Land Use Question 1

[GoldDredger]

I've come across an interesting land use question here in Texas, regarding TxDOT.

An existing commercial site is situated along a 2 lane state highway, design speed of 45 mph. It has an existing driveway onto the highway.

Adjacent to this commercial property is an undeveloped tract of land, which also has frontage along the same highway.

TxDOT requires that driveways be spaced a minimum of 300+ feet along a highway with this design speed. However, the entire frontage of the second property is within that 300' from the existing drive.

Should this rule preclude the second property from ever having a driveway? This would affectively land lock the owner of the second property.

The reason this issue comes up is because the first property wants to lease the land from the second property, and re-adjust the driveway location about 50' (putting it even closer to the second property).

The second property owner wants to lease the land to the first, however, does not want to do anything that might hurt him in the future for his own development.

 

[GeoPaveTraffic]

Given what you have described a cross access easement between the two properties would be required in this area, St. Louis Missouri. The driveway would then be placed on the property line and provide access to both properties.

 

[Hoagie]

The owner has right to ingress/egress, regardless of the apparent 'spite' from the adjoining property. If the design speed is the sole bone-of-contention, then perhaps the offering to construct a deceleration lane is a solution.

Geopave's advice (as always) is good advice--but I think you may want to avoid creating any additional easements/joint access/etc, if possible. Owners don't prefer such an arrangement.

G'luck

H.

 

[civilperson]

In other states, to enforce the limited access provisions on similar highways, the DOT would condemn a strip for frontage road for both properties to access.

 

[shaneoden]

If the neighboring property is zoned commercial, then it would make sense to consolidate the access and provide ingress/egress.

 

[hooperks]

Civilperson has a valid point. If TXDOT did not previously acquired (condemned) the rights of access to the highway, then options should be available. As I understand your situation, the property does not have access to any other road (it must be landlocked). Therefore, denying access to the state highway would constitute a taking (at least in most places), unless some type of cross acess easement or agreement does not already exist. If it does, then likely you will be required to use it. However, if it doesn't exist, TXDOT would have to determine what is more important, the 300-foot separation standard or their acquiring the necessary easement necessary easement on the adjoining property. Also, remember that your client still needs to be compensated for the taking of the right of access.

Hope this helps. Dealing with DOTs is always interesting!