Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I ain't got it. Found it. We've got to wait until 6 o'clock. Okay. Thank you, sir.

You need a better ink pen?

I'll bring you extras. Yeah, that's good. Is everybody on? We'll call the Board of Zoning Appeals July 16th, 2026. Call the meeting to order. Has everyone had a chance to read over the minutes of the previous meeting? Do I hear a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

I second.

Motion to be made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do we have anything else we need to add? Anything?

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion has been made to approve the agenda. Second? I'll second it. Tim seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. First item on the agenda is special question variance, five acre minimum in A1 Old Hillsboro Highway. Is someone here to present that? Aye. Okay. If you would come to the podium and just state your name and stuff for the audience.

Hey, good evening. Nicholas Northcutt with Northcutt Surveying. I'm representing Mr. Umbarger on this property. So after the last planning commission meeting I was informed that, you know, there are multiple paths for people to do minor divisions. That was something that I had brought up for discussion at the last planning commission meeting is, you know, what I felt like was supposed to be the intent of the new five acre minimum was to apply to major divisions. And so I had just asked that we bring up the discussion of you know, being able to just allow for minor divisions and keeping the five acre minimums in place, uh, for the major divisions and whatnot. Um, Um, and you know, I was informed, uh, at the meeting, you know, that you can do rezoning or you could do, uh, variances through special question. So that's why we're here this evening. And I've got a couple of copies of this thing if y'all need. Uh, but basically what it boils down to is, uh, Mr. Um, Barger's got a six acre piece of land that he has bought as investment property, and he seeks to subdivide it into four lots under the minus, uh, minor subdivision, um, as a minor subdivision. I had spoken with the water department. It's got a four-inch line on that road. It's just right off of Highway 41, probably not even more than, I think it's less than a quarter of a mile off Highway 41. Um, actually the property that's just on the other side of Waller lane, which bounds the east side of this property. I don't know if y'all want to look at this thing or not, but I remember Mr. Morris last time you wanted to see a sketch and whatnot. So I went ahead and took the liberty of preparing some stuff for y'all to look at. Thank you.

So Waller lane, that's over there on the east side.

That's a private drive that actually serves other property in the back. The property line actually extends to the middle of it. However, you don't have to go but one property over and it zones C1 because it fronts on the highway. So that's how close it is to the highway.

The Wells property?

I think I heard that that was Wells property. Well, green is next door. Green just purchased that one. I think it was partial seven there.

I'm on the other side.

Okay. Okay. Are you Ms. Johnson?

I'm down towards ADC road.

Gotcha. Okay.

So this is the property you purchased, correct? Or you're representing, correct?

That's correct. Yes. Okay. So anyway, as I was saying, I had spoken with the water department and there is a four inch line out there on that road. Spoke with Hillsville and he said there's plenty of pressure, more than enough to take care of this easily. I talked to the highway department and I went out there and personally measured it. The road ranges between 18 and 19 feet wide there and it's a nice black top surface. I spoke with the highway department and they said that there should be no issues whatsoever putting driveways on that portion and of course the traffic wasn't going to impact anything. Mr. Umbarger also went ahead and did soils work on this to make sure that all of the lots would function from a soil standpoint. Plenty of good soil. All the lots are more than the minimum lot size on that. And anyway, it's, you know, he's purchased it and it's, you know, it's, it's not gonna be farmed. And so, as I had said before, he purchased it for investment property and really it's gonna lay out for perfect lots out there, you know, should y'all decide to grant the variance. So anyway, I can answer any questions that y'all may have on that.

When was the property first purchased by Mr. Humburger?

It was purchased in February of 26.

When you say the soils area, all those four sites will perk?

Yeah, he's had a soil scientist out there, yeah.

And he does not own any of the land to the left or to the right?

That is correct. That's the only parcel that he has.

Okay, that's the only parcel on that.

Did this property have a hardship or did he just purchase it with the intent to develop it? That one.

No hardship.

Okay.

You say you went before the Planning Commission. What did they advise you?

