Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Covington planning commission approves subdivision referral after sewer gap forces full review
Loading...
Summary
The City of Covington Planning Commission approved Case 25-05-09, a three-lot resubdivision of Squares 48 and 49, after staff referred the administrative subdivision because sewer service is not immediately adjacent to the property.
The City of Covington Planning Commission on Oct. 25 approved an administrative subdivision referral — Case 25-05-09 — to resubdivide Squares 48 and 49 (Second Connolly Addition) into three lots (parcels A, B and C) after staff determined sewer service is not immediately adjacent to the site.
City planning staff told commissioners the application would normally have been handled administratively but was referred because the planning office’s administrator can only sign an administrative subdivision when utilities are available to the site. "That's correct, and that's why Ellen didn't approve it and referred it to you," a city planning staff member said during the meeting.
The property owner is McGee Holdings LLC; Glenn Blackwelder spoke for the petitioner and confirmed the subdivision is intended to create three larger, saleable lots. "Just to make it more affordable, in good size," Blackwelder said of the purpose for dividing the parcel.
Staff noted the three new lots would "far exceed the minimum lot size" required under current rules, and that there is no staff objection to the technical subdivision itself. Commissioners asked for clarification about sewer availability and were told that if the owner pursues building permits, the owner must make a formal sewer determination and, if necessary, extend sewer lines at their own expense to serve the property.
After brief discussion and no public objection, the commission moved and seconded approval. A roll-call vote recorded unanimous affirmative votes from commissioners present and the motion passed.
The commission also approved routine meeting minutes and the planning calendar during the same session; those items received no substantive debate and passed on roll-call votes.
