Board limits access variance for landlocked Heffner Road parcel to one dwelling

The Board of Adjustment approved a variance on case 16153 to allow a private roadway easement to serve as the primary access for a roughly 10-acre parcel at 2713 East Heffner Road, but the board added conditions that limit the variance to one dwelling and require the applicant to resubmit a combined legal to consolidate assessor parcels.

Mason Schwartz of Williams, Fox, Foursheme, Bullard, speaking for property owners Jeffrey and Terry Long, told the board the parcel is effectively landlocked and the only feasible legal access is a 55-foot private roadway easement that has been used and maintained for years by neighbors. "There's a private roadway easement that was granted in 2002, which is in our favor," Schwartz said, adding that the adjacent northern parcel received a similar variance in 2011 and that the neighbors to the north support the application.

Sarah Welch of the planning department said the matter began when staff denied an address because the parcel did not meet zoning regulation requirements. Welch explained subdivision or SPUD remedies were not feasible because the applicant does not own the adjacent land necessary for a formal private street or plat. "We actually this started because we denied them an address because they didn't meet the zoning regulation," Welch said.

Several board members raised safety and infrastructure concerns about relying on an unimproved gravel road. One member noted the road has "grass growing up in the middle of it" and said that adding additional dwellings without road improvements could raise fire- and public-safety issues. Schwartz responded that the road has been improved and maintained by the neighbor to the north since about 2011 and the applicant is committed to sharing maintenance costs.

Planning staff also warned that, administratively, the city could allow up to three lot splits for a frontage exception before the matter would have to go back to the planning commission. In response, the board made the limitation to one dwelling an express condition and asked the applicant to resubmit a single combined legal description to the county assessor to prevent future unintended subdivision.

Unidentified board members moved to approve the variance with the stated conditions; the motion was seconded and the board approved the variance as modified. The applicant agreed on the record to limit development and to work on the deed/legal consolidation before permits are issued.

Next steps: the variance is approved with the condition that the variance applies only to a single dwelling and that the applicant files a combined legal (deed/legal consolidation) with county records; any future request to serve additional lots or to split the property would require separate review.