Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Width Private Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Area board approves reduced lot width to allow private road lot for new subdivision
Summary
The board approved a variance reducing lot width to 83 feet for Lot 8 so a private road and landscape island can be contained on a single parcel; approval includes a recorded easement limiting the lot to road/cul-de-sac use.
The Area Board approved a development-variance petition to permit an 83-foot lot width (100 feet required) for Lot 8 in a proposed subdivision so the private road and landscape island may be created on a parcel held in single ownership. The board’s approval included a condition that the recorded easement specify Lot 8 is for the private street/cul-de-sac and carry maintenance responsibilities.
Area Plan staff explained the variance arises because the developer wants the private street to be under single ownership rather than split to the centerline of the private drive (the county’s typical practice). Staff said the lot will not contain a single-family dwelling or other buildings and recommended approval, noting the width is adequate for the private street and would not be injurious to public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Staff also advised the subdivision approval process will address septic, drainage and county-engineering requirements before final plat approval.
Petitioner Daniel B. Fitzpatrick of DBF Properties said the approach follows his prior practice in Shamrock Hills developments and that an easement will be recorded obligating all lot owners to maintain the private road “in perpetuity.” Fitzpatrick said five of the seven lots may be family members and expressed willingness to include a plat note or easement language that makes Lot 8 nonbuildable.
A neighboring property owner, represented by counsel, expressed concerns about drainage, septic locations and placing Lot 8 as a separately recorded parcel; the resident asked that stormwater and septic impacts on adjacent properties be resolved during plat review. Staff and the petitioner said those issues are addressed in the forthcoming plat and engineering review stages.
Board member Donny Ritzma moved to approve the variance with a condition that the recorded easement state Lot 8 will only be used as a street and cul-de-sac; Doctor Lauck seconded. Roll call was unanimous in favor (6–0). The board will issue written findings of fact. The board and petitioner indicated the recorded easement and plat notes will be used to ensure Lot 8 is maintained and not used for future building placement.
