Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

this morning guide us in what we do help us to glorify you and everything we ask that you be with those who serve us in uniform all these things we ask in the name of jesus amen amen please stand for the pledge of allegiance

All right. Tabby, maybe we have our minutes. Any approval? Call for a motion.

Motion to approve.

I'll second.

Second. Oh.

She got it. It's all good.

Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Activity reports?

Everyone. So this month you have actually May and June reports. So your activity reports for site-built and manufactured homes are shown obviously over the last several years. So you'll see site-built in green, manufactured in blue. Just another same chart, just kind of zoomed in a little bit. So we are also finished with the second quarter of the calendar year. So you'll see consistent numbers from previous years. Are your manufactured home permits? So for pipeline, we have two months worth of pipeline. We did have two project submittals in May for a total of 192 new lots. Those projects are Ashton Farms, Council District 5, School District 1, and got them at Spires Pond, Phases 1 and 2, Council District 1 and School District 2. For June, we had four submittals. Two of those were municipal projects for 255 lots. Projects unincorporated for 536 lots. So those projects for June were Mulberry Farms. That's a pillion project. It's Council District 1, School District 1. Ponside Manor, Council District 1, School District 1. Serenity Lake, Council District 5, School District 1. And Woodlawn. forward to concurrency reviews. We have two months there as well. May, we approved two projects to move forward with full submittals. That's Huckabee Mill. That was school district four. Boozer Farm, or excuse me, Boozer 43 track, that's school district five. And for June, we had three. It's Charlie Ross Road track, that's school district four. Goodwin track, school district four. And B&T Sand, which is school district one.

THE ONES THAT CAME THROUGH IN JUNE THAT ARE THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, THOSE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH WITH US ON CONCURRENCY?

IF WE LOOK BACK THROUGH, IT'S KIND OF A SMALL SHOT THERE. SERENITY LAKE, They had to make it through concurrency to be formal submittals. Okay. I didn't see it. That's why I was. It may have been, I guess, in the last cycle. You're right. I don't see them on those assessments. But I can get those dates for you.

All right. Hearing no other questions, we'll move on to the private road subdivision variance.

Good morning. The private road variance this morning is regarding Patrick David Court. That's an existing private road. Dwayne Kaiser owns approximately 8.5 acres identified by TMS number 006400-03-008. This parcel is addressed as 1402 Robert Hendricks Road in Lexington. The property also has frontage on Patrick David Court, which is an existing privately maintained road located off of Freda Road. Mr. Kaiser would like to subdivide the parcel and create a separate parcel of 1.4 acres as you see on the sketch. There's an existing home addressed as 1402 Robert Hendricks Road, and this portion, though, would use Patrick David Court for access. Mr. Kaiser's existing parcel is shown as parcel two on a plat that was recorded in 1973, and you'll see that as exhibit A in your packets. This was recorded prior to the adoption of both the private road policy and the access policy. The plat indicated that the access would be from Robert Hendricks Road. Patrick David Court was first shown on a plat that was recorded in August of 1978. This plat states that the strip of land designated on the plat as a 50-foot ingress and egress is a private roadway. It was signed by Mr. Kaiser as an adjoining property owner. There has never been a road maintenance agreement recorded for this road. However, Mr. Kaiser has submitted a draft of the agreement and has received support from neighboring parcel owners and their willingness to sign the agreement. Again, on the screen, you'll see that's the sketch area shaded in green where he would like to create that parcel. Some aerial photos we have of the site, just a little closer view, and here you'll see the Patrick David Court that enters from Farida Road. Again, that's showing the proposed portion of 1.4 acres. We do have some video, of course, some photography first on Frieda Road at Patrick David Court. They do have signage in place. This is looking into Patrick David Court, and this is from the property, the house location looking back toward Frieda. They do have signage in place along Patrick David that indicates where You can get to the homes that are using Robert Hendricks as an address. And this is the home that he would like to subdivide. We do have a video of the road. I have to start that for me, Rebecca. I don't think I can. Okay, there it goes. While that's playing, I'll read this standards into record. A, there are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to this property. I am requesting to subdivide my property to the family that has been renting my house for the last seven years. He will purchase the house and the plot once subdivided. The remainder of the land I will keep in my name. B, these conditions are specific to this property and are not shared by neighboring properties in the area. C, since the private road is non-conforming, the property cannot be subdivided unless the variance is approved or the road brought to compliance. I know compliance of the road would include paving since it is accessed from a paved public road. Paving the road would be at the expense of the owner, so this would not be a feasible option. The requested variance would allow the property to be used in a practical and beneficial manner while still maintaining the intent of the subdivision ordinance. D, granting this variance will not negatively impact neighboring properties, traffic, drainage, utilities, or public safety. The subdivision will remain consistent with the character of the surrounding area and will not reduce the quality of life for nearby residents. E, this request is not based solely on financial considerations. The variance is requested because of the current tenant of the home would like to purchase the home and the lot surrounding it. And at this point is where if you go to the right, that would be going to the house in question. To the left, I believe, is the property owned by Mr. Kaiser's daughter. Straight ahead is another parcel that's using this road for access. And Mr. Kaiser is here today, I believe, if you have specific questions for him or if there's anything that I can answer for you.

