Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Replat Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anderson City Plan Commission denies PR Properties’ Lot 201 replat and variance request
Summary
The Anderson City Plan Commission voted to deny PR Properties’ request to replat Lot 201 into two undersized lots and to grant a variance from the 6,000 sq ft minimum, citing a condemned structure, substandard lot sizes (2,000–3,500 sq ft under minimum), and concerns about setting a precedent.
The Anderson City Plan Commission on July 28 denied petition 5-26, a request from PR Properties to replat Lot 201 (Southwest corner of West 3rd and Locust) into two separate lots and to accept a variance from the city’s 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size. Commissioner (speaker 1) moved to deny the replat and adopt the staff findings; the motion passed following debate.
Planning staff presented the application and recommended denial, telling the commission that both proposed Lots 201A and 201B would fall “2,000 to 3,500 square feet below the minimum lot size requirement” and that the smaller, rear structure has been condemned and placed on the city’s demolition list. “Staff wise, we are recommending denial of this proposed 2-lot replat,” the staff presenter said. The staff report also noted that approval could create an “undesirable precedent” because the neighborhood contains primarily larger lots.
Jonathan Cook, attorney for PR Properties, acknowledged the condemnation but urged the commission to consider local precedent and the practical barriers to securing financing for repairs. “This is not a precedent because the precedent’s already been set,” Cook said, citing other small lots in the neighborhood he said are lawfully nonconforming and providing multiple addresses and square-foot estimates to support that point. Cook argued investors needed clear parceling so they could obtain mortgages to repair the deteriorated house.
Commissioners questioned whether the condemnation should be resolved before the subdivision request and whether approval could be made conditional so repairs would be required. Members debated whether the commission had authority to attach enforceable, revocable conditions; one commissioner summarized the concern as whether the commission would be creating small vacant parcels that could lead to tax-sale complications if repairs were not completed.
A motion to deny petition 5-26 carried. Commissioners discussed the possibility of refiling and referenced an ordinance lapse period (several members mentioned roughly a one-year window) for when a petition could return. The commission also confirmed the decision on this replat remains within the commission’s jurisdiction and would not automatically go to city council.
The denial leaves the condemned structure on the pending demolition list and the owner with options to either pursue repairs outside the replat process or return to the commission later with additional documentation or changes to the proposal.
