Agenda - 01-03-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

or'42" . _ 7 „ • of that document. MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: Unanimous. (3) Section IV-B-10 -Cluster Developments MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Eddleman. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Section III-C (Existing) - Procedure for Review and Approval of Minor Plats Jacobs explained that the Planning Staff recommendation is for the definition of minor subdivisions to allow the creation of up to four new lots within a two-year period. The recommendation of the Ordinance Review Committee is to allow the creation of up to three new lots. Collins explained that Commissioner Willhoit was concerned that through this amendment the County would be encouraging further piece-meal development of the residual. He explained that from staff research a large number (40%) of 1-3 lot major subdivisions have been created from residual parcels with State Road frontage. He continued that Staff would continue to require the upgrading of roads and use the same standards. This simply gives the individuals who own large tracts of land the right to further subdivide their property within a two-year period without having the expense of $210.00 for a one or two lot subdivision as opposed to a $60.00 fee for a minor subdivision for three lots. --Best expressed concern with four-lot- subdivisions-- - every two year period. Collins responded _ referencing the trend shown by staff research• which indicates that 26 lots out of 39 that were - created out of residual parcels since 1981 had • - State Road frontage. - - -- Best continued expressing concern that if the ordinance is amended, more subdivision will occur on non-public roads and cause more extension of private roads. Collins explained by using an example that Staff still has the option to require upgrading of