I have the road width our minimum standards 18 feet of surface in packet indicates 14 feet in your video it appeared to be just wide enough to drive your vehicle down so is it 14 feet

We did measure it at a couple different locations. Of course, we didn't measure the whole way through. But yeah, there is a lot of areas that you could, where the gravel is at, you would still be able to get over into the grass area for a vehicle to pass as well. You know, I noted the point of the turnaround. You'll see on the end of the video where we came to that, you know, it's not a platted cul-de-sac or anything, but there would be, it seems to be that there would be a sufficient space for vehicles to turn around and pass each other. Maybe not on the gravel, but it is.

Was there a copy of the private road maintenance agreement?

Yes, sir. It's in your packet. I can tell you what that exhibit is. Exhibit C. And again, this is just a draft. If the variance is approved, then we always advise applicants to seek their legal advice to get this completed. But it would be a requirement that this be recorded prior to a plat being approved and recorded.

We approve this variance. What portions of the private road policy and such are they not meeting? How are they not complying?

Well, it wasn't built to a county road standard, for one. And as he mentioned in his standards, if it's accessed from a paved public road, then the private road is also to be paved. It does not have the platted turnaround.

So we would be approving a 14-foot width versus 18. We'd be approving no specific turnaround, even though there is space to turn around, yes. And we'd be approving non-paved versus paved. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And through this policy, they get a maximum of 10 lots. This would only make it five. Which... I know that there may not be any plans currently, but if it were to be further subdivided, it could cause a problem.

They're renting, he's renting the house now to somebody that's been there for seven years. You're not changing anything other than giving this guy homeownership opportunity.

Sorry, are we approving the... And a private road, or are we approving a subdivision? It's already an existing road.

It's an existing private road that was established prior to the adoption of the access policy. I mean, excuse me, the private road policy. So, of course, everything can continue to exist as it is.

So any future division would have to come back here again?

You could make that as part of if you want to make a motion to approve it, then that can be a condition of your approval. Otherwise, if it's approved, then that technically would allow up to 10 lots to be created because the policy does allow 10 lots to be accessed from an unpaved private road.

I guess that was my question. Are we voting to approve this as an official private road? In which it would allow 10 lots to be on the road?

Yes, yes. If this variance is approved, then that would allow, since it's approved as an unpaved road off of a paved public road, then the policy allows up to 10 lots to be created. But we have historically had cases where Planning Commission would state that further subdividing is required to come back to Planning Commission.

And I think that was my point is, Current, like what Megan was saying, current to what we're looking at now, not much change. But if they get a maximum up to 10 lots, then I would have concerns.

But you could approve the division of the lot on a still non-conforming private right?

Any future.

Any future would have to come back.

Would have to come back to Planning Commission.

But that would have to be the condition of the approval. Correct.

That would be the direction I would lean, I think.

How are they meeting the requirements of a variance hall, the various standards, one or more standards of variance? That's the only question I've got.

I do feel like they meet most all of them. If not all of them, I think because it's, I mean, originally some of the nonconformities were from so long ago. THERE WASN'T THAT PROVISION IN PLACE. SOME OF IT KIND OF GRANDFATHERED IN. NOW, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH THE WIDENING SURFACE WITH, I'M NOT SURE, BUT ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THEY MEET THE STANDARDS AS IS, MINUS THOSE NONCONFORMITIES, BUT SOME OF THOSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE SO OUT OF DATE. As long as, I feel like as long as there's, for this current situation, as long as we know that we see it again, should there be any further lots with that concern, it comes back to us and then we can maybe make amendments to it, then it's already being utilized in this way for the most part anyway.

