Commission staff to research legal authority to apply flag-lot rules to larger parcels

Planning staff reviewed state code language and Sumner County rules governing subdivisions and flag lots and told the Regional Planning Commission they will consult the county law office to clarify the government’s authority to regulate flag-lot characteristics on lots larger than 5 acres.

The Planning Director read from state law identified in the meeting as “5 13, chapter 3 part 4,” which governs subdivisions and requires filing a plat for divisions of less than 5 acres when new street or utility construction is involved. The director said state law sets the baseline for what counties can require and that, for lots under 5 acres, the county’s subdivision regulations already impose specific flag-lot standards.

Those local flag-lot standards, as described in the meeting, include a 50-foot minimum physical road frontage, a maximum 500-foot flag stem length, no more than 20% of lots within a major subdivision being flag lots, limitation to a single intervening lot along a flag stem, prohibition on flag stems that change direction more than once, and requirements for safe, reasonable access. The director said the planning commission stopped routinely granting variances for flag-lot requirements after repeated variance requests.

The legal question discussed is whether the county may use its zoning code to require similar physical-access standards for lots created by deed that are larger than 5 acres. The planning director said the statute is largely silent about regulating lots over 5 acres and that he would “get with the law office” to determine the scope of county authority. He noted the region’s municipal and regional planning commission structure and the limits that state law (and the doctrine cited as “Dillon’s rule”) can place on counties’ powers.

Commissioners and staff discussed possible remedies the county might pursue if authority is available: an ordinance or zoning code change to require 50 feet of physical road access for any lot created after a specified effective date (the director mentioned Jan. 1, 2026 as an example of how an effective date could be phased in), or more stringent limits on easement access. The director emphasized he had not yet confirmed legal authority and that changes could require further study and counsel advice.

Ending note: Staff said it will return with legal guidance and potential draft language if counsel identifies a pathway; no ordinance or code change was proposed or adopted at the meeting.