Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Hidden Pines plan allowing five lots to rely on easement access instead of public frontage
Summary
The board approved a variance to reduce minimum frontage requirements for five of six lots in the Hidden Pines subdivision, allowing lots to be accessed by an internal easement rather than individual public frontage, subject to standard AGSF‑1 setbacks and staff conditions.
The Westfield Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance that allows five of six lots in the proposed Hidden Pines subdivision to be accessed from a private easement rather than each lot meeting the UDO’s minimum road‑frontage requirement.
Dane Crabtree with the community development department said the request is a variance of development standards for roughly 22 acres east of Shelburne Road; the concept plan shows six lots, with only Lot 1 meeting the 250‑foot frontage requirement and the remaining lots accessing the development via a single Shelburne Road cut and an internal easement. The petitioner representative, Dave Musek of Old World Development, described a plan of six “estate lots” intended to preserve the property’s hardwood trees and said the project “would only enhance the surrounding property values.” He said the developer aims to preserve as many trees as possible and maintain privacy for neighbors.
A nearby resident, Bill Costs, who said he lives directly south of the parcel, told the board he supports the plan but urged the developer to preserve about 200 feet of trees along the shared boundary that he planted in 1991 to maintain privacy between his property and the new lots.
Staff clarified that an easement driveway does not count as public frontage under the UDO, that all six lots would meet the AGSF‑1 minimum lot size (around 3 acres), and that where lots lack a front yard the lot lines are treated as side yards, creating a 30‑foot minimum building setback around the perimeter of Lots 2–6. The hearing packet included four written public comments provided to the board.
After discussion, a motion to approve item 2601VS01 with the conditions noted in the staff report passed on a roll call; findings of fact for the petition were subsequently approved.
What happens next: the minor plat will proceed through Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) review with utility, engineering and public works reviews; once TAC deems the plat compliant it will be recorded and tax parcels created.