Well, you know, what I had brought up in the discussion was, you know, just to allow for minor divisions. As I had said, I feel like that was the intent of the five-acre rule, and so I just wanted to get the discussion going on that, and they all said during the meeting that there was two pathways of doing that. that you could do the rezoning or you could do a variance. So, um, you know, the property wouldn't qualify for rezoning because it doesn't front on a major highway. Um, but I did, you know, contact the codes office afterwards because I had said during the meeting, you know, what you have to have a variance and a, and a hardship and it can only be for family and and then mister hunts said no it's not just family you know i wish people quit saying that but uh... uh... it's not just for family so i uh... i called the codes office the next day and just asked they're saying you can get a variance. That's what the Planning Commission keeps maintaining is that you can get a variance. And so I said, is there any other provision other than a hardship? And he said, yes, there's the special question. And I had never heard of that until I had called that day after the Planning Commission meeting. I had never heard that term, the special question. So anyway, that's when we decided to submit under that clause.

Mr. Northcutt, is this in the UGB by chance or is it outside of it? No, it's well outside of it. That's what I thought. Sometimes those little objects go pretty far out.

Yeah, yeah. No, I think UGB is way on up. It might be Love Lane or even west of there.

It's that far in, really? Yeah. I almost assumed it was probably closer out there.

Mm-mm.

What is the land prior to his purchasing of it? What was it used for? Was it a wooded lot? Was it? It was just vacant.

It was farming. Farming?

Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to get the facts. I'm not.

Making assumptions.

And basically they sold a portion off of the front?

Is that what they've done? Yes. Well, that was subdivided about 10 or 15 years ago.

But it was tracked up, but it was all one individual loaned it, correct?

Those three parcels that you're waving your hand on, those were part of it. Actually, the piece on the other side of the road was part of that original farm too, I believe. It makes sense. It makes sense.

And then Dale Green just purchased that. He's going to. It's going to stay ag land because he's going to put cattle on it.

Yeah, he actually also.

We're on the other part. Are you Mr. Johnson? Yeah, I'm the Demetries.

Demetries. You know where the hand's at?

Right there, that, and come back up this way. Come up the hill. This way? No, the other way. This way?

I can't see hills on here.

Where the house is. Okay. Right here? Right here. Right here, okay. We own 30 acres.

Counting both lots?

Correct.

Okay. And you guys are all A1 too?

Ours is going to sit all that way. Yes.

Well, the question I had is how did that get parceled off from the rest of this? Was it a family member divided up? Okay. My uncle got six. My aunt needed the 30 acres for us, and my cousin got the other on the other side, and that's six acres. So it was divided up at one time. Okay. Have you read the special question criteria, anything? No, I haven't. Did they not give you a copy? No, sir.

Okay.

The whole resolution would probably be good to look at, probably, because the whole resolution pretty much, just about everything in it covers this.

Mm-hmm.

Kendall, would you like to read it for our audience? If you don't mind.

It's pretty lengthy, but sure.

Yeah, or maybe somebody can pick up somewhere. When you let up, I'll take.

All right. I'm going to start with Amendment 1. It's under Article 10, and it'll be subsection 2A, and it lists off seven different criteria. And this is what it says here. A subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels of less than five acres in the A1 district may be permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals as a special question subject to the following conditions. This is what you were referencing a minute ago, what you were told. Number one of that is adding number four under section 10.7.0. parentheses e, special questions, parentheses variance. For the purpose of administration of the resolution, a special question shall be construed as synonymous with variance as controlled by section 13-7-109 of Tennessee code annotated. In section two of that, it talks about the standards of granting special question variances. Bullet A is a subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels of less than five acres in the A1 district may be permitted by the Zonal Appeals as a special question subject to the following conditions. Number one, minimum lot size and dimensional standard. Each proposed lot must meet a frontage width and setback requirements of the zoning district in which it's located unless a separate variance is granted. subject to the local subdivision regulations, which I'm assuming looks like that's what you've done here, met those setback standards. Number two, compatibility with the surrounding area. The subdivision shall be compatible with the character and density of the surrounding properties and shall not create a pattern of development that is inconsistent with the adopted land use plan or zoning intent. Section 3. Access and infrastructure. All lots have direct access to public street or an approved private drive. Adequate provisions shall be made for local utilities, drainage, and other necessary infrastructure as required by the local subdivision regulations. Number four, no adverse impact. The proposed subdivision shall not, A, increase traffic to a level that creates safety and capacity concerns. That's always an open-ended question there. B, contribute to an environmental degradation, including erosion or flooding. C, negatively affecting neighboring property values or the peaceful enjoyment of adjacent properties. Number five of that subsection agricultural or rule character consideration Where applicable the subdivision must be developed designed to preserve the rule or agricultural character of the area including shared access points flag lot considerations if allowed or clustering to reduce fragmentation of open land of six was that review of the planning commission that they were reference in the mendigo of the proposed subdivision may be subject to review or recommendation by the planning commission prior to final action by the zoning board of zoning appeals seven is plat approval approval of the special questions does not substitute for plat approval also divisions must comply with applicable regulations including the subject submission of a preliminary and or final plat as required. And that's the end of that section.

