Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Minor Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs revisions to Clarkston minor-subdivision rules, recommends 4-year resubdivision limit
Summary
The Clarkston Planning Commission voted to recommend updates to the town’s minor subdivision ordinance (Code sections referenced as 11-9-4 and 11-9-6), including tightened frontage rules and a recommended four-year waiting period before a recently subdivided lot may be resubmitted under the minor subdivision process.
The Clarkston Planning Commission voted in December 2024 to recommend amendments to the town’s minor subdivision ordinance to the town council, including clearer requirements for frontage, a stronger 'must' standard for approval, and a recommendation to set the waiting period between successive minor subdivisions at four years.
The changes, read aloud by an unnamed planning commission member leading the public hearing, revise Clarkston Town Code 11-9-4 to replace permissive phrasing with mandatory language and to set specific technical conditions. As presented, 11-9-4(a) would state that ‘the minor subdivision must not result in the creation of more than 3 parcels, including the parent parcel,’ and 11-9-4(b) would require that 'the area to be subdivided must have frontage on existing improved streets and be immediately adjacent to existing utilities,' defining 'improved streets' as existing paved streets in public rights-of-way built to town specifications.
Why it matters: Commissioners said the language changes reflect recommendations from the town attorney and are intended to tighten the minor subdivision pathway so that it remains targeted toward small, in-town splits rather than enabling incremental subdivisions that circumvent full subdivision requirements. The hearing included discussion of how the town’s master plans and specifications should be referenced in the code for clarity.
Commissioners debated the length of a new restriction in proposed 11-9-6 that would prevent further minor subdivisions of a parent parcel for a set interval after an application. The code previously used two years; the town attorney had suggested three to five years. Commissioners discussed tradeoffs—longer intervals help slow cumulative development, while shorter intervals preserve flexibility for local property owners splitting lots for family use. The commission reached a compromise recommendation of four years and moved to a roll-call vote.
Public comment: Shelly Pearson, who identified herself during the hearing, asked how the years would be applied; the commission chair (unnamed) clarified that the restriction applies to successive minor subdivisions of the same subdivided lots and that the change affects only the minor subdivision process (not the full subdivision process, which requires infrastructure improvements such as paving and can still be pursued where appropriate).
Vote and next steps: In the roll-call portion of the meeting, Planning Commissioner Hidalgo responded 'Aye' and Planning Commissioner Powell responded 'Aye.' The chair announced the commission will recommend the Chapter 9 minor-subdivision ordinance changes, including the four-year resubdivision interval, to the town council at its next meeting.
What’s not in the record: The transcript records the named ayes but does not supply a complete roll-call list of every commissioner’s vote; the recommendation will be forwarded to the town council for their formal consideration and any final adoption.
The planning commission closed the public hearing and opened its regular meeting. The town council is expected to consider the recommended ordinance amendments at an upcoming council meeting.
