Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Access Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves access variance to allow second lot using existing easement at 1110 Woodford Road
Summary
The commission approved a variance allowing a second landlocked parcel to use an existing ingress/egress from Woodford Road to reach a proposed 1.5-acre gift parcel; applicant cited topography, flooding and a gully that make other access unworkable.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Access Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lexington County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a variance allowing a 1.5-acre parcel to be created and to use an existing 50-foot ingress/egress from Woodford Road to access the new lot.
The applicant, Christopher Bullock, asked to gift 1.5 acres to his son and to allow that landlocked parcel to use an existing easement that currently serves another son—s 2-acre parcel. Bullock told the commission the northern portion of the original tract contains a deep gully and areas that flood during heavy rains and therefore is not suitable for building or driveway construction.
Staff showed topo maps and aerial photos indicating a low point and drainage pattern near the county road, and commissioners examined whether a flag-lot access or alternate boundary adjustment could avoid the need for a variance. Planning staff explained that the county—s access policy bars an access easement that already serves a landlocked parcel from serving another landlocked parcel unless a variance is granted.
Bullock—s letter to the commission said the 1.5-acre portion requested is —the only location suitable for building a house— and noted that giving the entire four-acre upland would leave the family with unusable swampy acreage and added tax burden. He also said his son is a disabled veteran and that proximity to the family house was a factor in selecting the lot.
Commissioners agreed the topography created an extraordinary condition unique to this parcel and that authorization would not unduly affect adjacent properties because the proposed access would be within the owner—s land. The motion to approve the variance included the findings that the criteria for variance were met and recorded a unanimous yes vote.