And they said it's been used that way for seven years, right?

Rented, yeah, but...

Nothing's really changing.

no someone want to make a mission or shall i go for it um i'd like to make a motion to approve The private red subdivision variance as listed on the condition that any changes to subdivision, addition of lots, come back to the Planning Commission for further review. All the standards of variance.

It meets all of them?

I feel like they do. Okay. But if there needs to be discussion, we can make discussion for sure. Hearing none.

Commissioner Shealy. Yes. Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Approved.

Thank you.

Access Policy Variance?

The access policy variance this morning is on property owned by Amanda Lynn McWaters. Ms. McWaters currently owns 3.12 acres on Volleydale Drive in Gilbert, which is near the intersection of Two Knotts Road and Juniper Springs Road. She would like to subdivide the parcel and deed a .90 acre portion to her son. There is an existing 50-foot easement that currently serves three landlocked parcels, including the parcel that Ms. McWatters owns. She would like to use the same easement to access the proposed portion. Where the easement begins is owned by Michael McWatters, and he has provided consent to the variance request. A variance is needed to items two, three, and 14 of the access policy. Item two states, if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may only be designated over one parcel. Item 3 states if an access easement is used to provide a driveway for a landlocked parcel, that access easement may not serve another landlocked parcel. Since the new configuration will result in five tiers, a variance to item 14 is needed. Item 14 states no more than two three-tiered groups of parcels served by access easements or flaglot driveways may be allowed at the same location as part of the same overall development plan. A little history on this property, a planning commission approved an access policy variance on December the 18th of 2025 to divide a one-acre portion from this parent parcel, which created three landlocked parcels and the easement being designated over three parcels. Plat was recorded reflecting this approval in March of 2026 and is included as Exhibit A. On the screen, we have a sketch showing where they would like to create that proposed 0.9-acre parcel. Some aerial photos of the property location. This is a little closer view. And this next screen shows what they're proposing. So the white is the existing 50-foot easement. You'll see the tax map numbers currently of the parcels that are proposed. using the easement for access and the proposed portion that they would like to subdivide. Some photos along Volleydale Drive at that easement location. And this is looking into where the easement is located. And again, back to the sketch of their proposed plan. And I will read her standards into records. And this, if you want to follow along, I'm going to read the email that was sent on June the 13th. To whom it may concern, I, Amanda McWaters, would like to give my son, Trevor McWaters, the, and they say .09, but that should be .90, acres that was sketched out of my property at 350 Volleydale Drive in Gilbert by Mr. John Magney. I understand the .9 acres would have to be surveyed and deeded over. There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the property or conjoined properties of 350 Bollydale Drive in Gilbert, South Carolina, as Trevor McWaters would like to add a residence here. Trevor McWaters was promised this land after his father passed away in 2014. He would like to move himself, his fiancee, and their daughter to this property. To my knowledge, the application of this ordinance would not proceed. prohibit or in any way restrict the utilization of any properties involved. The authorization would also not be a substantial detriment to any properties around it, nor would it disrupt or disturb any other residences or businesses in the county. There would not be any hard feelings or disagreements with this authorization in any way. This is family land and Michael Scott McWaters has signed an agreement to allow access for the easement that goes through his property at 392 Volleydale Drive in Gilbert. It would mean so much to my family as well as myself if this would be granted. Thank you so much for your time and for considering this proposal. And Ms. McWatters and her family is here today if you have questions for her.

Is the easement... Written out on a recorded document other than the plant or just the plant?

I'm not aware of that. I'll let Ms. McWatters answer that.

If y'all please come up to the podium and state your name and address.

Amanda Lynn McWatters, 350 Volleydale Drive, Gilbert, South Carolina, 29054.

My question was, is the easement on a recorded document, like an easement agreement or anything, or is it just on the plat where it says? Do you know that? I didn't know if there were any other terms to the easement. Who mall is specifically using the easement now? That one right now, just us, yes.

