the court approved the variance by motion and voice vote.
Nut graf: Both approvals allow specified lot divisions that require variances from subdivision rules; staff reported the proposals meet other requirements and recommended approval. The court recorded no substantive dissent and no amendments were added to either motion.
The planning presentation included frontage dimensions, retained acreage and future subdivision-connection points. Commissioners moved and seconded motions for each variance and approved both by voice vote.

