Planning staff says subdivision code prevents creating new landlocked lots; recommends clearer language

Planning staff told the Mendon Planning and Zoning group that the subdivision and zoning codes, as currently written, prevent the creation of new lots that lack sufficient road frontage and recommended clarifying language to avoid inconsistent interpretation.

The staff member said the subdivision code requires frontage and that, in recent conversations with landowners, entire parcels lacked the minimum frontage needed for a legal split. “Under the subdivision code, were not allowed to split it because theres no frontage,” the staff member said, citing recent questions from property owners including Tony Hartman and John Hartman.

The issue matters because the zoning code allows access by private drives in some circumstances but the subdivision codes frontage requirement is stricter. Staff said private drives are permitted for existing parcels but that the rules do not allow creating a new lot that is nonconforming and would be landlocked. “I cant split a piece, allow a piece to be split or subdivided that is nonconforming,” the staff member said.

Commissioners and staff discussed two recent property examples. In one, the entire parcel lacked sufficient frontage; in another, a plan to create four lots would have produced a lot without legal frontage because access would have been only from the highway, which the staff member said was not allowed. Staff explained these are not theoretical: “If he made four lots, one of them would have been landlocked,” the staff member said, describing the affected parcel south of town.

To reduce confusion, staff identified specific code sections to amend. Subdivision Code section 5.44 (referred to in the meeting as “5 Double 4”) explicitly requires a minimum accessible frontage; staff recommended adding a sentence stating that the city cannot create or approve lots that do not meet that frontage requirement. Staff also recommended clarifying Zoning Code section 3.42 to note explicitly that private drive access provisions apply only to existing, legally recorded parcels.

Staff said different sections are currently dispersed and not written in a way that a reader can easily reconcile them; one planner noted that depending on interpretation the language could be read two ways and recommended tightening the text so there is no ambiguity. The stated policy rationale was to avoid mid‑block “flag” lots and similar configurations the city does not want to encourage.

Next steps mentioned at the meeting included drafting precise ordinance language and adding the item to the code revisions list for future Planning and Zoning consideration. Staff asked to have the recommended clarifications added to the commissions agenda for a subsequent meeting so the group could review specific proposed wording.

Ending: Staff said they will prepare explicit language tying subdivision frontage requirements and private‑drive allowances together for Planning and Zoning review; no final ordinance change was adopted at the meeting.