Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Lot Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks lot split at 185 West 300 North; staff warns private‑lane rules and precedent may block request
Summary
Brecken Oswald, who said he owns 185 West 300 North, told Mendon planning commissioners he intends to split the lot using a private lane; city staff said longstanding interpretation and subdivision rules (110 feet frontage requirement) likely preclude interblock development and the commission moved to hold the item pending a certified survey and staff review.
Brecken Oswald, who said he and his brother‑in‑law own 185 West 300 North, told the Mendon planning commission he intends to split the parcel and handed out a packet including code references and a proposed plot map.
“We bought this land, with intentions to split it, do a lot split on it,” Oswald said, adding the map in the packet came from the survey when they bought the lot.
City staff and commissioners spent the bulk of the discussion on whether a private lane can legally provide frontage for a back lot under Mendon’s code. Oswald cited the private‑lane provision (referred to in the packet as section 3.42) and said a private drive could provide frontage for the rear parcel. “A private lane may serve as frontage for up to 2 lots,” he told the commission.
Planning staff disputed that interpretation. Mike Hornier, speaking for city staff, said Mendon has long treated private lanes as access rather than frontage and that other sections of the subdivision code require 110 feet of road frontage for a compliant lot. “The private lane does not create frontage,” Hornier said, adding that the code’s current wording has produced confusion and that changing how the city enforces the rule would set a new precedent.
Staff and commissioners also flagged other technical constraints that must be verified before any approval: certified survey measurements (commissioners discussed differing width figures of 133, 150 and 154 feet in the record), drainage and engineering on the east side of the property, and fire access. Oswald told the commission he has an engineered plot plan in progress and said plans had been reviewed with the fire department; staff said formal, written approval from the fire chief and final engineered plans would be required during permitting.
After questions from a commissioner identified in the record as Kirk about setbacks and how a home on the back parcel would face the private lane, the commission moved to delay final action. Unidentified Speaker 1 moved “to put this on hold until we talk to Eric and Seth and get some information from them” and asked the applicant to provide the certified survey so staff could distribute it via Abby.
The transcript shows a motion to hold the item pending survey verification and consultation with staff; no formal vote tally or final decision on the lot split was recorded in the provided transcript. The commission also addressed a separate procedural item: correcting the year on previous minutes from 2024 to 2025 and proceeding with approval.
What happens next: the planning commission asked staff to verify the certified survey and to consult the city attorney (referred to in discussion as Seth) and the city engineer (referred to as Eric). The item was put on hold pending those verifications and any further required documentation, including written fire‑department approval and final engineered plans.
