Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Frontage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables request to cut road frontage for Neer Road parcel amid engineer safety concerns
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals tabled Upper Valley Transport LLC’s request to reduce road frontage from 150 feet to 40 feet (with a 120-foot alternate) for a 13.17‑acre Neer Road parcel after the county engineer flagged sight-line and access problems; the applicant will pursue an easement and return to the board.
The Clark County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 28 tabled an applicant’s request to reduce required road frontage for a new lot on Neer Road after the county Engineer’s Office expressed safety concerns.
Applicant Chad Phillips asked the board to allow the rear lot of a 13.17‑acre parcel at 5333 Neer Rd. to be split with as little as 40 feet of frontage (he also presented an alternate 120‑foot option and a plan that would give the rear parcel access via an easement). County staff, citing the Engineer’s Office, said the recommended frontage in the A‑1 Agricultural District is 150 feet and that new access points in the curve near the property would worsen sight‑line issues. The Engineer’s Office did not recommend approval and noted additional access was not supported.
Phillips said he surveyed options to use the existing driveway and that financing problems — "the buildings on the northern parcel were making it so that the parcel could not be sold with a conventional loan because of how much they were worth" — motivated the split. Board members and staff repeatedly told Phillips that any new or shared driveway would require separate approval by the Engineer’s Office and that BZA approval alone would not guarantee a driveway permit.
After discussion the board voted to table the case for up to 60 days or until the July meeting to allow the applicant to pursue an easement with a neighboring property owner and to obtain clearer input from the Engineer’s Office. Motion to table carried unanimously (motion by Breanne Parcels; seconded by Tom Frank). The applicant was advised to coordinate with staff and the Engineer before returning to the board.
The variance will remain pending while staff and the applicant attempt to resolve access concerns; if the applicant cannot secure an approved driveway or easement, a future BZA approval would be moot.
