I have a client that has 2 acres. Has an existing trailer on the top of the hill, and wants to build a house on the lower portion down by the road. Health dept tells him he needs to talk to the zoning dept. The county here has all new people working in the zoning department.
He is NOT subdividing this tract.
Lady at the zoning department says "no tract of land in this county is allowed to have more than one dwelling on it, even if it is 50 acres. BUT...you can have 2 dwellings on your tract if you grant a "joint driveway easement"
I asked her why would anyone want to grant an easement to their own land across their own land to their self?
she says because you have 2 dwellings on it, THAT'S WHY!
Makes no sense to me. I thought an easement was a right that someone has in the lands of another???
Anderson County TN
You are right. An easement has a dominant estate (grantee) and a servient estate (grantor); the use of another's lands (grantor) for the benefit of another (grantee).
Black's lists "common easement" (also termed nonexclusive easement): an easement allowing the servient landowner to share in the benefit of the easement.
I have always been instructed that you cannot have an easement to your benefit across your own property.
Is a duplex more than one dwelling or is it more than one residence?
In Hays Co., TX several years back, our original tract is on an access easement across a neighbor, not a dedicated r-o-w, therefore the county said no subdivision of our tract for a separate parcel. We could have two separate dwellings on one tract of land; as long as they were connected, such as a breezeway, it could be considered a duplex. For us, it was to be a mother-in-law plan.
> Makes no sense to me.
Typical of gov't agencies, even at the local level.
Here's a start on easements in Tennessee
"An easement is a right an owner has to some lawful use of the real property of another. Brew v. Van Deman, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk) 433 (1871). Easements can be created 116*116 in several ways in Tennessee, including: (1) express grant, (2) reservation, (3) implication, (4) prescription, (5) estoppel, and (6) eminent domain. Easements can be divided into two broad classes, easements appurtenant, and easements in gross. In an easement appurtenant, there are 2 tracts of land, the dominant tenement, and the servient tenement. The dominant tenement benefits in some way from the use of the servient tenement. Easements in gross are simply a personal interest or right to use the land of another which does not benefit another property, or dominant estate, thus easements in gross usually involve only one parcel. An easement appurtenant to land is favored over an easement in gross in Tennessee. Goetz v. Knoxville Power & Light Co., 154 Tenn. 545, 290 S.W. 409 (1926)."
Hope this helps
This combination of sentences makes no sense whatsoever.
"No tract of land in this county is allowed to have more than one dwelling on it, even if it is 50 acres. BUT...you can have 2 dwellings on your tract if you grant a "joint driveway easement"
What part of "NO" do they not understand? You cannot have the situation in the second sentence if the first sentence is enforced as stated.
The only way I can come up with the second sentence possibly making a little sense is in the case where a landowner has a "grandfathered" case of more than one dwelling on a single tract. I've seen many dairy farms with two or more dwellings on a single tract because the dairy farmer is providing housing to his employees close to the center of all activity: the dairy barn and related facilities. Still, the second sentence should only apply if this is a situation where they are attempting to minimize the number or entrances from a county road to a tract. It would not be a joint driveway easement unless there were two or more tracts involved, not a single tract.
Time to stop asking them what they want you to do and start reading the local laws so you know what the law requires you to do. I can't imagine the ordinance says that.
JBS
Who cares if it doesn't make sense? Just follow their rules and get a Common Driveway Easement. Most towns around me would make us go thru subdivision.
I am aware of the requirement that allows only one dwelling on a parcel. I have not been involved in day to day surveying in Tennessee for several years now so I am not really conversant.
