1/2/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Three lots ave been sold -off by metes and bounds descriptions based on the survey. Two of these lots were sold -off after the adoption of the new subdivision ordinance (83-24) on July 20, 1983. These two lots and the remaining parent parcel consti- tute a subdivision (3 or more subdivided parcels) according to ordinance 83-24. In November of this year, staff discovered that this three lot subdivision had been illegally crated, and that the owner had a survey describing an eight lot subdivision. On November 14, 1984 staff sent a letter to Mr. Powell explaining that he had created an illegal subdivision. The letter stated that Mr. Powell would either have to re -combine lots to fall below the three lot subdivision "threshold" or plat the subdivided property. Mr. Powell has requested that he be allowed to develop eight lots on his property by "grandfathering -in" his survey and exempting his property from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The survey done in March of 1983 did not create or in any way legally establish any of the eight lots described. The lots could only have been created by platting or by conveyance with deeds bearing metes and bounds descriptions. In a meeting with staff, Mr. Powell has stated that he was assured that by selling -off lots one at a time from the ends of the parent parcel, he could "get around" the old subdivision ordinance. The practice circumvented the old ordinance (75-3) by repre- senting each lot conveyance as merely a "lot split" from the parent parcel. However, this practice is specifically prohibited in section 6(a)(2) of the new ordinance..... "The dividing of land into two (2) parcels without filing a plat under the provisions of this ordinance, where the land divided was the result of a previous division of land into two (2) parcels which occurred after the date of adoption of this ordinance, is prohibited" Mr. Powell continued this practice after the new subdivision ordinance was adopted, and has created an illegal three lot subdivision. Granting his request would allow him to create a seven lot subdivision under the new ordinance without having to comply with the subdivision ordinance. Granting his request would also set a dangerous precedent that could allow develop- ment based solely on unrecorded plats and surveys claimed to have been completed prior to the adoption of the new subdivi- sion ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny Mr. Dan Powell's request to grandfather -in an eight lot subdi- vision on his property located at 16th Street S.W. and 4th Avenue. 65 JAN 2 199 � I