Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chamberlain G2 37 Parcel Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Chamberlain parcel split and rezoning until corrected legal descriptions, easements and road responsibility are clarified
Summary
A proposed split and rezoning of a 14.16-acre Chamberlain parcel (G-2-37 Annex) was tabled after the board found the submitted maps inconsistent, sought updated legal descriptions and required verification of easements, tax status and road ownership before further consideration.
The Glendale Town Planning and Zoning Board on June 10 reviewed a proposal to split a 14.16-acre parcel owned by Roger and Caroleen Chamberlain (Parcel G-2-37 Annex) into two lots and to change zoning from Residential Agricultural (RA-10) to Rural Residential (R-R). The board unanimously tabled the item pending corrected legal descriptions, an updated map and documentation clarifying road ownership and easements.
Applicant representative Chris Heaton explained the family’s intention to divide the parcel into two lots of approximately 6.89 and 7.24 acres to allow family members to build homes while preserving much of the land, and said septic suitability had been examined. Neighbors raised concerns about a high water table in the valley and about whether reduced lot sizes would set a precedent for further subdivision that could increase traffic and strain local infrastructure.
Board members pressed for more precise documentation. Kade Iverson said any landlocked property behind land being split must provide proof of a recorded deeded easement; the board also required corrected legal descriptions to reflect specific easement footage. Chris Heaton provided screenshots from the county treasurer's website showing that taxes for the Chamberlain properties were paid, and he identified an easement for a neighboring Hal parcel measuring roughly 327 feet long and 22.76 feet wide. The minutes also note that parcel G-2-28 Annex, held by the Happy Hours Legacy Family Trust, contains the same easements with differing legal wording (listed as "subject to" on one description and "together with" on the other).
Because the submitted map incorrectly showed three parcels instead of the intended two and because road-ownership and maintenance responsibilities for Lydia's Canyon remain unclear, the board moved and unanimously voted to table the item until corrected maps, legal descriptions and the requested tax and easement documentation are provided.
