Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident advised to grant easement, not combine parcels, to fix drainage; no formal BZA action taken
Summary
A Scott County resident asked the Board how to combine three parcels to fix a major drainage problem. Board members and staff advised that combining all three parcels likely creates nonconforming lots because two parcels already contain dwellings and suggested granting an easement to allow drainage work instead; no vote was taken.
A Scott County resident seeking to combine three adjacent parcels to address a recurring drainage problem was advised by board members and staff to consider granting an easement rather than consolidating the lots.
Jonathan Carpenter described owning three neighboring parcels at 1114 E. State Road 256 and said a major washout and seasonal saturation require an underground drainage run that would cross from his primary property through a neighboring parcel to a creek. "We need to set up an underground drainage system that runs through our neighboring property from our primary property," Carpenter told the board, adding he was willing to pay permitting costs.
Board members and staff responded that the board could not act on an item that had not been advertised on the agenda and advised Carpenter on options. Staff and several board members said combining all three parcels could make one or more homes nonconforming under county zoning because two of the parcels already contain dwellings. One member noted recent changes to local rules — from a 2-acre/200-foot-frontage standard to a 1-acre/100-foot-frontage rule — and said staff would review how the ordinance applies if a formal petition were filed.
Several participants, including a surveyor and multiple board members, suggested Carpenter consider a recorded easement to permit access across parcels to reach the creek and perform drainage work. Board members explained that an easement can be written to preserve maintenance obligations, travel with the property when sold and can be as wide as necessary for the work; they recommended obtaining an easement survey and consulting an attorney to document terms.
Carpenter said he already had discussed the matter with the county Drainage Board and that his properties contain substantial wooded acreage and a creek; the board recommended he pursue administrative or legal steps (easement creation and an easement survey) before attempting a formal lot consolidation. No formal action or vote on consolidation was taken at the meeting, and the board directed Carpenter to work with staff and legal counsel to clarify the ordinance and, if desired, return with a properly noticed petition.
