Major concerns rise on Majors Cemetery Road
County reviews land purchase for access; subdivision plan awaits details
10:23 p.m. Feb. 4, 2026
DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor
It was Aug. 5, 2025, when Isaac Zimmerle and Aaron Nunley asked the Planning and Zoning Commission for preliminary feedback on a proposed five-home residential layout on roughly 23.8 acres along Major Cemetery Road, a project complicated by steep terrain and questions about access, subdivision rules, and emergency services.
Zimmerle said the property is under contract with a contingency that would allow five homes to be placed on the tract. Because the parcel is slightly under 25 acres, the plan falls into a gray area of county subdivision regulations tied to five-acre lot thresholds.
“We’re looking for more or less just a conceptual approval or a conceptual thumbs up,” Zimmerle told the board, noting the developers expect at least one lot – measuring about 3.8 acres – to require formal subdivision approval while the remaining tracts could exceed five acres.
On Tuesday, Feb. 3, Zimmerle and Nunley were back before the board. They have a proposal to revise road access for the planned multi-lot residential development. The board emphasized that only the one-acre add-on parcel – not the broader subdivision concept – is eligible for approval.
The developer explained the request centers on acquiring a narrow, roughly one-acre strip of land from a neighboring property owner, Randy George. That parcel previously reduced the project’s available road frontage and would have required as many as five future homes to share a single driveway easement.
By adding the acreage, the developer said the layout can instead accommodate multiple separate driveways, potentially serving five home sites while limiting shared access to no more than two homes per drive.
The board noted the developers have county requirements for road frontage and access, and will need to return with detailed plans for further consideration.
Steep Terrain Shapes Access Plan
A defining feature of the property is a pronounced ridge and valley system running through the center of the acreage. In August, Zimmerle described a sharp drop from the buildable plateau followed by a steep climb back to Major Cemetery Road – an incline estimated at roughly 60% grade in places.
Marcy Smith, who lives on Majors Cemetery Road, said Tuesday, “My concern is that our road, Major Cemetery Road, is very narrow, and the piece of property – the one acre that Mr. Isaac is speaking of – runs parallel to it. It’s a steep decline from there.
“So, any driveway that would go off of that road, once they come up to the top of that driveway, they’re in the road. There are blind spots on that road. So, unless we’re prepared to widen that road to accommodate these driveways, it’s going to be very, very unsafe.”
Dan Boshers, another Majors Cemetery Road resident, added, “It’s a great place for goats.”
To address the terrain, the developers proposed giving each lot legal road frontage on Major Cemetery Road while routing actual driveway access through a shared private easement connecting to an existing 15-foot access corridor.
The arrangement, Zimmerle said, is intended to improve safety and practicality for construction, residents, and emergency responders.
Key Questions Raised
In August, the board had several questions that remain open:
• Whether the county must review or approve the private access easement if each lot still maintains legal road frontage.
• How 911 addressing and mailbox placement would function if residents use the shared access rather than individual driveways from the public road.
• Whether the private road would ever be adopted or maintained by the county.
The board emphasized the importance of fully disclosing the private-access situation to future buyers and clarified that the county would not assume responsibility for the easement. Mailbox placement, officials said, would remain a private decision tied to postal requirements.
Similar Developments Cited
Board discussion in August referenced comparable hillside developments in neighboring counties where lots technically front a public road but rely on shared private drives for usable access. In those cases, mailboxes were typically placed along the public roadway while residents used the internal private road for daily travel.
Zimmerle he has completed similar projects, including one in Franklin County, where drainage and slope conditions required a shared access route despite legal road frontage for each parcel.
Subdivision Classification Still a Factor
Planning and Zoning noted that subdivisions involving five or more lots – or those requiring new or improved roads – are generally classified as major subdivisions, triggering additional review requirements.
Zimmerle argued that because four proposed lots would exceed five acres, only the 3.8-acre parcel might require formal subdivision approval. Still, he said the partners presented the full concept for transparency and to ensure compliance before proceeding.
“We’re wanting to do this the right way,” he said.
Early-Stage Concept
No formal vote or approval was requested during the August discussion. Instead, Zimmerle and Nunley sought guidance before preparing a final plat or subdivision application.
On Tuesday, the request was to add only 1.4 acres to the existing lot.
Further review is expected once detailed plans – particularly for the smaller lot and access arrangement – are submitted to the county.