Thank you, Kendall, for reading that. It has to meet all those criteria. Do we have any more questions for Mr. Northcutt?

I do not.

I feel like with the other houses in the area and the fact that the lot sizes are larger, that it definitely fits the compatibility. I don't think it's going to be a safety issue based on what the highway department said. The infrastructure is more than adequate. It's close to the highway. I don't feel like it would be an impediment in that area. And I think it would definitely help with people's property values.

Well, I beg to differ because there's four properties – and down the road around none of them are all of them are over six to eight acres i'm i'm just guessing by the size of them uh and i don't see anything that is a one acre lot or or even a two acre lot uh this here is but i'm sure the same person owns this as owns this uh we can sign that right quick no not that one I own the open land someone else owns the house but that has been there a long time yes yes I mean is that the Shelton house okay that would be the only lot that I see that would be even close to it and it's on a different road but does anyone else have anything for Mr. Umbarger I mean not Mr. Umbarger would anyone else like to speak in for public comments he gets pretty much unlimited time the public comments is a two-minute thing and try to keep it under that if anyone would like to speak okay if you would you you're gonna have to come to the mic and state your name

My name's Wanda Wales. I own property right there next to it, 31 acres. I'd like to see it just stay one lot. Don't see the need to have it divided up into one acre lots and four houses.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Yes, my name is John Demetri and I'm like Ms. Wells. I'd like to see it stay that way because our ag land is what we bought it for and all. And you know if you put subdivision in there or new houses and stuff, you're gonna have a lot of chemicals sprayed, fertilizer and all this kind of stuff and in these new houses and stuff, if they're not used to this kind of stuff, they gonna be yelling at us. Well, we got a right to have our own life and all that too. I don't feel that they should take it. So I agree with Mrs. Wells. I'd like to see it stay ag land.

You have the right to farm. Yes, sir. When did you say he purchased this?

February 26th, this year.

We purchased ours in 2010.

When did we go to the five acres?

May last year.

Of 2025? Yes. May of 2025. Yes.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak? y'all got any other discussion or before we proceed to call the question call a question question has been called do i hear a motion to approve or disapprove

When I read the first part of the page, it sort of fits the split. But when you go to the back of the page and keep in rule, rule, and I guess the one thing that he bought it almost a year after the moratorium went in. Am I correct on that?

I'm not exactly sure.

Okay. He bought it in February and it went in May before that.

What I'm saying is number two, number four, and number five is not and doesn't pass, but that's my vote.

The compatibility and hardship are number five. I don't control. Number two. So there's no hardship for why you said that it cannot be farmed? We need facts of why, you know.

He didn't purchase it for farming.

Okay.

I don't with me, but the codes office can probably print you off one. Question has been called.

So you're saying that because it drops down to less than two acres, it doesn't fit in with the surrounding?

Yeah, that's my opinion.

So if the lots were two acre lots, that would...

I would say that they would be, my personal opinion on compatibility is three adjacent properties away. If you've got something within three adjacent lots away, that is... the same road in the same area within a quarter of a mile if you've got lots that size that's where compatibility comes in yeah but it's not on the same Does anyone know who that is?

Is that Love Lake?

No, sir. It's Donna Ross Road.

Rain pasture land or something?

Adams Road.

Is that written somewhere, the within three properties? No, sir.

No, sir. It's in interpretation.

