Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oak Ridge Platting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks to split Oak Ridge property; commission offers guidance on platting and accessory dwelling rules
Summary
A property owner representing Oak Ridge asked the commission about platting a parcel to allow a separate smaller residence and possible future business use; staff advised standards for residential lot creation, access, setbacks and noted county annexation and broader code issues such as 'shouse' (shop‑house) rules require further review.
A Brandon resident representing Oak Ridge asked the Planning and Zoning Commission for guidance on dividing a single parcel into multiple lots to allow a family house to be sold and a retained parcel to continue business use. Planning staff advised on setback, frontage and access issues and said the city is generally open to legal proposals that meet lot standards, but that code details will control the permitted outcomes.
Damon Coughlin introduced himself and said he was representing Oak Ridge and family members seeking to split the property so his brother can buy the house and the parcel could retain retail or future event‑center uses. He told the commission the family expects to begin the work soon because his brother is returning from military service in June.
Staff explained that the property was rezoned to general business earlier this year and that creating a residential lot will require the new lot to meet standard residential requirements for setbacks and frontage. Staff noted that some of the adjacent land is county jurisdiction and that access arrangements along an old roadbed and utility easements will need to be clarified; staff also said a full plat and site plan review will be required before a final parcel can be sold.
Commissioners and staff discussed accessory dwellings and ‘‘shouse’’ (shop‑house) configurations. Staff said Brandon currently does not broadly allow a standalone shouse in residential zoning unless addressed through a planned development or specific code amendment, and that the city and county are reviewing related density and zoning rules.
Staff encouraged the applicant to work closely with planning staff to produce a concept plan and to confirm access and addressing (the post office address and which frontage will be the primary street). Staff estimated typical residential setbacks and emphasized that the footprint — not total finished living area across multiple floors — is how the comparison to garage size is calculated for the city’s existing rules.
The commission did not adopt new code language. Instead, commissioners advised the applicant on next steps: prepare a concept plat, coordinate with staff on access and setbacks, and submit formal plat and site‑plan materials for review. Staff said it is generally supportive of applicants pursuing legal solutions and noted county zoning amendments under consideration may make similar configurations more common.
Near the end of the meeting, commissioners requested that Rob and Mike follow up with staff on the adjacent signage matter; the meeting adjourned by motion.
