Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Of Record topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overturns staff lot-of-record determination in McCarter appeal, allowing two separate lots
Summary
The BZA voted 3–0 to overturn the planning director’s lot-of-record determination for parcels tied to the McCarter minor subdivision, clearing the way for the petitioner to pursue a garage permit and avoid replatting. The decision resolves long-running deed and survey discrepancies in favor of treating the parcels as separate lots for permitting.
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals on a 3–0 vote overturned a planning director’s lot‑of‑record determination for parcels associated with the McCarter minor subdivision (ADR‑26‑1), concluding that two residences may be treated as separate lots for permitting purposes.
Planning staff presented a detailed record of surveys, deeds and permits tied to the 1990 McCarter minor subdivision, including a recorded survey showing a 10.41‑acre tract and a 2.19‑acre tract and subsequent deeds that staff said created ambiguities. Staff’s written determination (April letters) concluded the evidence supported a single lot‑of‑record treatment for the parcels and recommended affirming the director’s decision. Mr. Myers and staff walked the board through exhibit packages that included a 1990 survey, recorded minutes, legal notices that at times referenced 7.14 acres, septic permits and later deeds (including a 1999 deed and a correcting instrument).
Petitioner Robert McCarter Jr., sworn to testify, provided a title‑company letter and a private surveyor’s analysis to contest staff’s characterization. McCarter described family conveyancing and tax treatment that, he said, treated the parcels as separate over many years; he said requiring a formal replat or a "daddy" process to fix the record would be costly and disruptive. "I've learned a lot through this whole process. It's been stressful. It's been a lot of dollars that I wasn't planning on," McCarter said, adding that family use and tax records show separate parcel treatment.
Board members probed deed dates, assessor/auditor parcel reports, recorded easements and plan‑commission actions; they noted the record was messy, with early staff materials and public notices referencing different acreages. Legal counsel (Mr. Schilling) summarized the statutory and record questions and explained the practical consequences for permitting and taxes. After discussion one member characterized the situation as a "mess" that the board had authority to resolve.
A motion to overturn the director’s lot‑of‑record determination succeeded on a 3–0 roll call (Margaret Clemens, Guy Loftman, Jeff Morris voting yes). The board’s action treats the two residences as separate lots of record for county permitting purposes and explicitly stated that the house on the smaller parcel should not be treated as a detached accessory dwelling unit (DAU) under the county development ordinance. The ruling allows McCarter to pursue a garage permit on his parcel without undergoing lengthy subdivision corrections.
Staff and the petitioner were thanked for thorough preparation. The board noted that while the historical record contains inconsistencies, the practical interests of property owners and the county’s permitting processes supported the board’s remedial decision.