Gotcha. I can't think of that lady's last name.

And that house has been there for several years. A long time. Best I remember.

A long time. And it's been, you know.

one person owning it for a long time yeah because i remember when dale green lived back there yeah um he owned that whole area right there and dale green on the other side of that lane uh he's uh as i say he's he's putting cattle in there he's fixing the fence and all he's already Well, the thing is, everything surrounding there, everything on Old Hillsboro Highway is farming. Yes, ma'am. And we hate to see it change. So if he comes back in with a three lot,

Do we have to go through this process again, or can you all go ahead and grant the variance for a free lot, seeing as how it meets that compatibility, then we can submit the plat and meet all those other requirements?

I don't see, and I'm speaking for myself, I personally don't see that it meets any kind of variance underneath these criteria, because that is a rural area. You know, if it was in a subdivision and there was a lot on the edge of a subdivision, that would be, you know, three consecutive lots.

That's Blue Spring.

That's Blue Spring. It's up off the highway.

But it comes off the highway and it's totally different. Yeah, I'm just...

It seems like some of that's a little subjective. It is. And I know that's up to y'all's interpretation, but there's lots of other folks there with houses. They're not on lots that small, but they've been able to get a house and live out in Hillsboro.

I understand that.

build a nice home and put it right there on that acreage and sell it like that well that was my understanding yeah yeah hold on a second

all right i'm going to make the motion that as of right now we deny it because of two four and five and two being compatibility with the surrounding areas about not having any there's no smaller lots down through that road what was the other two items four and two four and five on no adverse impact which that's i can pull that back out two and five I mean, some people can argue it's going to be adverse impact. You can argue that it's not. It's just subjective to what it is.

What is number five?

Five is the agriculture characteristics, agriculture rule characteristics of the community, of the applicable subdivision. And there is like a grain right down here, right?

And let me read one more thing. It says the purpose of the variance is not to increase the financial value of the property or maximize the development potential. The board must find property-specific hardship not specifically tied to financial value.

So we need – A hardship to get a variance.

Yes, that's – For this.

So – For any of them. I mean, it applies alone stating that it cannot be specifically for financial gain.

Alone.

Alone, right. this point there's no hardship that we've seen to be able to justify anything we have you know if it doesn't meet some of the criteria we have to have specific hardship and that's what most of the cases that we've seen there it's either a weird lot where they can't farm it or something else there's some sort of hardship tied to this land we can't we can't justify any kind of hardship to what's right there let me get a second

Yeah, let me get a second on this motion so we can actually do it correctly. Do I have a second on this motion to decline it? And I'm not trying to rush, I'm just trying to keep everything in order. I'll second. Okay, so it's been seconded. Now further discussion can be made.

Is this the latest resolution?

This is one of my notes that I made from the last meeting where I can go back and look at the resolution and tell you what you know. Let's make sure they didn't take that out of the amendment.

Hey, Tim, did you guys, when you made this amendment, do you remember, was that the financial portion of it? Was it taken out or is it still in there?

No, the Planning Commission made the amendment.

Right.

I'm not on the Planning Commission. Oh, that's right, the Planning Commission.

It was your notes, wasn't it?

And that's what's in my notes.

I'm sorry to say it again, but did I understand correctly that if for some reason you do not meet all of the criteria, if you have a hardship, that would be when the hardship comes into place. But without a hardship, if it did meet the criteria, then that would be grounds for variance.

You have to have hardship and meet criteria. at least one or two of these, mostly cases.

So you have to have a hardship for any variance, period?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Did it say that? Well, let me go back, and I'll tell you where it says.

Farmers use their land to make money, so the people that cut it up.

But it's already grandfathered in.

You could sell the six acres and build one house on it. Well.

well that's where the problem with that well not problem but that's where the zoning that that was already in a1 those were established rules in that a1 for that that particular reason that a1 area is not designed for density housing which would be an rs1 or one of the other levels right so that's where that part they're talking about comes in it it because you purchase it for an investment, it may be an investment as an agricultural property, but not for a subdivision necessarily. That's not the design for A1. So that's the interpretation we have to take of that, because that's what the description of A1 property is.

there's a lot of property in c1 and c1 and as you said all the way down hillsborough highways c1 and they can uh divide that so and he bought it after after almost nine months after so knowing that so

Not in my opinion. It's just turning the land over.

