PB Agenda Packet 6-3-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

35 DRAFT 1593 1594 Cy Stober: They still would not. 1595 1596 Beth Bronson: They still,well, they still would not or they, or they could. They could just be an informational item 1597 of like here is every application. 1598 1599 Cy Stober: And we could not require the applicant to do that. 1600 1601 Beth Bronson: No. No. It sounds like a lot. 1602 1603 Cy Stober: Yeah. And Taylor does a great job of documenting everything that the DAC reviews. We could 1604 summarize that easily for I think we may have, I am going to talk to Taylor, but I mean, I think that 1605 should be more of a policy. I do not think that belongs in the ordinance. I would be happy to have 1606 to have that conversation about how we respond to your interests. 1607 1608 Beth Bronson: 100 percent.And I think that that gets to this kind of full thing because I, all right, I have a full 1609 review, like, but the only other question I had about the amendment was that Section 7.2.2,yup, 1610 minor subdivisions. The expedited minor subdivisions, Section A, Subpart 2, no part of the tract or 1611 parcel should be divided via the expedited minor subdivision process within the past 10 years prior 1612 to plat recordation, and what is the difference in this expedited minor subdivision 10-year 1613 threshold versus the 2003 threshold? 1614 1615 Cy Stober: The 2003 applies to the lot count as it relates to its zoning. One does, one would, an application 1616 have to go to zoning when you tip over into zoning, but yeah, and we could not compel because 1617 state law trumps local law. An expedited action would have to defer to the rights of the property 1618 owner to have, to divide their land using the expedited tool if they satisfy all those requirements. 1619 And that 10-year threshold that is literally just updating our ordinance language to match verbatim 1620 state law. 1621 1622 Beth Bronson: Okay. 1623 1624 Cy Stober: Yeah. 1625 1626 Beth Bronson: Nope. That is totally fine. I just wanted to make sure that I was still understanding where you 1627 were switching it from that,those past 10 years to 2003. 1628 1629 Cy Stober: That is just updating it to match the state law. 1630 1631 Beth Bronson: Yup into the 2003 threshold applying to rezoning. 1632 1633 Cy Stober: And then I think I found the language at least but not in the section. I do not know what page of 1634 your packet it is on, but it is Page 231 of the ordinance, and it is in,that is 2.9.1.G, the effect of 1635 approval. 1636 1637 Beth Bronson: Talking about 2.27. 1638 1639 Cy Stober: What you called 2.27 1 found that language that you were referring to.About sub phasing may not 1640 allow for proportional or partial provision of performance guarantees as allowed by Section 2.27, 1641 so Section 2.27 is just performance guarantees. They have not been,that section has not been 1642 amended at all.That just provides for the bonding of outstanding promises associated with a 1643 subdivision, so all that is saying is that sub, you can sub-phase as an applicant. You can come in, 1644 and if you decide to sub-phase your project, and you want to do only three lots at a time, bully for 1645 you. That is great. We will reserve the authority to say whether that is acceptable or not. Even if 1646 we do say it is acceptable though,you are giving us the full bond for that stormwater device. You 1647 are giving us the full bond for that landscaping.