Like as a family, just y'all? Who is Brittany? How is she now or formerly Brittany Johnson?

She's actually using a different one over on the... She's using a different driveway than y'all's? Yes.

Even though she has access via the property? Yes. She's got access through that. Is that the variance that came in December?

No, ma'am. The variance in December was Ms. McWatters owned the land all the way to the road frontage on Volleydale. But I believe, if I recall, there was some estate issues when the legal documents were done and the acre portion at the front was supposed to have went to, I believe it was, was it your mother or mother-in-law?

And there was some errors in that estate planning, and you were trying to correct that. We were just correcting estate planning issues, not really doing... subdivision right it was technically a subdivision but that portion was supposed to have went to her in the estate and miss mcwatter's only keeping the three acres okay just in my mind we're not doing this every six months or seven months and we're not creating a subdivision here not at all not at all one one lot at a time so this is family land you're just trying to get absolutely your son a piece of the pie what what address is using the easement currently

The one that's the easement that's being used now?

The one that's on the white line that's on our map here.

350. 350 and 342. What is your address?

I have a question. I want to say, 350 is using this easement that goes through 392 by the mobile home? Yes, sir. Okay, because it looks like they're coming off of the driveway that 354 is using and cutting across, based on the aerial map here. I mean, it appears that they're coming in and going left. That easement almost looks like it goes through the mobile home. It doesn't look like anybody's using that. Okay, that's what I'm asking is, that easement's there, but nobody's using it other than 392. Exactly.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. All right, so y'all are going to transition from where you're coming in on McWhorter's property now, you're going to shift down and start using that.

But she's got access.

Yeah. How does the big piece in the 13 acres or whatever, is that access the same easement? The one at the very top?

Yeah, the 13 is still in Patricia McWhorter's name.

That's mom?

That's my mother-in-law. Yes, ma'am. And they would have to use that access. Yes.

Have you guys evaluated the possibility of making this a private road? Just given the amount of property that's still available there, I'm concerned about an easement.

Yeah. I don't think she's looking to sell it or anything like that, so I don't know if that has anything.

But even if it gets subdivided, additional lots, well, it's already beyond the ones, you know, we've given variances beyond the one for this. Private road... WOULD THEN GIVE YOU THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE MORE AND YOU'D STILL ACTUALLY BE THEN CONFORMING WITH WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR JUST AS A THOUGHT. SHOULD ANYTHING COME UP AND THEN IT'S ALREADY SET IN PLACE.

You're going to have to go in and develop the easement anyway, is my understanding. It's not currently cut out and the surface isn't there. So if you're going to do that, I'm wondering if it's not better to make this a private road as you go in and establish that road surface.

Well, I think a private road would definitely clean this up, but I'm not understanding the... Who owns this full path all the way down? Nobody, not one parcel owns...

No, it's correct. It's owned by each of those individual owners that are on those parcels. The front portion from Volleydale, I believe, is Michael McWaters, and he's the one that gave the consent for this request. And then Amanda owns the portion on her property, of course. And then I'm not familiar with the owner of 354. And then you said the 13-acre parcel is owned by Patricia, right?

All right, so Patricia has deeded access. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Patricia with the 13 acres, she has like deeded access or is she landlocked?

She's landlocked.

She's landlocked.

But she has the easement as giving her the access to the 13 acres if she were to ever use it, develop it.

The easement over the easement over the easement. Correct. And to Chris's question, we don't know whether or not that's deeded. All of those are deeded at all.

Well, I mean, they're deeded as far as their property ownership, but I don't know that they've ever recorded a separate easement agreement.

Were there no standards of variance because this has been heard before, or did I miss it?

No, the standard of variances would still apply, and that was the email that I read into record. Okay. That's where she addressed those standards.

Okay.

From an emergency responder's Point of view, an easement with two, three, however many addresses on the easement versus a private road with its own name and addresses on there, which would be better? It seems like the private road would be better, right?

I think if you've got the address numbers and, I mean, yes, definitely probably better. I don't know if it's necessarily that. out by the road or?