Because whenever you take it out of agriculture, you become a development.

Okay, so let me read this. A variance is intended for exceptionally irregular, narrow, shallow, steep plots or another exceptional physical condition to create a hardship.

That's the hardship portion. Right. Those things.

That's what I'm saying. What creates a hardship is the land type, exceptionally irregular, narrow, shallow, steep lots, or another exceptional physical condition.

So there again, so if you meet all those other criteria, would it be grounds for a variance, or do you still have to have a hardship? hardship is in place for if your land doesn't allow or if there's other reasons like the shape of it or the terrain or something like that there is a clause in there to help with that which would be the hardship but if you don't have a hardship and you're meeting the other requirements is that grounds for appearance i don't think so

Do you?

This is what I just read. So give me just a second.

I'm going to read this section right here too, Sammy. Okay. It's under our... 10.80, it's guidelines for variances. I'm just gonna jump right to section D, which is standards for variance. This is what you were talking about, the things you would need to get a variance. In granting a variance, the board shall ascertain that the following criteria are met. One, variances shall be granted only where special circumstances or conditions fully described in the finding of the board do not apply generally in the district. that's hard to describe that one but that's where one lot may be a little ostracized compared to the other lots that are in that area for some reason it will just didn't fall in the proper zoning to variances shall not be granted to allow a use otherwise excluded from the particular district in which it's requested Right. Right, so we couldn't invent a variance for something commercial and something like that. It's not intended for that area. Correct. Three, for reasons fully set forth in the findings by the board, the aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this resolution would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of the land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance. there must be a deprivation of beneficial use of the land. Where does that fall in, right? So that whole mere loss of value does not necessarily, that's what I was talking about with the volume indigo. That guidance right there says, well, we can't consider the fact that it was used solely for an investment property. We can't weigh on our mind with this. It has to go along with the area it belongs in. Four, the granting of any variance shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this resolution and shall not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare, or in conflict with the comprehensive plan for the development. That's where they were talking about this. There's nothing around this that is divided in that way, short of the Blue Springs, which is off the highway or closer to town. Five in reviewing the application for this a variance the burden of showing that the variant should be granted shall be upon the persons applying thereof therefore That's what you're doing. Anyway Six the variances shall not be granted with any flood prone area or increase of level of the 100-year flood That will be in proposed development. That's probably not issue here I That's where I'm referencing those things for is that there's a couple of those there. You see how they fit what they were talking about? Yes. For standards for variance. And that's, I think, where most of us feel like we can't. We don't have any doorway to walk through to get to that variance for that piece of property. I think is what I'm trying to get everybody on that. For this application. For this application, yep.

Tim has made a motion to decline this. Anna has seconded. Is there any other discussion that needs to be made? All in favor to decline the motion, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? It fails. Sorry. We apologize.

We look at these things, Nick, and we try to find every, you know, we're not shorting anybody as best as we can, but you see how they kind of boxed in pretty hard on something like that. Nope, I see it.

I appreciate y'all's time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the ingenium variance request. Lot access does not but a public road. Deer Trace Road. Is there anybody here to present that?

And I didn't have that on the agenda online, so I didn't have it queued up already.

Is this the one that's from last month also? Yes, sir. And it got postponed. Okay. Yes, sir.

Youngest first birthday, so I had to apologize. So my name is Jeff DeGraw. I'm looking for an access variance from section 2.030 of the zoning resolution so that I can build one single family home on this existing 4.58 acre tract. The property was created and recorded in 1974 and the recorded restrictions identify residential use as its primary use. The issue is not the proposed use of the property, the issue is that the existing subdivision road does not meet the county's current definition of a public street. Without the variance, the property cannot be used for its reasonable residential purpose and would be left with very limited practical use consistent with the way it was originally created. I'm not asking to subdivide the property, build multiple homes, use it commercially, or require the county to accept them or maintain the road. I'm simply asking for the minimum relief necessary to allow one home.

So this lot was created in 1974. Yes, sir. And your access is just on somebody else?

