Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadowtown council reviews proposed subdivision ordinance edits, suggests returning draft to planning commission
Summary
Council members reviewed a draft subdivision ordinance and proposed edits to remove duplicate clauses, align allowed housing types with Meadowtown code, give the town watermaster 20 days to comment on water conveyance facilities, change attorney review from 'shall' to 'may', and move the checklist out of the ordinance.
The Meadowtown Town Council reviewed a draft update to the town's subdivision ordinance and identified a series of wording and process changes meant to reduce redundancy and preserve local flexibility. Chair (Speaker 1) led the review and proposed specific edits, including deleting a duplicated “comply with frontage” clause and making the list of permitted housing types consistent with Meadowtown code.
“The town attorney shall review the final plat and shall recommend approval,” Chair said while reading the draft, then recommended changing the two usages of “shall” to “may” so the attorney's involvement would be discretionary for straightforward plats. He also proposed that the town watermaster be given 20 days to review and comment when a proposed subdivision implicates a defined “water conveyance facility.”
Committee member (Speaker 2) urged consistency where the draft references “if allowed under Meadowtown” and said condominium rules should defer to Meadowtown code if the local code already addresses them. The council discussed allowing a contracted engineer or an alternate town official to sign the final plat rather than requiring the specific list of individuals named in the draft.
Council members also debated whether to keep the subdivision checklist inside the ordinance text. Chair and other members argued the checklist is a useful administrative tool but should be referenced by the ordinance and maintained outside the ordinance so it can be updated without a formal code amendment.
Speaker 2 recommended sending the draft back to the planning and zoning commission for the modest wording and consistency changes and then bringing it back to council for a public hearing. The council agreed that returning the draft would still require a public hearing so residents could comment before final action.
Next steps: the council agreed to request revisions from the planning and zoning commission and to schedule a public hearing when the commission returns the draft.
