Planning commission: proposed 10‑acre split does not qualify as minor subdivision under Section 1194B

The Clarkston Town Planning and Zoning Commission on April 2025 determined that a concept plan to split a 10‑acre parcel into two 5‑acre parcels does not qualify for the town's minor‑subdivision process under Section 1194B of the Clarkston town code. The finding means the applicants must pursue the full subdivision review process rather than the expedited “minor subdivision” path.

Planning staff told the commission the application’s proposed lot line would intersect a master‑plan road shown on the town’s master plan. Planning staff read Section 1194B aloud and said the code bars minor subdivision approval when “it requires the dedication of land for street rights of way or other public purposes along any edge of the subdivided lots, including streets identified in the town master plan.” Chairman Hanover and other commissioners agreed with that interpretation after discussion with staff and the town attorney.

The applicant’s representatives, present at the meeting, emphasized that the existing parcel currently has paved frontage and utilities on its perimeter and said the proposed split would result in 330 feet of frontage on each of the two proposed 5‑acre parcels. The applicant argued that no new road construction or new dedication would accompany the split and that the intent of the minor subdivision rules was to allow limited, low‑impact lot splits. One applicant said the rule, as interpreted, would substantially reduce the value of acreage that previously could be split.

Planning staff and commissioners replied that the code’s explicit language about master‑plan streets and required dedications created a limitation that applied even when the master‑plan road is not yet improved. Staff said the town attorney had reviewed the parcel and agreed with the staff interpretation. The commission concluded the lot split did not meet the technical requirements of a minor subdivision and therefore must proceed as a full subdivision application if the applicants wish to continue.

Commissioners and staff discussed appeal options. Staff said the state ombudsman would be the appropriate appeal authority for a land‑use applicant who wished to challenge the commission’s interpretation. The commission did not take a formal, roll‑call vote on a plat approval at the meeting; members stated their shared interpretation on the record and moved on to other agenda items.

The discussion included these clarifying technical points: the parcel proposed for division totals 10 acres; the applicants propose two 5‑acre parcels; the applicants stated each new parcel would have about 330 feet of frontage (about 660 feet combined across the original parcel); the town’s master‑plan road (referred to in discussion as a planned 300 North/200 East alignment) runs within or adjacent to the area that would be affected by the split; the relevant town code provision cited at the meeting was Section 1194B; and planning staff said the town attorney had reviewed and concurred with staff’s interpretation.

Next steps for the applicants are to submit a full subdivision application if they choose to proceed, or to pursue any administrative or statutory appeal through the state ombudsman or other applicable appeal process. The commission did not adopt any change to the town code at the meeting.

Ending: The commission moved on to the next agenda item after recording its interpretation; the applicants were advised of the appeal path and that they could either refile under the full subdivision process or pursue an appeal.