Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends subdivision rule changes to block flag‑lot workarounds and set consolidation caps
Summary
The committee amended and recommended a subdivision regulation amendment (SRA) that prohibits flag lots and through lots that place higher‑intensity development behind a detached house, defines a 'shared access lot' (including apartment buildings), and limits consolidations by median eligible‑lot area (R60 7,800 sq ft; R90 11,200; R200 22,000; R40 6,500). It voted 3‑0 to recommend the SRA to the full council.
The Planning, Housing and Parks Committee on Sept. 29 recommended to the full council a subdivision regulation amendment aimed at preventing developers from using newly created flag or through lots to place duplexes or townhouses behind existing single‑family homes and thereby bypass workforce‑housing and compatibility rules.
Ms. Nadeau summarized the SRA: it prohibits approving flag lots, lots that do not abut a public or private road, and through lots for optional‑method workforce housing in the way opponents feared. To address the legitimate need for ownership options in townhouses and triplexes, staff and the planning board proposed a new category called a "shared access lot" that would allow duplexes, triplexes, townhouses (and, as the committee agreed in amendment, apartment buildings) to be part of a redevelopment while preventing those units from being tucked behind an unchanged detached house on the corridor.
The committee discussed how many eligible lots could be consolidated and chose an area‑based limit using median eligible‑lot sizes rounded to whole numbers: R60 7,800 sq ft, R90 11,200 sq ft, R200 22,000 sq ft, and for R40 the countywide median of 6,500 sq ft. The Chair noted this approach avoids perverse outcomes where a lot just one square foot over a minimum would be treated differently.
Committee members also clarified that the workforce‑housing requirement adopted in ZTA 2502 still applies to any consolidated development of three or more units even if the ownership parcel is later subdivided for individual townhome ownership.
The committee voted to recommend the SRA as amended to the full council (a committee recorded vote of "3 to nothing") and adjourned.
What this means: If the full council adopts the SRA as recommended, the county will make it harder to create standalone high‑intensity projects behind single‑family houses on corridors through subdivision; it will also allow redevelopment that creates ownership units while retaining protections against the flag‑lot scenario citizens feared.
