Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Happy Valley topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner previews plan to divide Happy Valley parcel into 11 lots; commission asks staff to check road‑easement rules
Summary
A property owner presented a preliminary plan to split a 15–16 acre Happy Valley parcel into roughly 11 one‑acre lots, discussing an existing private airstrip and private‑road options; staff and commissioners asked for follow‑up on easement width, private vs. public road status and the commission's waiver authority.
The Planning Commission held an informational, non‑binding discussion with a property owner who said he wants to subdivide a roughly 15–16 acre Happy Valley parcel into about 11 lots of roughly one acre each.
The owner described an existing private airstrip that could serve up to eight of the new lots on a private, non‑commercial basis and said he preferred private roads and smaller road construction rather than meeting current borough road‑building standards. Commissioners flagged three follow‑up questions: the exact easement width required by code for the proposed lots, whether the commission (or assembly) has authority to waive particular road or easement standards for an existing parcel, and whether a private road designation is feasible in that location.
The chair and staff noted the commission can require land set aside for future access but that the borough currently lacks direct enforcement authority to stop property owners from constructing smaller, ATV‑width roads when they build — unless dedicated rights‑of‑way are established in plat notes or covenants. Staff asked the owner to consider preparing a survey or preliminary plat and said staff would research whether the commission has authority to grant any waivers.
The owner also raised site constraints including a flood‑plain location along a river and shallow water tables in parts of the property; he said earlier subdivisions on adjacent parcels had created the existing access pattern and expressed a preference to avoid a 60‑foot road if 20– to 30‑foot private easements would suffice.
No formal application was filed or approved at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to return with code references and a recommendation on whether a waiver would be appropriate.
