Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluff council reviews draft subdivision ordinance, flags definitions, notice rules and delegation language
Summary
Council members reviewed a draft subdivision ordinance line‑by‑line, asking staff and consultants to clarify mandated review deadlines, add missing definitions (easement, conditional use, subdivision amendment), standardize notice methods (mail vs. email), and tighten delegation and engineering language before legal review and a Dec. 17 vote.
The Bluff Council spent most of its Dec. 10 work session conducting a line‑by‑line review of a draft subdivision ordinance, identifying missing definitions, inconsistent notice language and delegation rules that members said need clarification before the council moves to a legal review and vote.
The chair, who led the review, said she had made only non‑substantive punctuation and formatting edits but raised several substantive points for staff and consultants to address. She said the town asked Hansen Planning to confirm whether multiple response and review deadlines in the draft are mandated by state law or were selected by planners; according to the chair, Jacob Hansen of Hansen Planning confirmed that most deadlines are mandated and that the draft errs on the conservative side to prevent applications from lingering.
Why it matters: the deadlines govern how long applicants and the town have to act and affect timelines for appeals and land‑use determinations.
Council members asked the drafting team to add or clarify several definitions that appear in the ordinance but are not currently defined, including 'easement,' 'conditional use' and 'subdivision amendment.' The chair said the document currently references easements repeatedly without a formal definition and asked that a definition be added to the definitions section so zoning and subdivision documents use consistent language.
"An easement is distinct from an alley, separate from a buffer zone," the chair said; she proposed inserting a definition in alphabetical order in the definitions list for review at the council's next meeting. The council also agreed to adjust condominium language so it reads "two or more unit development" to avoid excluding two‑unit condominiums used locally.
Members also reviewed the drafting team's rewording of the 'improvement plan' definition. The chair read aloud the revised phrasing: "An improvement plan is a detailed blueprint including civil engineering plans outlining the construction of essential infrastructure within a subdivision." She said the plan should be mandatory for subdivision applications and subject to public standards and inspection; members asked staff to circulate the revised wording for final review before the Dec. 17 meeting.
The council discussed a chart that assigns land‑use authority and delegation options to the planning and zoning body. "I personally think having planning and zoning delegation ability to staff is problematic," the chair said, urging that any delegation be made explicit and, where appropriate, require a request to the town manager or the council rather than default to staff. Members asked staff to propose language that clarifies when delegation is allowed and who must authorize it.
On technical standards, members agreed to send road and street grading language to a contracted engineer. The chair asked Michael Haviken to review the roads section to confirm whether town, county or state road standards should be referenced. Fire and water facility details—including hydrant spacing cited in section 5.0408.c—will be routed to Marks Powell (or the appropriate fire/water authority) for confirmation.
The council also flagged inconsistent notice and timing language across the draft. The chair asked legal counsel (Chris McAnany) to clarify the town's current standard for delivering written notice versus email. The chair said mailed notices can give recipients an additional three days to respond under the mail standard, while "if it's email, it's instantaneous," and asked the attorney to confirm whether email notice should carry the same presumptions or whether the code should require mailed notice for certain procedures.
Next steps: the council directed staff to (1) collect questions for Hansen Planning and technical reviewers, (2) standardize definitions and formatting, (3) request technical input on roads and water/facilities, and (4) send a cleaned draft to town attorney Chris McAnany for legal review. The chair said Hansen Planning can attend the Dec. 17 meeting to answer questions; staff will return the ordinance for a vote after legal and technical checks are completed.
No formal ordinance vote was taken at the Dec. 10 work session; the council scheduled follow‑up discussion and a legal review ahead of a Dec. 17 vote.
