Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Highland Park Phase 5 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission delays Highland Park Estates Phase 5 while highway department reviews road-width discrepancy
Summary
Monroe County planners continued a preliminary plat and waiver request for Highland Park Estates Phase 5 after staff identified a discrepancy between the engineered cross-section and measured roadway width; the commission asked the highway department to confirm acceptance before final action.
The Monroe County Plan Commission on a unanimous vote continued a request to waive the final hearing for Highland Park Estates Phase 5 (SPP-24-5) after staff discovered a discrepancy between a previously approved 26-foot road cross section and the as-built or plat-measured width of approximately 24 feet.
Planning staff reviewed the 2017 preliminary approval for the five-lot major subdivision and noted that, under the prior 1997 subdivision control ordinance, the required urban local road cross section called for 31 feet. The county highway manual (adopted 2020) recommends 26 feet; the petitioner’s submitted cross-section shows 26 feet but the submitted plat and aerial measurement indicate the roadway is about 24 feet across.
Daniel Butler of Bynum, Fannie & Associates, the project civil engineer, told commissioners the difference appears to be a drafting discrepancy in older plan sets and that the as-built record submitted with the petition should reflect the actual constructed width. "The only thing that's not built is the sidewalks at this time," Butler said, noting the roadway exists on the ground and that prior approvals allowed a road-width waiver.
Highway and planning staff recommended that the commission obtain explicit highway-department concurrence before approving any waiver that would affect whether the roadway will be accepted into the county inventory. Lisa Ridge of the county highway department said she wanted to confirm details with the highway engineer before supporting acceptance; staff and commissioners agreed that a clear, documented highway recommendation should be in the record.
Commissioners discussed procedural options, including conditioning approval on the highway director’s concurrence or continuing the item while staff obtains a recommendation. Given the recent discovery, the commission voted 9–0 to deny the petitioner's request to waive the final hearing (which effectively continued the matter) and return the matter to the March 18, 2025 meeting so highway staff can review and recommend.
Votes at a glance: The plan commission voted 9–0 (Julie Thomas; Edward Ullman; Jeffrey Morris; David Henry; Rudy Fields; Scott Ferris; Tron Enright Randolph; Margaret Clements; David Bush) to deny the waiver of final hearing for SPP-24-5 and continue the item to March 18, 2025.
Ending: Staff will ask the highway department to review as-built documentation and determine whether the existing roadway will meet county inventory standards or whether the petitioner must modify the roadway or obtain a formal waiver the highway department will accept.
