Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Land Use Board opens review of minor‑subdivision rules; asks staff to pursue outreach
Summary
The board continued a multistep review of minor‑subdivision policy, discussing whether parent‑parcel rules that treat lots split by roadway as separate parcels create a loophole allowing more than eight minor lots; staff will seek input from builders and the agricultural community and return with comparative examples and draft wording.
Union County planning staff and board members resumed a multi‑month review of the county’s minor‑subdivision standards on March 17, focusing on the definition of a "lot," the parent‑parcel date, and possible family‑subdivision exemptions.
Planning Director Lee Jensen explained that under the existing ordinance a public right‑of‑way that divides a parent parcel can create two parent parcels for minor‑subdivision counting, allowing up to eight minor lots on each side and, in some rare large‑tract scenarios, substantially more than eight total lots to be created without triggering major‑subdivision requirements. ‘‘If a public body or any authority with the power of eminent domain condemns … and the interest thus obtained … effectively prevent the use of this parcel as one lot, then the land on either side of the strip constitutes a separate lot,’’ Jensen said while reading the ordinance language.
Board members debated possible approaches: retain the current definition, remove the sentence that treats road‑divided parcels as multiple parent parcels, adopt a periodic ‘reset’ of the parent‑parcel baseline (staff proposed a 10‑year reset tied to the date the board of county commissioners adopts the change), or implement a narrowly tailored family‑subdivision exemption with limits (lineal descendant tests, per‑year or per‑lot caps, ownership retention periods and private‑drive access conditions).
Staff noted enforcement challenges for family exemptions — monitoring deed titles and owner‑retention periods is administratively burdensome and can be complicated by events such as divorces — and recommended more outreach before changes. The board directed staff to schedule discussions with the agricultural advisory board, Cooperative Extension, and local builders, and asked staff to return with comparative examples, farmland‑loss data and draft ordinance language.
Next steps: staff will circulate peer‑county examples of family‑subdivision provisions, compile developer and agricultural feedback and return with proposed text amendments and impact scenarios at a future meeting.
