The Plat Committee on Oct. 8 agreed to remove an erroneously included commitment prohibiting single‑family detached dwellings from two subdivision plats and moved a related petition to a full hearing after the petitioner objected.

Staff told the committee that “commitment number 11 is on there by mistake, and that can be removed,” and the committee said it would strike the language during the motion approving the expedited docket.

The change affects petitions filed as 2025PLT‑063 (7173/577 Steeple Boulevard) and 2025PLT‑069 (3602 North Dearborn Street). A petitioner for 2025PLT‑063 asked to be removed from the expedited portion of the agenda after discovering the commitment in the staff report, saying the prohibition on detached single‑family houses was “the entire reason to submit this plat.” Committee chair and staff discussed moving 2025PLT‑063 to a full hearing to permit further discussion and, after staff confirmed the clause appeared to be an error, the petitioner withdrew the request once staff agreed to remove the commitment.

Committee members confirmed on the record that, when the expedited docket was approved, the motion included the previously discussed changes: removal of commitment 11 for the two named petitions and other committee additions to commitment language for certain plats. The committee’s roll call recorded yes votes by Plat Committee members Evans, Rassdale and Wilson; the expedited docket was approved as amended.

Why it matters: the commitment in question would have limited what housing types could be built on the properties. Committee members and petitioners treated the change as corrective rather than policy‑making: staff characterized the line as an error and the committee removed it rather than imposing a new restriction.

The committee also discussed adding a different commitment (to prohibit detached dwellings) on other plats that were explicitly proposed as single‑family attached lots; for those cases staff said the board could add a “no detached” commitment in the final decision letter if petitioners did not object. Portions of the meeting transcript show the committee clarifying which petitions would receive the added or removed language and that the changes would be reflected in the decision letters and the final motion approving the expedited slate.

The committee’s action was procedural — correcting the staff report and approving the amended expedited docket — not a substantive new policy restricting housing form. Petitions moved to full hearings will return for additional discussion.