1/9/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 91980 Boa 42 FACE 498 Page -2- The department is concerned about the piecemeal type of resubdivision which this proposal is an example. In this case, further resubdivision could be requested at a later time for any of the remaining undeveloped lots. The logistics of such a proposal would place an unneeded burden on the County to assure consistency and the proper provision of roads and drainage. It should also be noted that Lot 9 is already developed as a single entity and several others, Lots 3, 4, 8, and 10 have been approved for similar development, so that resubdivision of the remaining lots would compound inconsistency. The original subdivision was approved on the basis of certain lot configuration with regard to roads, drainage, traffic access, density, etc. Any changes begin to infringe upon the unity of the approved design and it becomes more relevant to consider a replatting of the parcel as a whole if more than a few simple line changes are contemplated. The case in question here poses a problem not in the division of the lots but, (1) in redesign or additional design for supporting facilities, i.e. roads, drainage, etc., and (2) that granting such a request would set a precedent for similar considerations on other parcels in the future. The staff recommendations are as follows: 1) Deny this specific request because of: (A) the inconsistency created with the remaining lots, particularly those already developed or approved for construction, (B) the precedent for further piecemeal requests.in this and other subdivisions, and (C) the need to consider total needs for and effects on drainage, traffic, density, etc. 2) While there may be cases where resubdivision is workable, it is more likely that a replatting is the more feasible alternative. Sub- divisions are created, reviewed and approved as a unity and except under_ special conditions should be treated as such once they are approved. It is understood that the ordinance under which the present case is being considered (Sec. 22-62 of 75-3, I.R.C. Codes) was created over concern for arbitrary division of lots in subdivisions by individ- uals. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that a situation such as noted above should be avoided. Persons buying in a subdivision normally do so because of the nature and location of the development, and it is reasonable for them to expect the continuance of the approved design. Changes should be considered and approved with great care. DMR: jt 4�� PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER SUMMED UP HIS MEMO, STATING THAT IT IS THE STAFF S FEELING THAT THERE ARE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COUNTY'S PART THAT WE COULD SET A PRECEDENT AND OPEN THE DOOR FOR THIS TO HAPPEN IN OTHER SUBDIVISIONS, AND THEY, THEREFORE, RECOMMEND GOING TO REPLATTING. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO WANT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS REQUEST, NOTING THAT IF WE DO, NOTICES MUST BE SENT OUT. FRANK ZORC STATED THAT IF A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED, THEY CAN ACCEPT THAT. HE CONTINUED THAT IN THIS INSTANCE ALL THE