Well, the old easements years ago, they were accessing multiple properties. They were all changed into private roads, right?

most of them benefit from being changed and maybe it comes back to us as let's give them a variance on the paving aspect of it but make this a private road and clean well it's off of it's off unpaved roads i don't think it has to be paved that's what i'm saying if you're going to create an easement and riding surface just make it a private road rather than i believe it still has to be engineered and packed and graveled and yes there's a there's a

A pretty big cost to still doing it off of an unpaved road.

I think it would clear up any level of road maintenance, ownership, responsibility in the future, even if there's no disagreements at the current time, especially if it were subdivided. If it were subdivided, it wouldn't necessarily have to come back to us because as a private road, it includes up to 10 lots. I mean, it covers a lot of bases is just my thought.

Well, I particularly like the road maintenance aspect of it. Right. Who's going to take care of it? So an ambulance and a fire truck.

Everybody's getting along right now, but, I mean, stuff happens. And or if stuff does sell, even if it's not the intention, then you have something set in place and everybody has a shared responsibility. Everybody knows where they stand.

I mean, I think it's, and then it's conforming.

It's always a good, good thing.

I might also suggest that if we do approve the variance today as presented, that not only do we have to consider in the future, the Planning Commission should consider any further subdivision, but it could be that we specifically state that the Planning Commission would consider changing this to a road with any further subdivision. Because that 13 acres could end up being 13. Right.

I mean, I think it would have to be, yeah.

But they're all getting along fine now. It's just family and they're working that out together. But any further should require it to come. I mean, I think it would have to come back anyway. Anyway, yeah. But, of course, we should state that it would need to come back and then also potentially be considered to change it to a road, private road.

I like that idea. I understand the purpose here. You know, I get that. It is messy.

And it is going to... Well, in December, the minimum or the maximum, however you want to look at it, number of lots served is one. We moved it from up to three, gave that variance, and this would be another one for four. And that's not to say that it won't stop there, but just keep that in mind when you're considering the options because there is a lot of land left to do something with. Family or no, really.

My preference would be to, at this point, explore the possibility of making this a private road and let them come back. And if they can't make it work, let them come back and explain why, and then we can evaluate this easement for now. But do it now rather than later, because, again, we're going to be dealing with it again. I know nobody intends to sell, but we're seeing it all over Lexington County. If somebody dies and kids don't want to take care of property and it gets sold, and so I don't want to deal with this again and another six or eight months, if we can do it now, at least evaluate it, let them explore what it would take to do it now as a private road, and then come back to us and say, yeah, we can make it work, or no, we can't for these reasons, and then we evaluate it from there.

And it would set you up for the future, too. If anything inexplicable happens and, you know, unplanned, you'd be set. You wouldn't have to come back through a lot of hoops.

Okay. willing to take a look at the private road aspect of it? Get with staff and see what all the requirements would be, and we'll re-look at this next month, potentially?

If it doesn't work?

The issue is if we either approve you today or we deny you today, if we deny you, you can't come back for another year with another request. So if we just postpone and allow you some time to come back with another alternative... then no harm done other than another month or two. Did I state that correctly?

Correct. It's not a no, it's a we'll see.

As far as the private road goes, if it's a conforming private road, they have to come before the Planning Commission and it's a non-conforming private road, they have to come or how does that work?

If they're able to meet the standards of the private road policy, then it would not come back before Planning Commission. If they needed to seek relief on a particular item, then it would come back to Planning Commission.

And to meet the standards off of an unpaved road, Volleydale, it would have to be engineered and all of that stuff, right?

Correct. Since nothing's ever been installed there, then it would have to be built to a county road standard, even if it's unpaved.

Soil is generally sandy in those areas. I mean, it's not that difficult to build.

Well, it isn't difficult to actually do it, but it's the cost that the engineering, and then you have to gravel it, right?

No.

Department of the private road?

No, sir.

I think it's worth at least exploring what it would take to get there and if it's feasible. Because at some point it's going to have to happen with this much property back there. Where do you draw the line? Who's going to be the final person that has to make this happen?

And we think that even as a non-conforming request, it's better than an easement, probably.

Yes, absolutely.

I would say that the next subdivision would be that kicker. I would say that 13 acres in the back is the next kicker. I think putting Trevor on the family land isn't triggering engineering costs and, you know, recent traffic like a subdivision in that back property.

Assuming that is the next one. There's plenty of other property there that could be subdivided that could be the next one. I don't think it has to be that 13 acres.