But if the person building the dwelling is going to have a mortgage, why wouldn't they want to separate the two acre tract into two parcels so as not to encumber the entire tract? If the only reason is the avoid the expense and tedium of the subdivision process, that seems a minor aspect to the over all situation to me and worth doing to protect the long-term interests of the person who owns the property. I would expect that the lender is going to require a survey in this case, or at least should require one. The health department regulations for the septic system will have to be dealt with. None of that is changed by the fact if the parcel were to be split into two in the process. If the county has a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations as most now do in Tennessee, most of the same requirements will have to be met whether the parcel is split or not.
my 2 cents
Here it is in writing. There is no "but". The joint easement option is not an exception to the "one residence" limitation.
Sec. 05-070. General Lot Restrictions.
The following general lot restrictions shall be applied within all districts.
A. One Principal Structure for Each Lot: Only one principal building and its customary accessory
buildings may be erected on any lot, unless otherwise provided in this code.
B. 3Building Lots Must Abut Public Road: No building shall be erected on a lot which does not abut
one public road for at least 25 feet, unless: 1) a permanent access easement for one primary structure
was granted by a recorded deed for an ingress and egress to a county, state, federal, or public road,
before the Zoning Resolution was adopted in 1977 or 2) the requirements for Joint Permanent
Easement are met as set forth in Article 3 Section 045-080 of this document.
C. Joint Permanent Easements:
Joint Permanent Easements may be platted in a subdivision in accordance to the provisions of this
section.
1) Joint Permanent Easements serving one (1) to two (2) lots: Joint Permanent Easements serving
one (1) to two (2) lots shall meet the construction standards as follows. Access shall be provided
by a private easement or right-of-way twenty-five (25) feet in width........
> C. Joint Permanent Easements:
> Joint Permanent Easements may be platted in a subdivision in accordance to the provisions of this section.
>
> 1) Joint Permanent Easements serving one (1) to two (2) lots: Joint Permanent Easements serving
> one (1) to two (2) lots shall meet the construction standards as follows. Access shall be provided by a private easement or right-of-way twenty-five (25) feet in width........
>
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I see that "Joint Permanent Easements" may be platted....in accordance of this section....
So the provisions are what you have to meet if you do plat a joint permanent easement. If you have a joint permanent easement for one lot, access shall be provided by an easement 25' in width. (hmm...can it be wider?)
I don't read that an easement is required, but only that you may provide one, and if you do, it has to meet these minimum(?) standards.
Of course if the zoning department or legal experts interpret it differently, you probably have to comply with their interpretation and sure as heck not mine.
I don't see anything in B) or C) that allows an exception to A) for multiple dwellings on a property. Those articles cover situations where a separate property exists or would be created that is landlocked without the easement.
A is specifically for a single lot, not a subdivision lot.
B & C would only apply to subdivision lots.
It appears you are dealing with a single tract (lot in their terminology). Hence, only one residence is allowed. Therefore, the trailer house needs to leave or become uninhabitable upon completion of the new house.
> I don't see anything in B) or C) that allows an exception to A) for multiple dwellings on a property. Those articles cover situations where a separate property exist
Right, for the joint easement to applicable there needs two be at least two separate properties.s or would be created that is landlocked without the easement.
> Sec. 05-070. General Lot Restrictions.
> The following general lot restrictions shall be applied within all districts.
> A. One Principal Structure for Each Lot: Only one principal building and its customary accessory
> buildings may be erected on any lot, unless otherwise provided in this code.
You can have only one principle building per lot, "unless otherwise provided in this code."
We would need to see the parts of the code that allow for exceptions to the rule, if there are any.
> B. 3Building Lots Must Abut Public Road: No building shall be erected on a lot which does not abut
> one public road for at least 25 feet, unless: 1) a permanent access easement for one primary structure
> was granted by a recorded deed for an ingress and egress to a county, state, federal, or public road,
> before the Zoning Resolution was adopted in 1977 or 2) the requirements for Joint Permanent
> Easement are met as set forth in Article 3 Section 045-080 of this document.
I read this as all lots must abut a public road, unless the permanent easement for access and utilities is provided to the lot(s) which do not abut the public road. It has nothing to do with multiple principle buildings on one lot.
