Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadow officials review state‑required subdivision ordinance, flag attorney review, Mylar and percolation provisions
Summary
Meadow planning staff and town elected members reviewed a state‑mandated model subdivision ordinance and agreed to resolve questions about attorney involvement, signature requirements, legacy Mylar rules and witnessed percolation tests before a public hearing, likely advertised for October.
Meadow town officials and planning staff spent most of the meeting reviewing a draft subdivision ordinance the state has asked municipalities to adopt, agreeing to answer a series of technical questions before scheduling a public hearing.
The draft, which Planning & Zoning has been working on for roughly a year, implements state‑provided language and covers subdivisions of 10 lots or fewer, officials said. Unidentified Speaker 1 said the goal is to have a version the council can "live with" before taking it to the public so minor clerical errors do not derail the hearing.
The discussion centered on several substantive points that staff will be asked to clarify: how the code distinguishes a "simple lot" from a "minor lot," whether the town attorney must ("shall") review final plats or whether that review should be discretionary, how signature requirements on final plats interact with limits on elected officials' roles, legacy requirements for Mylar (waterproof ink) versus modern PDF filing, and a state‑template line requiring percolation tests be "witnessed by a town representative."
Unidentified Speaker 2 said the draft felt "very cumbersome" and worried that, as written, the ordinance might deter property owners from pursuing small subdivisions. "If I was going to submit an application to put a subdivision ... I think the ordinance, if it's listed here, I think it's gonna deter anybody from wanting to do any subdividing," the speaker said. Unidentified Speaker 1 responded that "this is for 10 lots or less" and that only a handful of parcels in town are likely to fall under the rule unless the town annexes additional land.
Staff described two application tracks: a streamlined path for "simple lots" where utilities and roads already exist, and a fuller preliminary/final application for "minor lots" that require added infrastructure. "If everything's existing ... it doesn't have to go through that cumbersome process," Unidentified Speaker 3 said, explaining the intended distinction between the two tracks.
On attorney review, Unidentified Speaker 1 flagged wording that reads "the town attorney shall review the final plat," warning that mandatory language could increase costs and add delay. "If we do it at may, I think we should pass those fees on anyway," the speaker added about charging applicants when outside reviews are required. Planning staff said the "shall" language came from the state template and agreed to explore discretionary wording.
Officials also questioned legacy technical language requiring Mylar sheets and waterproof ink. Planning staff said some language was carryover from older templates and will check with the county recorder about modern filing requirements (PDFs or electronic submission). The draft's checklist also includes outside reviewers (railroad, irrigation company, U.S. Postal Service) carried over from the state document; staff said the town engineer or an outside consultant (for example, Sunrise Engineering) would determine which external reviews are applicable.
A technical provision in the draft requires percolation tests for storm drainage to be "witnessed by a town representative." Unidentified Speaker 1 said that level of required witnessing is not used elsewhere in town and asked staff to verify whether that requirement is appropriate or should be limited to applicable cases.
No formal vote or ordinance adoption took place. Council members asked staff (Andrew and Monica were named in the discussion) to answer the open questions, label drafts with version numbers and circulate an updated draft in time to advertise a public hearing; speakers suggested a target of advertising in October if the outstanding items are resolved.
The council thanked staff for work on the draft but did not set a final date. The short‑term rentals item remains scheduled for the next regular meeting, and the subdivision ordinance public hearing will be scheduled after the additional clarifications are provided.