And staff can help with that. I mean, they can give him the options and lay it out and see what is the best one, but continuing with easements, particularly if they're not platted or not, that's not really...

Well, that and the biggest thing now, like when it's recorded now, is a road maintenance agreement is normally included with that. Right. Who's going to take care of the road. Right.

And there isn't one.

That could really become an issue if one of the parcels is sold.

Correct. all family then family takes care of it we don't want you to have to incur any additional expense but but there is there does come a point in which stepping it up to another standard might actually excuse me work in your in your favor for just not now but also in the future and then you don't have to keep coming back and you don't have to are you guys under any kind of timeline

Have to have something done for mortgage or anything like that? No, not for mortgage or anything.

My preference is to look at it now, but if the will of the commission is to approve this one with the condition of the next one, I can accept that as well.

I'll make a motion, and we'll see where it goes. How about that? I move that we... approve their request for the variance based on the fact that I believe it meets all the requirements of the standards that we have set for approving a variance and that any further subdivision of any property that's associated with this particular property has to come back for planning commission and that at that time the planning commission should consider requiring the easement to become a private road.

I'll second that. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto?

Yes.

Commissioner Hutto?

Yes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Subdivision bonds?

Yes, ma'am. There's one item to report this month. As you're aware, developers are allowed to bond their subdivisions for a three-year time period. That expired for Finley Farms Phase 3. The developer is Centerline Development LLC. In lieu of a collection on the letter of credit, they submitted certified funds in the amount of $259,088.90. That will be held in trust until project completion, and it is currently an active project.

Road classifications?

I make a motion to approve them.

Second.

Second.

And we need to do them by month, so I need to do two calls.

All right.

So can you...

Monthly?

Yes, I have to.

So I make a motion to approve June.

And I second it.

I make a motion to approve July.

And he can second that one. He wants to, so that's it.

All right, Commissioner Shealy.

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost?

Yes.

Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes. Let's do July.

Make a motion to approve.

Megan. Who wants to second? Second. Commissioner Shealy?

Yes.

Commissioner Pike? Yes. Commissioner Otto? Yes. Commissioner Hutto? Yes. Commissioner Campbell? Yes. Vice Chairman Frost? Yes. Chairwoman Mitchell? Yes.

Any new information besides iPads?

We will have a meeting in August. We do have two variance requests, and my recollection is the Department of Environmental Services is also going to be in attendance. August, yes. Talk about maybe the larger common plan language?

Yes.

Is that correct? Larger common plan? Next month, we will have a meeting. We will have two variance items, and my understanding is DES is scheduled to be at that meeting.

Robbie had said I think Matt and DES were going to be there.

News from the school districts? I believe they were on the calendar as well, but not next month. I think it's either September or October.

There was one for September and another for October.

Yeah, definitely October. Future agendas.

We've gone over these private roads and easements a couple times, and a number of them have come up where we all feel they'd be better off as a private road. And I think we've brought this up several times, too, but can we go over the standards for the private roads and the standards for variants and stuff? Can we do that?

So, and just keep in mind, when family members come in and discuss what they want to do with their property, we give them all of the options. And in this case... Donna did review making this a private road, but ultimately it is up to them on what request they would like to make from you. But we do try to give them all options. And because we're more familiar with the access policy and how you can arrange things, then of course we are trying to find every option that they can that will meet the ordinances as written. But... Sometimes the feasibility is just not there. They don't own property adjacent. They don't have enough road frontage. But we try to discuss all their options up front, but they ultimately make the choice on which variance they'd like to see.

You don't provide them a recommendation. You just give them the options, right? That's us. Yeah, we're the recommending body. I recommend you go for a private road.

Exactly. I like the...

I like that it's having its own name, having its own address point on the road and the shared maintenance agreement.

Well, and not to be selfish about it, but if we are going to piecemeal, I don't care if it's over the next five years, if we're going to potentially keep adding a lot and adding a lot and adding a lot, then we're going to keep hearing it, but we're just going to be extending an easement or something. It really does benefit everybody. It does incur some costs, but it does fit everybody to have something like that in place. Because then it's just continually nonconforming. And there will be disagreements. And then the maintenance of it, the whole thing, I think it is beneficial to have it in one neat package. But, I mean, I agree it can be easily done the next time they come back. But at some point it's got to, you know...

