Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Norm George Plat Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midway council pauses Norm George flag-lot plat amendment after resident raises legal and ownership concerns
Summary
The council continued consideration of a plat amendment that would vacate 0.16 acres from the Norm George Flag Lot and deed portions to Midway City and an adjacent neighbor after the applicant and a neighbor outlined competing claims, and a property owner argued the city took land without proper process.
Midway City Council on Tuesday continued public consideration of a proposed third plat amendment to the Norm George Flag Lot Subdivision after extended public comment and questions about whether a prior quick-claim deed and later roadway construction altered legal ownership.
The amendment before the council would vacate 0.16 acres from the existing lot at 146 North 300 East: roughly 0.09 acres would be deeded to Midway City for 300 East (the roadway) and 0.07 acres would be transferred to an adjacent property owned by Mike Hopkins. City staff said the change would leave the Calder lot at about 0.85 acres, larger than the R-1-9 zone minimum.
The proposal was described by city staff as a lot-line adjustment required by state statute to be approved unless it conflicts with local land-use ordinances. Michael (staff member) summarized that “state code says [a lot-line adjustment] shall be approved unless a land use ordinance is being violated,” and that staff had not identified ordinance conflicts with the proposal.
The hearing turned contentious after property owner Quinn Calder and attorney-like statements from the applicant’s public remarks said the city previously accepted a quick-claim deed in 2006 and then built the road in 2008 without following formal plat-amendment procedures. Quinn Calder (applicant/property owner) told the council: “When I discovered you can't simply deed over a platted lot without following proper legal steps ... I felt double crossed.” He asked the city either to restore the lot to the original 2005 configuration (by removing the road and returning land) or to pay fair-market compensation and properly amend the plat.
Neighbor Michael Hopkins, who said he lives at 315 East 100 North and occupies the former Drennan house, told the council he wants to add a five-car garage and said acquiring the small strip would allow him to build to his existing fence line. He told the council, “In order to get the setback the only thing I'm interested in is I want a 5 car garage.” Hopkins asked that the council allow the parcel adjustments so he could expand without legal encumbrances.
City staff and the surveyor on the record, Jason Jenkins, described the history and the mapping: the original subdivision plat was recorded in 2005, a quick-claim deed dated 2006 appears in county records, and the roadway was constructed in 2008. Staff explained the practical effect of the proposed amendment: the city would receive clear title to the portion of road currently constructed on private land, and Hopkins would receive a small parcel to adjust setbacks and permit his addition. Staff also explained that state lot-line adjustment rules limit the council’s discretion if no local ordinance is violated.
Council members questioned precedent concerns — whether allowing the small one-foot strip to remain or to abut a corner could invite future subdivisions structured to avoid corner-lot rules. Council members discussed options, including recording an easement to preserve Hopkins’ access to 300 East, recording maintenance agreements, or negotiating a collateral agreement requiring a 21-foot setback from the curb for future owners.
After discussion the council voted to continue the item to a date to be determined and directed city legal staff to review the documentary record and provide an opinion addressing the quick-claim deed and whether city procedures were followed. Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing for the item before the vote.
The council explicitly separated the administrative plat amendment (the lot-line change currently before them) from the property-owner’s separate claim for compensation or restoration; staff said compensation or inverse-condemnation claims cannot be resolved through tonight’s plat-amendment action and may require legal process or separate negotiation.
Ending: The council’s continuance leaves the public hearing open; staff and the city attorney were asked to report back to the applicant within a stated timeframe and the council signaled interest in reaching an amicable negotiated resolution if possible.
