Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants sidewalk variance for lot split; applicant sought waiver of fee-in-lieu
Summary
The board granted a variance that removes the sidewalk/fee requirement for a proposed lot split; members debated the sidewalk ordinance, fee-in-lieu amount and whether the parcel qualifies as a subdivision.
The board granted a variance that relieves a property owner from the city’s sidewalk requirement tied to a recent lot split, after members debated whether the situation met the subdivision trigger and whether a fee-in-lieu could be required.
The applicant, identified as Chuck, told the board he plans to build a small house for his granddaughter on a lot he said he subdivided from a larger parcel. Chuck said there are no sidewalks along the stretch of North Culver House (transcript also records the street name as “North Cobra House” and “North Cobour House”) for roughly three miles, and that installing a sidewalk would require removing a row of trees and would be ‘‘a deal breaker’’ for the build.
Chuck asked that the sidewalk requirement be waived entirely, not that he pay a fee-in-lieu. City staff explained that a fee-in-lieu typically goes before the planning commission (MAPC), but because the applicant requested a full waiver of the sidewalk requirement rather than payment of the fee, the matter was before the board.
Board members discussed the sidewalk ordinance and the city’s practice since the sidewalk ordinance took effect in 2017. One board member said the city has not previously waived the fee-in-lieu since the ordinance came into effect; another said forcing a sidewalk in a rural location that would not connect to other sidewalks is impractical. An engineer’s rough estimate for a 180-foot frontage was described in the meeting as “probably between 16,000 and up,” and staff also referenced an estimate “around 20,000” spread across multiple lots; board members said the fee would apply along more than one lot if multiple lots are created.
On the legal question, staff said the subdivision ordinance is triggered when a lot is divided into three or more lots; staff explained the property’s history (a prior split seven years earlier and a subsequent split creating three lots) led to the current requirement. Board members asked whether future development was likely; the applicant said this is the last lot and no additional development was anticipated.
After discussion, a board member moved that the board grant the variance; another member seconded. The board took a roll-call vote with the following recorded votes: Miles — Yes; Bailey — No; Cables — Yes; Gilmore — Yes. The motion carried.
Speakers emphasized that the decision reflected this parcel’s rural context and the practical consequences of requiring a sidewalk where there is no existing pedestrian network. Staff noted that fee-in-lieu typically had been accepted or the sidewalk built in other cases since the ordinance’s 2017 enactment. The board did not record additional conditions on the variance on the transcript.
