Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County BZA approves parcel splits with condition to record 30-foot easement and shared-driveway covenants
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved an exempt subdivision/variance allowing a local property owner to split multiple parcels and formalize a shared driveway easement, conditioned on a recorded 30-foot easement and a recorded shared-driveway agreement reviewed by county counsel before final platting.
The Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals on an undisclosed November date approved a property owner's request to split multiple parcels and establish a shared driveway easement, contingent on recorded easement documents and covenants reviewed by county counsel. The board read findings of fact supporting the variance and voted to approve the application with conditions.
The applicant, identifying himself as Michael, said he owns multiple adjoining parcels along County Road 56 (addresses cited during testimony as 11823 and 11833 and additional acreage) and wants to divide acreage so his home will sit on about 14 acres and a separate 9-acre parcel will be created across the driveway. Michael said an additional adjacent 24-acre tract would be split as well and that some acreage had been sold previously. He described recent improvements to the access drive'including widening, paving a pull-off for mail delivery, and removal of trees'and said attorney/surveyor Mr. Pettit is preparing parcel descriptions and a shared-driveway agreement.
Board members questioned whether the driveway and easement met county standards. A staff member read provisions from Jefferson County's development regulations saying a shared residential driveway shall have a recorded minimum 30-foot easement and that shared residential driveways serving more than two dwelling units are treated as public roads and must meet county residential road standards. The staff member also cited the survey requirement for exempt subdivisions that a survey note state a shared driveway that does not meet county specifications will not be dedicated to the county (chapter 7, subsection c(5) as read aloud during the meeting).
David Bauer, a real estate broker and consultant who spoke at the hearing, told the board the survey will show a 30-foot easement, utilities will be placed within the easement, and an attorney will redraft the driveway agreement after BZA approval so mortgages and future lenders will accept it. Michael and Bauer said maintenance covenants will be recorded, and the applicant indicated an intention for maintenance responsibilities to be apportioned among the users (participants discussed one-sixth shares in the meeting as an example).
The board'after reviewing the findings of fact (public health/safety, property values, practical difficulties, and adequate ingress/egress) and discussing conditions'moved, seconded, and voted to approve the application. The approval was conditioned on presenting a recorded 30-foot easement and shared-driveway covenants that the county attorney must review and approve before final application/platting is accepted. The board also discussed that, under exempt-subdivision procedures, the survey must note that a shared driveway not meeting county specifications will not be dedicated to the county.
Staff instructed the applicant to submit the recorded documents and driveway agreement to Taylor (staff) for transmission to county counsel for review. The board's motion and vote were taken on the record; board members voted in favor and the application was approved with the stated conditions.
No dollar amounts or building permit dates were specified during testimony, and the applicant indicated several legal and survey steps remain to be completed before final platting.
