JOHN COFFELTEditor

A move to reduce the easement required by county zoning resolution when dividing a parcel of land stalled briefly when potential unintended consequences were brought to light during the Feb. 27 Planning Commission meeting.

Currently a 50-foot easement is required to provide access to a piece of property from the roadway. Many on the commission have voiced willingness for that to be reduced in some instances to only 25 feet. For instance, if a property owner has a large farm and wants to divide the back pasture among heirs, each new parcel would need its own 50-foot easement. Some farms lack enough road frontage to grant multiple easements and maintain required side setbacks.

Local surveyor Nicholas Northcutt, addressing the commission, called for smart use of people’s property. Northcutt warned that that if the county made a blanket change to the 50-foot easement requirement, it could create the potential to create flag lot divisions that could circumvent water retention and drive planning required in major developments. A flag lot is typically shaped like a flag on a pole, where the main bulk of the land (the ‘flag’) sits behind another property.

Northcutt brought an example of a five-acre property, potentially divided into flag lots to create 66 buildable lots that, using partners or developing piecemeal could be developed using minor subdivision regulations.

While the current zoning resolution does not prevent flag lots, 50-foot easements would limit the number of developments in the example by about one-third.

Northcutt did, however, suggest addressing the issue would offer people better use of their property.

“(Everybody’s land) should work for them too,” Northcutt said. “For somebody not a farmer it is understood that the value in their land is the ability to divide and the ability to build on it.”

“That’s where our current codes are preventing people from being able to use their property,” he said.

He suggested allowances for when a person cannot meet the 50-foot easement requirement, but that the measure broadly speaking prevents the flag lots.

Planning Member Rodney Duncan noted there are positives to flag lots. He noted in the example that each home sits on about an acre.

“Those are some pretty good size lots,” Duncan said. “That would put 66 lots without the county having to spend a dime on roads.”

“This would be the cheapest way for the county to get 66 lots,” Duncan said.

Northcutt said the flag lot subdivision would skirt subdivision requirements and would most likely create runoff problems for people downstream.

Other Options

The Planning Commission will schedule a work session to hear options on the matter. While some members seemed in favor of reducing the easement requirement to 25 foot, other options could include a prevision like in Franklin County that allows up to five properties to be served by one easement on a division of over five acres.

In this option, the count would require the 50-foot easement, but could avoid as series of adjoining easements that Northcutt called “grossly inefficient.”

Bedford County, according to Northcutt, has seen a lot of flag lot abuse, resulting in 100-foot minimum lot widths and side setbacks that are determined by the lot in the front.

“They do not want houses behind houses and have done away with the flag lot altogether,” Northcutt said.

The commission voted to hold a work session with a time and date coordinated by the County Codes Department. Commissioner Dennis Hunt was the sole dissenting vote.

John has been with the Manchester Times since May 2011. John has won Tennessee Press Association awards for Best News Photo and placed in numerous other categories. John is a 1994 graduate of Tullahoma High School, a graduate of Motlow State Community College and earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from Middle Tennessee State University. He lives in Tullahoma, enjoys painting, dancing and exploring the outdoors.