Morgan Township panel approves recommendation defining 'shared driveway,' limits to two parcels

At a June 19 special meeting, the Morgan Township Zoning Commission voted to approve Resolution MTZ-2025-02 recommending a text amendment to the township zoning resolution that defines “shared driveway” and limits shared driveways to no more than two parcels, with the recommendation to be certified to the Butler County Planning Commission for review.

The change would add a new article (proposed 7.315 and parallel articles in chapters for R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-3 districts) defining a shared driveway as: “Shared driveway connecting no more than 2 parcels for ingress and egress to 1 single family dwelling on each of the parcels.” The commission’s recommendation will be sent to the county planning body and then to the township trustees as part of the formal adoption process.

Commissioners who discussed the item said the two-parcel cap is intended to avoid private drives that function like minor subdivisions and to limit long-term maintenance and fire-access problems. One speaker read the proposed article into the record as the draft resolution was read aloud: “Shared driveway connecting no more than 2 parcels for ingress and egress to 1 single family dwelling on each of the parcels.” That reading was part of Resolution MTZ-2025-02.

During discussion commissioners and participants cited several recurring concerns: maintenance responsibility for private drives, the township’s limited enforcement tools, and emergency access. Commissioners noted that private drives can create long-term maintenance disputes — and that some properties historically have been denied standard fire-service access because crossings or bridges could not support full-size apparatus. The commission discussed that property owners could seek variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in exceptional cases.

Commissioners also placed the proposed shared-driveway language in specific portions of the zoning text. The draft adds the new article to chapter 7 (conditional uses) as 7.315 and inserts parallel language into the residential district articles (proposed numbering shown in the draft as 8.35, 9.36, 10.37, etc.). The commission agreed the provision need not apply in some business districts and removed it from the B-1/B-2/B-3 business district language in the draft because those areas are more likely to use parking-lot access or dedicated roads.

Commissioners referenced the township land-use plan — noting language on page 7 that lists maintaining rural character and reducing driveway frequency as plan objectives — as part of the rationale for regulating shared driveways. The commission also acknowledged that the county’s review schedule required the commission to send its recommendation in time for the Butler County Planning Commission’s July cycle; participants said the draft needed to be transmitted to meet that timeline.

On the motion presented as Resolution MTZ-2025-02, the commission recorded the roll call votes and approved the recommendation to send to Butler County. The roll call, as read on the record, recorded Mr. Tumbleinson as yes; Mr. Branditz as yes; Mr. Londrigan as absent; Mr. Morrissey as yes; and Mr. Jackson as absent. The meeting record shows the resolution passed and will be signed and forwarded to the county planning commission.

The commission set its next regular meeting for Aug. 6 at 7 p.m. to consider the item again after county review and to continue other business.