Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County approves vacating and rezoning to allow house relocation in Twin Ridge Heights West
Summary
The Board of Douglas County Commissioners unanimously approved a petition to vacate Lot 5, Block 1, Twin Ridge Heights West and rezoned roughly 6.42 acres from CT (Cluster Preservation) to AG‑1 to enable the property owner to move a dwelling site to a more buildable area west of the original lot.
Douglas County commissioners on July 16 approved two related land‑use actions that will let a property owner combine part of an adjacent parcel with a platted lot to permit construction of a single family home.
City‑county planner Mary Miller presented the requests, saying the owner discovered “extreme topographical changes” on Lot 5, Block 1 of Twin Ridge Heights West after preparing house plans and proposed vacating the platted lot and rezoning surrounding acreage to AG‑1 so the owner could use a more level site immediately to the west. Miller said the petition and hearing notice met statutory requirements, and staff recommended approval.
Miller told commissioners the lot was platted in 1988 with peripheral easements intended for future urban utilities and that the property sits “about halfway between Lakeview Lake and Lecompton.” She said service providers contacted — Freestate Electric and Rural Water District No. 6 — reported no objections and indicated they would supply service from the road right‑of‑way, with the property owner responsible for extending service lines to the new parcel.
Miller described the parcel’s steep topography and a ravine that made on‑site building impractical. She said the CP (Cluster Preservation) zoning district is currently closed to new rezonings, so the applicant could not expand the existing platted lot under CP; rezoning to AG‑1 combined with the statutory agricultural subdivision exemption would allow creation of a buildable parcel without the extensive grading that a house on the original lot would require. Miller also reviewed comprehensive plan goals, noting the rezoning would conserve steep slopes identified as sensitive lands while maintaining one housing opportunity.
The commission opened and closed the public hearing on the vacation with no public testimony and then voted 5–0 to adopt Resolution 25‑28 to vacate the lot while preserving the cul‑de‑sac dedication for public use. The commission then voted 5–0 to approve rezoning case Z‑25‑0006 (approximately 6.42 acres) and adopted Resolution 25‑29.
The applicant will pay recording fees for the vacation order to be filed with the register of deeds. Staff noted that because the property is outside the county’s foreseeable urban growth area, the peripheral utility easements are unlikely to be needed in the near term.
Copies of the adopted resolutions and the planning staff report are part of the county record for the case.