It's Deer Trace Road. Well, it's... listed on the plan about the plot here the county has not accepted uh... who owns the room that's a good question it's dedicated to public use there's not a tax bill on it i can't find any ownership of it is there uh... so no ownership of it not to my knowledge not that i can find a talk to the uh... the tax assessor's office of talk to the register of deeds Nobody can identify an owner.

Does anybody drive up and down it now?

There's currently three residents along that road. And if you can pull it up, it'll...

I'm struggling to pull it up.

When were those residents built? I mean, are they...

I don't know the exact... I would say early 2000s.

Okay. So before codes, probably? Presumably so, yes, sir.

is anyone here that if you search uh 171 deer trace road it should pull up the neighboring property And I've got this plat as well.

Have you reached out to the county for them to take this road, and they're not willing to because they don't know who the owner is?

They won't take it because it's not paved and curved. That's what I'm wondering. Okay.

So it's all kind of hard to read, but you can see where it's dedicated to public use. It's a right-of-way, and it's sawn off on, and everything was sawn off on.

So this is Boynton Valley Road back here? Yes, sir. Okay. And the church is right here?

That's correct.

Are there more open lots down through there that aren't sold?

There's open lots. There's a house.

How did you get a deed to it? Is what I'm wondering if it's landlocked and no access.

Well, no one knows it's landlocked. All things point to this being an actual road, and then I found out later through planning that it's not a county road. Everything points to it being a road.

Is there water back there?

There's water, there's power.

If you would go to the mic so that way everybody can hear you. Yeah, I'm sorry. Because I'm getting texts that people can't hear you speak.

There is water and there is power. Yes, sir. So there's Manchester City water or Hillsville?

West Warren.

West Warren.

Would be back there? So they ran a four-way water line back there? There's a line.

I talked to them. They... They said putting a meter in is not a problem. There's a power line on the corner of the property. How did they get? And electricity comes back through there? Yes, sir.

Well, then there has to be some record of an easement.

Well, I would think, and there very well could be, yes.

Okay. Sir, you in the back have been raising your hand.

Well, a lot of things I'm asking, I can answer. Okay, come up here.

Can you come up here, please?

That's fine. Oh, I was just waiting my turn.

Yeah. Well, that's fine. Are you with him?

No, sir. I'm Key Adcock, and I live at 171 Deer Trace Road. Thank you. Okay.

Nice to meet you, buddy. Nice to meet you, sir.

So, as a matter of fact, I own 171 Deer Trace. There's five acres there with that house. And across the road, 176 Deer Trace. There's 15 acres with that property, okay? I own both those properties. Okay. The stuff y'all were talking about, 20 years ago, I tried to get the county to ask the county. They'd take that road. They wouldn't take the road. I was told when I bought my property, because I stayed on my realtor for three weeks before I purchased this property 25 years ago. What's the deal with the road? What's the deal with the road? Is it a county road? Well, at closing, I have to sign this paper that says I'm responsible for the upkeep of the road to the center of the road in front of my property. So you live across the road, you're responsible. That road used to go all the way through to North Boynton Road. Ended up in a lawsuit years ago with Mr. Bill Cardin. It was part of that. He bought land that joined them. Anyway, the judge let him put a gate. So the road's a dead end now, okay? And so the water line that's there, I paid for that. I paid West Warren to run that water line up there. It's a two-inch one.

So it's not a West Warren. It's a West Warren line, but you haven't paid for it. So it's not a public. Here's how that went.

