Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minor subdivision for Center Street parcels tabled while annexation and frontage are clarified
Summary
A proposed two-lot minor subdivision for a property near Center Street was tabled after commissioners raised questions about whether the frontage and a narrow adjacent strip are inside Clarkston city limits, and whether annexation or state/right-of-way approvals are required. The commission asked the applicant and staff to get title and attorney clarification before resuming action.
The Clarkston Town Planning Commission on May 2026 voted to table a minor subdivision application for property described by the applicant as two roughly 2.5-acre building lots with about 165 feet of frontage each, citing uncertainties about annexation and usable frontage along 300 East.
An applicant who identified himself as representing the owners explained the plan to split a parcel so that each lot would face the highway and said the title company advised the applicants they could record the split once the town approved it. Commissioners raised concerns that a narrow sliver of land adjacent to the parcel may not be within town limits and that a master-plan road (300 East) could require future dedications or road construction. Commissioner (S3) noted that if the road is part of the town master plan, future developers may need to bring the road up to town standards or deed right-of-way for the town.
Members discussed the possibility that the town does not own the immediate frontage and that the state, county or title records might control access or right-of-way; that would affect whether the commission can lawfully approve frontage for new lots. The applicant also said pulling land out of a green-belt tax classification could trigger back property-tax liabilities; he mentioned he might owe roughly five years of back taxes when reclassifying land for building lots.
After hearing title-company assurances and debating annexation options, Commissioner (S4) moved and Commissioner (S3) seconded a motion to table the application until the applicant provides clearer title documentation and the commission can get guidance from the town attorney about annexation, frontage and whether the town has jurisdiction to deem the frontage usable. The motion carried by voice vote.
Why it matters: The question of whether frontage is in town limits (and thus usable for town building permits) determines whether the commission may approve a minor subdivision without annexation or additional approvals. If annexation is required, the matter moves to the town council and town attorney for a separate legal process.
What’s next: The commission and applicant will consult the title company and the town attorney; the commission indicated it could call a special meeting (24-hour notice) or revisit the item at the next regular meeting once clarification is received.
