Contiguous Property

[Inspector 102]

A issues has come up where a lake front property wants to build on a parcle located across the road from his residential property. The claim is that the property is contiguous since the public right-of-way does not count. I am looking for guidance to clean up our zoning code to define that this situation is 2 separate parcels. Effectively, this would make it prohibit an accessory building on the parcel since it does not contain a principle structure. Can anyone offer language that addresses a contiguous property and certain allowances? Our plan commission is reviewing our ordinances already so the timing works out well for adding this specific situation.

 

[mjesse]

I am personally aware of many properties in Indiana (Lake Shaffer) that have a lakefront house, and a garage across the street on the same, albeit separated, parcel.

As far as cleaning up the zoning, I would make sure I wasn't making 90% of the neighboring properties non-conforming by "updating" the Code.

mj

 

[mn joe]

We have struggled with this situation for some time. It makes sense to put septics and outbuildings across the street for these small lake lots. BUT! Think of all the scenarios. What if the lots are not directly across from each other but are kitty- corner? What about "just down the street" but in the same development. This is strictly a zoning issue. Think out what your jurisdiction wants to see and try to write an ordinance that narrowly defines it.

Joe

 

[Mac]

I start with a search of the property tax records, which indicates the number of parcels. If the search isn't conclusive, find the deed(s) and see what you see. Sometimes the roads came through after the property lines were worked out over a handshake by old Uncle Ed and his neighbor. Several reservoirs hereabouts supplied water to the Erie canal, and things like roads & property lines were... casual lets say.

 

[ICE]

A issues has come up where a lake front property wants to build on a parcle located across the road from his residential property. The claim is that the property is contiguous since the public right-of-way does not count. I am looking for guidance to clean up our zoning code to define that this situation is 2 separate parcels. Effectively, this would make it prohibit an accessory building on the parcel since it does not contain a principle structure. Can anyone offer language that addresses a contiguous property and certain allowances? Our plan commission is reviewing our ordinances already so the timing works out well for adding this specific situation.

Can the the parcels be sold separately without a formal lot split? Are there a bunch of them? Are the lots that are across the street from the houses too small for a house? Will the portion across the street become worthless? Why does it matter?

 

[brudgers]

Zoning is a horrible tool for creating positive development. This is the sort of situation where a district overlay makes sense - what may be appropriate in this situation could have negative consequences if allowed elsewhere.

 

[Architect1281]

Here in RI where a deed describes a continuous property and that property description is divided in some way by a public right of way it has been adjudicated that they are indeed seperate and individual properties and in many instances even as substandard if a portion does not conform to zoning. Many of our property descriptions go back to King George of england and othersw to King Philip as the leader of the Wamponaug Tribes so as it were there were precious few descriptions of roads and highwaays.

 

[jwilly3879]

Under our Zoning Law a property divided by a public road is considered one parcel and has only one tax id number. An accessory structure could be built if setbacks can be met.