Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Common Open Space Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boundary line adjustment proposed to change non‑common open space percentages on two parcels; commissioners seek stronger easement language
Summary
Applicants proposed transferring about 9.1 acres between two parcels (Manaker and Dady) to alter non‑common open space (NCO) percentages without creating new lots. Commissioners discussed requiring recorded easements and using language that prevents future division or boundary line adjustments without board approval.
Staff described a request to adjust boundary lines between two parcels (referred to in the transcript as the Manaker and Dady properties) totaling about 83.24 acres in order to change the non‑common open space (NCO) requirement on the Manaker parcel. The requested transfer of roughly 9.1 acres would reduce the NCO percentage on the Manaker parcel from 85% to 42.4% while leaving no new lots or new development; both resultant parcels would be placed under NCO easements.
Commissioners and staff discussed the recordation and language of the easements. A commissioner asked that the conditions ensure the easements are recorded so the issue would not recur, and recommended the condition use language barring “no further division” rather than only prohibiting “subdivision,” to avoid potential loopholes for other forms of division. Staff and the subdivision agent explained that the NCO easement language in the ordinance references “subdivision,” but they said it would be possible to modify the easement document to prohibit both subdivision and boundary line adjustments except in narrowly defined circumstances. A staff member said: “We can work to revise the condition. We hear your concern and work with the subdivision agent and ensure we get the language.”
Staff characterized the request as essentially a boundary line adjustment affecting the NCO percentage and said no new lots or development were proposed. No formal vote or final action was recorded in the transcript excerpt provided; commissioners requested revised easement language that would limit future division and asked staff and counsel to produce that language for board consideration.