They wanted to put my meter at the end of the road down by the church. and me run the water line up there. I'm a, I'm a state, uh, contractor. I'm electrical contractor. They told me because I was a state contractor, I could run the water line up there. Okay. Well, it was only a couple hundred more bucks for them to run it than to me run it. So they agreed to run the water line up there and I'm not going to say it was a mistake, but, uh, I could have had them just leave my meter at the end of the road, and that would be my water line, period, okay? So I have talked to West Warren about the water line. They said they do put several taps on a two-inch water line, okay? So my thing is, you know, I've been there 25 years. I've put gravel on that road twice, and I take care of the road now. It's the only person that's ever took care of the road. Yes, sir. I paid for the water line. West Warren says... So if he gets this variance, I'm going to want a couple of them because I've got property across the road. I've got two five acre lots over there. I tried this several years ago and I was told I couldn't do that because the road did not meet county specs. Somebody was going to have to pay to make that road up to county spec. Then I could sell it to a contractor and he could go in there and build houses. This was before they had the five acre thing and all that. Because of that, I've lived there 25 years and To me, this particular variance, I've learned a lot up here tonight, so this particular variance is all about financial gain. That's all it is. I know what the land's sold for, I know who bought it, I know what this guy or whoever paid for it back in February, and I know what they're asking for it, okay? So if this variance goes through, they give 80 80 grand for that lot and they're got they're asking 140 for it okay 129 for it so to me it's all about financial now whether you do that or not like i said if you do that this time i'm going to be looking for a couple of them at some point and at some point so i've got a neighbor that also has i know at least one five acre lot that's on uh on down the end there and um I don't know. West Warren told me that if enough housing was built in there that the water line would have to be changed. They are not going to do that. Somebody has to pay to make that water line bigger.

But nobody owns the right-of-way is what we're looking at.

As far as I know, I've never been told anybody owns it. Do you pay taxes on it?

You pay taxes on the road?

Not that I know of. I can't believe the property assessor has let that go and somebody's not. Yeah, it looks like an easement is what it looks like.

But somebody has to have on the easement.

Right. The title to it. But looking at how it cuts out from the road, it looks like it's on the same thing as the regular road there, see? It's not cut out. Is that where the hand is there? Mm-hmm. Interesting.

Yeah, that's it. And it used to go, it used to go, if your hand goes on up, right there, yeah, it used to turn right, right there and go, go right and come out over there, right there on North Boynton. North Fork. And now there's a gate at the end, when you first turn on the deer trace up here, down off of Boynton Valley, yeah, at the end, if you go straight up all the way to the end, right there, there's a gate right there, right now. So there's people that live further back than you? On the left, right there, you see both my properties have the red roofs. Yes, sir, that's it right there. How did they get an easement? That place was there when I bought my place.

So it was grandfathered in. I don't have a clue.

That was originally Boynton.

So that was his driveway? No, the property was. No, it wasn't a driveway there.

It was actually called Boynton Subdivision, and our 15 acres across from where we lived was actually three to five acre plots. Okay. But at some point it got put all back together, and then we bought it from the lady that owned it. Okay.

But the question that we have at hand here is you don't have a, we don't know who owns it. The road. Owns the road.

No, sir, we don't.

Okay.

I don't. I mean, I can just say I don't. um the only the only i know i'm supposed to be responsible for the upkeep of it to the center of the road do you have do you do you know who even said who even declared that you need to have the upkeep to it well we can probably find the documentation it's 25 years old we signed a piece of paper at our closing okay when we bought a house in five acres okay

I understand. This might be worse than the TUA. Yes.

And I went back and watched that as well. It's very similar, yes.

Well, except we actually kind of knew who had that one. They had an Eastman.

Well, I would argue that. This is dedicated to public use and provides access to all the lots.

But you have to have a paper that says that. That lady came back and brought the paper showing who's the easement. We can't just sign off on an unknown property when we don't know who owns the actual easement.

Yeah, there has to be ownership of the road by some entity, whether it's 10 foot. Now, what I've been... I've run into this years ago. um and this was early on my board and i'm going off a recollect so don't hold me to anything but i think there is a state law that says no land can be landlocked and a judge only by the court appeals can grant a easement where they don't know who owns the property that would have to go through the legal bout. We can't do that here.

Can you do a title search at the Register of Dates office? I'm sure you've done that.

You've done a title search. There's no... It's like it just got lost in, I guess, no man's land.

You're not... Trust me. We've run into this years ago, I think. Well, Laurel was the only one. He's not here tonight. But... and he could probably state it word for word for me, but to my recollecting that you can go to a court, you'll have to ask more lawyer fee, lawyer, but in a court document will grant an easement. Now, whether that easement is just 10 foot, then I think you can come back here and get a, variance then, but you have to have, somebody has to have ownership of this to grant an easement. And he would grant that.

