Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Subdivision Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board adds 'unencumbered' to 100-foot road-frontage recommendation, debates easements and lot-splitting rules
Summary
Scott CountyAdvisory Board voted to add the term "unencumbered" to a proposed change reducing minimum lot size and road frontage; members debated easement widths, how many parcels may split from a parent tract and how to handle buildability for rear parcels before forwarding recommendations to the county commissioners.
The Scott County Advisory Board voted 6-2 on Aug. 13 to add the word "unencumbered" to a proposed change that would reduce the minimum lot size to one acre and the minimum road frontage to 100 feet, and the board forwarded that recommendation to the county commissioners.
Board members said their discussion focused on clarifying how easements and minor subdivisions will interact with the new frontage standard and on avoiding a repeat of past situations where land was divided without legal public access.
The boardrecommended changing the ordinance language from a 2-acre minimum and 200-foot road frontage to a 1-acre minimum and 100-foot road frontage described explicitly as "unencumbered." The advisory board recorded a roll-call tally of six yes votes and two no votes; the board chair said the recommendation will be submitted to the county commissioners for their consideration and possible advertisement and hearing in September.
Members described several related items they want the commissioners to note: the county's existing 50-foot access-easement rule that currently allows up to two residences to use a single easement; the minor-subdivision requirement that a developer build a road to county standards if more than two residences are to be served from a private access; and the board's prior discussion of splits that would allow parcels larger than 5 acres to be divided more freely than smaller parcels.
Several board members urged the revision to include explicit guardrails so landowners and permit reviewers understand whether frontage is reduced by an easement. "The 100 foot can't be encumbered," one member said during debate, arguing that any access easement should be separate from the required frontage. Other members said some longstanding parcels with narrow, older easements should be handled case by case by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The board also discussed practical parameters discussed during the meeting: keeping a 100-foot unencumbered minimum frontage; retaining the existing 50-foot easement minimum for cases where an easement is needed to reach a rear parcel; allowing two residences per 50-foot easement unless a minor subdivision and road-building to county specification is completed; and the county practice that parcels over five acres may be split with fewer restrictions than parcels under five acres.
No county-commission action was taken by the advisory board at the meeting; its vote was a recommendation to the commissioners. Board members instructed staff to prepare the drafted ordinance language and the minutes for transmittal to the commissioners and to provide the board with the finalized text before the commissioners' hearing so members can follow up if needed.
Board members said they expect future requests for variances or appeals to be handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals on a case-by-case basis when older easements or unusual site constraints are involved.
The board closed by approving the July minutes with amendments noting the change in wording (adding "unencumbered") and by asking staff to circulate the final draft to the commissioners in time for their September meeting.
