Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel Plan Commission approves 5‑lot minor subdivision, conditions waiver to avoid road connection
Summary
The Carmel Plan Commission on March 17 approved a minor subdivision at 1414 E. 116th St., splitting a 3.85‑acre parcel into five lots while conditioning final approval on a waiver process to avoid creating a stub‑street/right‑of‑way connection. Neighbors urged preserving trees, and staff said any waiver will return to the commission with additional notice.
The Carmel Plan Commission voted March 17 to approve a minor subdivision for a 3.85‑acre parcel at 1414 East 116th Street, permitting the creation of five lots while making the approval contingent on a later waiver hearing to determine whether a stub‑street right‑of‑way must be dedicated.
Petitioner Kyle Hawkins told the commission he bought the parcel to preserve its canopy and asked the body not to require a road connection to adjoining subdivisions. "I'm asking for no asphalt. I'm asking for green space, and I'm asking to not give a right of way," Hawkins said, explaining he planned to divide the property among neighbors and preserve most of the trees.
Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing urged the commission to preserve the woodland separating Rosemead Commons and Fairgreen Trace. Deborah Pickett, president of the Rosemead Commons homeowners association, told commissioners the parcel serves stormwater and wetland functions and that paving would reduce the area's capacity to absorb runoff. "This will help with our drainage system. It will prevent flooding incidents," Pickett said. Property owner Jennifer Shaw, who sold the land to Hawkins, said she spent "tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars on those trees" and asked that the parcel be kept green.
City staff and planning department representatives outlined why the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) includes a stub‑street connection requirement. Alexia Lopez of the Department of Community Services said the UDO requires new subdivisions to compare to planned stub streets and generally to provide right‑of‑way in case future access is needed for emergency vehicles, pedestrian connectivity or public services. "One of the reasons would be for sufficient access for emergency vehicles and other public services," Lopez said, while also noting a formal waiver process exists and that staff had recommended sending the item to a March 31 committee meeting to allow more time.
Commissioners debated options that would balance the petitioner’s preservation goals with the UDO requirement. Several members said they were sympathetic to protecting the trees but noted the ordinance applies whenever new buildable lots are created. Commissioner Adam Austin moved to approve the plat "conditioned on the approval of the waiver," a two‑step approach in which the commission approves the subdivision plat now but will hear the waiver—requiring separate public notice—at a later meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition.
Under the outcome adopted by the commission, the petitioner may proceed with the minor‑subdivision plat subject to filing for the waiver to the stub‑street requirement. Staff and commissioners said the waiver itself must be filed and noticed separately and will return to the commission for a standalone vote; if a waiver is denied in that future hearing, the conditions for street dedication or other remedies would be addressed at that time.
The commission’s action preserves the immediate step Hawkins sought—creation of five lots with two lots designated non‑buildable and intended to be combined with adjacent parcels—while keeping the question of whether a right‑of‑way must be dedicated under review through the waiver process. The meeting adjourned after the vote.