So either get, I'm sorry. Well, the problem would come in is if later on they might find stuff and say the property at the very back back there, that big flag lot is at the back. They own that, they happen to own that easement. They don't want to give you. So they want to put a fence down through that. It creates a problem with those lots right there. I understand. So then it would become that same problem he's talking about. You'd have to go get granted an easement, a forced easement somehow to make that happen.

I mean, we can't just give a variance for that, my personal opinion, and I'm just wondering.

So I need either the courts to grant me an easement or... The course to rule that that is access.

That young lady came back with her easement.

Sure. Yeah, she did. And it was on her deed.

Yeah.

And that's where yours should be, or if it's on the deed.

Well, I've got the deed, and it just says it abuts North Fort Boynton Valley Road, which is now known as Deer Trace Road.

In the county, the county... road department never accepted that road.

Correct.

So it's like it's got out of order.

Somebody made these things before the approval was done for the road.

Well, that was done back in 74.

Yeah. It was a little bit before.

Or you can bring the road up to code and...

But you still don't know who owns the road. Right.

The first thing is somebody needs to come up with ownership of the ground and there's an easement. There should be an easement to your lot, even written by Mr. Boynton back there, back when all that was developed. Because Boynton Valley all was developed by them.

Yeah, I mean.

Evidently he didn't do a good job of recording deeds.

Apparently not. I mean, you know, if a road is dedicated to public use, it's a public right-of-way. As on the recorded plat, that would, to me, that would indicate.

There ought to be another, that road ought to be recorded someplace.

I wonder if he could research that at the hallway department.

He probably, he's trying. Have you been to Benton Bartlett's? We've spoken with them. Okay.

When I originally started looking into all this, we went to the Register of Deeds office and she said, no problem, we'll call the highway department and get it taken care of real quick. And that obviously wasn't the case.

And they probably don't have copies of it anyway. You don't remember the name of the company that you got to register your deed? Or like closing?

Oh, it was, I can't remember the name. I got an email somewhere. Okay.

Like Bell and Gateway. I mean, there's several around Manchester. I was just curious. Okay. Is there any more questions?

So instead of, obviously, you're moving towards denial here. Can we defer it and let me try to get more information on that?

Well, here's what we have to do. We have to make a yes or no decision because it was brought before us. Okay. If we turn it down, we can put in our motion that he's able to come back if he finds information. And not charged. And not charged. Okay. But that has to be in the motion. And I can't make a motion.

I'm going to make a motion to deny it, but leave it open for him to come back if and when the proper paperwork that substantiates the ownership of the road. And I don't know which ones knock it out. Kendall, you had them.

Or an easement? Yes, sir.

Or an easement. With no fee? With no fee. Okay.

And we apologize, but that's...

I've never seen anything quite like this situation right here.

I've seen it one other time. Access and infrastructure off of Article 10, Section 10.70E.

All right, I'm going to listen to that. 10.70E.

Subsection 2, Roman numeral 2, Article 5 in that. Article 5. I'm sorry. I'll apologize. Back up.

three Oracle three access and I am putting in my notes that I that I've made the motion that there is no fee if he returns with Proper documentation.

Can you can you repeat what you just said?

Okay, so the one that I'm referencing is Article 10 section 10.7. Oh Prince easy That's how the County Board of Zoning Appeals zoning resolution. It'll be subsection 2, Roman numeral 2. And it will be A, access to infrastructure.

All lots have direct access to a public street or approved private drive. Adequate provisions shall be made for local utilities, drainage. And see, that gets into... that local utility thing. But if there's an easement down the road, even if West Warren wants to put your meter at the back there on Boynton Valley, you can run that if you have that easement.

This is one thing I keep running across every time we talk about this stuff is all properties are not created equal and they're not all perfect for everything. Some are better suited for one thing as another. Not all properties are good subdivisions and some are great subdivisions. You have to figure out which ones are what sometimes.

I have a motion to deny by Tim. Do I have a second? I second. I second by Kendall. Any further discussion? Thank you. I guess no further discussion. All in favor to deny, say aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

All in. Okay. Motion is denied. Anything else? If not, I hear the motion to adjourn. So moved. Tim? I second. Second.

We're in a second. Thank you. Don't matter.