Scott County board approves frontage variance for five‑lot subdivision on State Road 3

On Sept. 10, 2025, the Scott County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a frontage variance that will allow the owner of a 10‑acre parcel on State Road 3 to subdivide the property into five building lots, the board announced during a brief hearing on Case BD-50-25.

The applicant, identified in the record as "Mr. Brock" (transcribed once as "Mr. Buck"), told the board he purchased the 10 acres and planned to divide it into five lots. "I purchased 10 acres, out on State Road 3. I'm wanting to divide it up into 5 lots," the applicant said, adding that he had calculated roughly 149 feet of road frontage per lot when dividing the parcel.

The variance addresses Scott County's current road‑frontage requirement of 200 feet per lot. Board members and staff noted that, under county rules now, the owner would need a frontage variance to create five lots; the board approved that variance with stipulations requiring all other necessary permits and approvals. The board recorded the decision as "approved with stipulations," including that the subdivision must meet septic, state highway, drainage and other applicable county and state requirements before any building permits are issued.

Board members reviewed the four statutory criteria the board uses to evaluate variances and said the application met them. Board chair Greg Hicks read the standards into the record and answered them in the affirmative, saying the approval "will not be injurious to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community" and that the variance met the practical‑difficulty standard. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance.

During discussion, staff and members flagged several practical points the applicant must address before development. They said one lot may measure about 151 feet of frontage while others would be roughly 149 feet, and that a future easement granting neighbor access could create problems if a lot fell below the unencumbered 100‑foot width some situations require. A board member advised that if the owner expects to grant an easement to a neighbor it would be safer to make at least one lot about 151 feet to avoid falling a foot short of a hypothetical 100‑foot unencumbered requirement for a house site.

Board members also discussed a pending change to county zoning rules described by staff: a proposal under consideration would reduce frontage requirements to 100 feet and set a minimum lot size of 1 acre, and would change split rules so property owners could make one administrative split per year rather than up to four splits if a parcel has never been divided. Staff emphasized that the proposed change had not been adopted and that the applicant's request had to be judged under existing county rules.

The applicant said he had run the required public notice and had mailed notices to nearby property owners; he told the board one neighbor hand‑delivered a returned notice indicating no opposition. The applicant also said he had not yet commissioned a full survey because he wanted to confirm the board would approve the variance first.

The board recorded the case as Case BD-50-25 and approved the variance with the condition that the owner obtain all required state and county permits and clearances before any building or lot splitting is recorded. The board advised the applicant to complete a survey and secure any necessary highway, septic and drainage approvals before proceeding.

The meeting lasted about 20 minutes and included one substantive agenda item on the record. The board adjourned after approving the motion.