Commission continues subdivision application after staff finds covenants legally flawed

The Clinton County Area Plan Commission voted to continue a subdivision filing after planning staff and the county surveyor said the submitted covenants and owner’s certificate were legally insufficient.

PCPR Properties requested a waiver of a 19-day filing deadline for a minor subdivision application. Planning staff and the county surveyor reviewed the submitted covenants and found multiple problems: the document copied portions of the zoning ordinance instead of tailoring covenants to the plat, it included references to dedications and improvements not present on the plat, contained typographical errors, and included provisions (for example an above-ground propane tank prohibition) that staff judged inappropriate or unenforceable for the proposed minor subdivision.

Paul Edwards, representing PCPR Properties and identified as the property owner, told the commission he had attempted to assemble covenants by using examples and a realtor’s input and asked the commission to accept the filing. Planning staff, including a county staff member named Jay (on the phone) and staff member Kat Bell, recommended against waiving the deadline and advised the owner to redraft the covenants with guidance from planning staff and the county surveyor.

Commission members agreed the covenants required substantial revision. The commission made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting so the applicant can address the covenants, work with the surveyor and drainage board as needed, and refile properly. The motion to continue was moved by Jeff Chenoweth; a second was recorded and the motion carried by voice vote.

Planning staff identified several specific issues the applicant must address before the commission will accept the filing: remove inapplicable dedications (streets/alleys) from the owner’s certificate, clarify or remove utility easement language and setbacks, resolve drainage dedication and maintenance (including possible dedication to the county drainage board), and remove or justify covenant provisions that exceed or conflict with the zoning ordinance. Staff offered to provide template covenant language and to meet with the applicant and the county surveyor to prepare a legally acceptable filing.

The commission did not take a final action on the subdivision; the matter was continued to the next Area Plan Commission hearing.