Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henderson County conditionally approves Johnson Ridge replat; court requires variance for shared access
Summary
The court gave conditional approval to a two‑lot replat in the Johnson Ridge Addition on April 7, 2026, contingent on filing a variance to allow a shared 30‑foot access easement that includes utility easements; county counsel warned of safety and legal concerns and the court delayed signing until the variance is provided.
The Henderson County Commissioner's Court on April 7 conditionally approved a replat of the Johnson Ridge Addition that would create lots 1 R1 and 1 R2, but only on the condition that the property owners obtain a variance addressing a shared access issue under rule 4.2C.
Property owners told the court they received the back parcel by gift in 2023 and are now attempting to sell it but encountered platting and access complications. A county representative and the county attorney explained the lot division arose from an earlier family deed that did not follow the county's platting requirements and that a prior variance had been granted for an earlier flag‑style lot. County counsel said the new division effectively creates a second flag lot behind the first and raised concerns about access, emergency‑vehicle ingress, and conflicting easement geometry.
Key technical details discussed in the record include a 30‑foot access easement serving the rear lot, two apparent 15‑foot utility easements within that 30‑foot corridor, a 5‑foot building setback line, and a 568‑foot stretch of driveway owned by the front lot (lot 1 R1). Staff and counsel debated whether the prior variance covers the new division or whether a second variance is required. A variance fee was discussed (approximately $200 was mentioned in the record), but the record does not include formal fee documentation.
The court voted to grant a conditional approval: the replat will be filed for recordation only after verification that the required variance under rule 4.2C has been requested and paid; court officials said they would not sign any plat documents until the variance is provided. Commissioner Spivey moved the conditional approval and Commissioner Richardson seconded; the motion passed unanimously.
County staff cautioned that while some similar family‑division situations exist across the county, the replatting of already‑platted land must follow the subdivision process and may require remedial filings to clarify easements and access rights.