Right, but maybe there's the revisions that will come up here in the next year that you guys will take care of with the land manual. And I think that maybe giving them some kind of relief or changing the actual... variance aspect. Let's give them the private road opportunity. Let's make this good on paper, but let's not make it so burdensome with the engineering aspect and with everything else that goes into it. If we can clean these roads up, let them maintain them, but let's not create such a burden, then...

I think that's why they're all leaning. They go to the easement because they hear engineering and they're like, no.

And that's a lot for, you know, it's family land on a dirt road, you know, out in Gilbert. That's a lot of money for anybody to put up.

It is a lot, but no offense, county, but if you have a county-maintained road that needs to be graded, that list is years, years, years long, too. So maintenance on that can be burdensome. even if it doesn't cost you anything other than taxes. And then you've got, yeah, the engineering part of it and the upkeep, but at least you know you've got a solid road.

Now it's private. Now it's their deal. Takes it off the taxpayers. What is their address?

It's all that name. So you'll have their driveway, and you're going to have five, four numbers there.

The blue cards or whatever.

And then my thing is when an ambulance goes down that easement, unless on the easement you have the address point, which it may be a requirement for in the building permit. I'm not sure. To have the address point at the easement. I think if it's so far away from the house, it has to be there or something like that. But I just want to make sure the emergency responders can find these locations.

There weren't any issues with this last one as far as emergency response? Did you do a video of that driveway? Only on private road. She's like, I couldn't find the house.

At this point, it doesn't exist. It wasn't private.

I think for that particular one, if they did have to pursue a private road later, I think it would probably have to be in a different location than where they're showing that easement. just because of the locations of where the current mobile homes are at and where they want to add new mobile homes and all the surrounding properties that the family is using. I think they would probably run into additional issues with creating a private road just because of then how close those houses would now be to a road right-of-way instead of just being at an easement location.

I am hopeful that any land development regulations that were discussed actually do thread that needle between not making it burdensome on the homeowners, but trying to really get out of nonconformity. We have so many nonconforming little donuts all over the county, and it's like flag lot on flag lot on flag lot on, or land lot, you know, and it's

The subdivision ordinance does not have non-conforming provisions, which we're aware of that and we'll work on those. So in this case, because it's non-conforming now and they are increasing the degree of non-conformity by adding another one to it, obviously that's why they're coming to it.

Of course. That's not necessarily their fault, but we are trying to eliminate that.

understanding that there are some probably non-conformings that exist. And in the case maybe of the first one, he's been going down that road for quite some time. So maybe there can be some exceptions to some. existing nonconformities that aren't increasing it because he's already doing it. In this case, the house isn't there. The road isn't there. The driveway isn't there. So engineering is triggered here because there is no surface, right? There is no existing surface. There are family properties that have existing surfaces, old farm roads that they're using that do have some delineation. So there is a difference there from nothing being there to something being there. And so I know engineering is a big requirement, and it's a big concern.

Question. On the land development revisions, are we going to be hearing bits and pieces, like section by section, or is it only certain sections? Is it the whole thing?

I do not know the answer to that, but I will let Robbie know that was one of your concerns. It's a big document. I'm assuming it will probably be broken down.

Yeah.

Just one final question on the one we just reviewed. Will they have to do anything to plat that or identify that on plat somewhere where that easement exists?

Yes.

Okay.

It'll be shown like the similar plat that was approved in December. It will still be shown.

Can we encourage them to make sure they put it in a location so that they don't come back to us next time and go, oh, we can't make it a road because it's right next to a mobile home. I want to try to avoid that.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah.

I mean, make them put it somewhere that could be transformed. Worded differently, of course.

So if they come in with a new survey and they place their mobile home on it, of course it's going to be checked to make sure it's meeting setbacks. But you're right. When it's an easement, they're... Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no setback from an easement. Can't be in the easement, but no setback. But you're right, if that transfers to a road, then the setback would be definite.

I just don't want them to come back and go, oh, now we can't make it a road because the easement's in the wrong place.

What's the setback on a road? It's only like five or ten feet.

Or you have to move the home. Road right away.

Because the easement's just for paper.

Yeah, I mean, that sand, you just drive around it.

All right. No more?

Yes, you may go. You may go.