Clarksburg LRA adopts lot‑combination requirement for certain city‑owned parcels, defers broader right‑of‑first‑refusal policy

The Clarksburg Land Reuse Agency on Tuesday discussed how to handle neighbors’ right of first refusal for small, city‑held parcels and approved a requirement that purchasers of certain city‑owned lots pay for surveys and record lot combinations through planning and zoning.

Legal staff and board members spent the bulk of the meeting debating how the state statute’s right of first refusal should be implemented when two adjacent landowners both seek the same parcel. Richard, a staff member, said the statute guarantees eligible buyers a right to purchase that must be exercised within 120 days but “the statute is unclear on how to deal with” competing adjacent claims. He recommended giving priority to owner‑occupied adjacent owners over renters, and letting adjacent owners decide arrangements when both are the same occupancy type.

Why it matters: The agency’s decisions affect whether small lots — some as narrow as 40 feet, several of which the city has acquired or controls — are combined, developed, left vacant, or end up in tax sales. Board members raised concerns about unintended uses (for example building an accessory structure that later becomes a residence) and about adding costs or procedural burdens to adjacent owners who otherwise would have had the ability to buy at a tax sale.

Most important actions and votes

- The agency approved a motion requiring that, for the parcels considered under agenda item B (city‑owned/non‑subsection‑A properties), purchasers must obtain and pay for a survey and complete a lot combination through planning and zoning, with the combination recorded at the county courthouse. The motion applied to specific parcels discussed at the meeting (213 Quincy, 311 Davis, and the South Chestnut Street parcel) and the board asked prospective purchasers to present drawings or plans showing proposed uses.

- On the broader question of a formal policy for tax‑acquired parcels subject to the statute’s right of first refusal (referred to in the meeting as “subsection A”), the board agreed to handle the current handful of properties individually while staff prepares a draft policy for future rounds; the board did not adopt a binding restriction requiring lot combinations for all subsection A parcels at this meeting.

Key details and debate

Richard told the board that, under the statute, eligible adjacent owners have a right to purchase but the law does not specify how to resolve competing claims, and he cautioned against imposing requirements that the statute does not explicitly allow. “I don’t think that’s what the intent of it was,” he said when asked about requiring lot combinations for tax‑acquired parcels. He advised the board that its stronger legal position would be to accept and apply a narrowly tailored approach for the current group of parcels and pursue a statutory amendment through the municipal league or seek an opinion from the attorney general if broader authority is desired.

Several board members pushed for policies that would encourage “highest and best use” and neighborhood stability— for example, prioritizing owner‑occupants and discouraging piecemeal accessory development that could later be converted to living units without proper parking or permits. One board member suggested requiring applicants to present drawings of proposed use so the board could make better informed decisions.

Staff provided inventory updates: the agency has roughly a dozen parcels on its list, of which staff estimated three to four are tax‑acquired parcels subject to the right of first refusal. Some parcels are donated city properties; one parcel at 508 Corner Avenue was identified for demolition because of an active infestation and will be considered for reuse as off‑street parking tied to a nearby multiunit building.

Next steps

Staff (Jason and Richard) will prepare the draft policy language for the board’s review and circulate a proposed form for prospective purchasers to submit use drawings and photos. The board asked staff to bring a refined inventory that flags which parcels are tax‑acquired and which fall under subsection A versus subsection B so the LRA can apply the agreed procedures consistently. Board members also discussed the possibility of requesting an attorney general opinion or pursuing statutory clarification during the next legislative session.

Closing note: Several board members asked for a work session with planning and zoning staff to review the city‑owned inventory and recommend which clusters of lots are best suited for residential, commercial, or parking uses.