Opinion ID: 2542695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Illegal lot split

Text: Cowan maintains that the entire 148 acres owned by Bawden is one lot because Bawden intends to develop it all. Cowan argues the Board should not have approved the final plat on Bawden's second application because Bawden twice split his lot illegally. First, Cowan argues, Bawden split off the five-acre parcel now owned by his son and then split the smaller parcel, which Bawden intends to personally occupy, from the development. [13] After holding a hearing on the final plat for Bawden's second application, the Board determined that Bawden had not split his lots. The Board found no evidence that the entire 148-acre parcel was one development site and no evidence that Bawden had split the smaller parcel he retains from the larger parcel that is the site of Eagle's Nest. The Board then determined neither the law nor the evidence supported that separately-purchased but contiguous parcels are a single lot for purposes of the FCDC. Here, the Board determined that Bawden had not illegally split his lot. The FCDC provides: Lot is used both as a generic term for a development site, and to refer to any parcel of land created and described by a record survey or plat. FCDC Ch. XIV(KK). All of the evidence in the record indicates that Bawden separately purchased two parcels of land either personally or through his family or business entity and now proposes to develop only one of those parcels. Cowan, has never contradicted this evidence, offering only argument that these two parcels should be considered one lot or one development site. Additionally, the lot now owned by Eric Bawden was split off pursuant to a Class I permit, and this was not an illegal lot split. Therefore, the Board's determination is supported by substantial and competent evidence.