Daniel residents split over how to handle nonconforming lots; town urges records research

Daniel held a public meeting Jan. 31 to gather resident input on how to handle nonconforming lots — parcels created before the town adopted its current RA-5 zoning. Mayor Scott Holder opened the session and asked speakers to limit remarks to the topic and state their names for the record.

Planning Chair Gary Wade told the room a "nonconforming lot of record" is land "legally created prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances" and that the burden of proof falls on property owners to supply county records, plats or planning staff determinations to show a lot was buildable when recorded. He said legally created lots of record can be buildable despite not meeting modern lot-area or width requirements but cautioned that health, frontage and other technical standards may still prevent development.

The meeting featured extended public comment. Mona Webb asked for "compassion" and a variance to allow a single-story, accessible home on a 2-acre family parcel; she said the site includes a shop in the family since the 1960s and that the home would allow her husband to "live with dignity and independence." Multiple longtime residents, including Chip LaVarty and Kevin Nelson, urged maintaining the five-acre standard to preserve open space and the town's rural character.

Other speakers — often owners of small parcels created generations ago — described family farm divisions in the 1970s and urged the town to consider historic circumstances when determining which lots should be treated as buildable. Jody Taylor and Melanie North Tucker recounted specific parcel divisions and said they were told their lots were buildable when they purchased them decades ago.

Planning Director Eric Broncher emphasized the administrative limits of staff: "Everybody has the right to apply," he said, but each lot is unique and must be judged on its records and continued use; if a prior dwelling or primary use has lapsed, the parcel typically must meet current code. Town staff and an attorney present advised that retroactive approval of clearly illegal subdivisions is legally risky and that, where lots were not created in compliance with county or town standards, the only broad remedy would be changing the zoning.

Residents proposed two practical steps: (1) compile and publish an inventory and map of at-risk parcels so owners and the public know which lots are implicated; and (2) form a small citizens' committee to research historic records, assemble hardship cases and recommend whether the town should pursue targeted code amendments or leave RA-5 intact. Several speakers suggested a clear cut-off date (for example, incorporation) for eligibility review, along with short, defensible ordinance language developed with input from fire and health officials.

No votes or motions were taken at the meeting. The town identified next steps: staff will accept documentation from property owners who wish to prove a lot's legal status, the council will consider forming a committee or tasking planning staff to prepare draft code language, and the town will research the legal risks of retroactive approvals. The town did not announce any immediate rule changes.