12/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, major difference between procedures of a major and minor partition . is the type of information required by State statutes and City Code. In this instance, the type of information specified for major partition was submitted even though it was a minor partition. He said the point Council should consider is that a major partition process would not have afforded greater notification nor resulted in a different opinion. Mr. Haws said, in reference to Staff Notes and the appellant's petition, he did not understand what the issue was between a major and minor partition, and issue of streets involved. Mr. S au 1 replied the street issue was significant as under State statutes that is the major point of distinction between a major and minor parti ti on. A partition is defined as creation of three or fewer lots in a calendar year, and a minor partition does not involve creation of streets whereas a major partition does. The argument raised by the appellants was whether the street was created prior to this minor partition and should it have been required to go through major partition procedures. In this particular appeal, he said the signi- ficance of a major or minor partition is difficult to understand. City Code does not provide for different standards of judgment or different notification, and it would have been approved. Staff takes position the argument over major or minor partition process is completely misleading, noting the issue is whether or not this land should be divided in the first place. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by e Cou ncil members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 10, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Will i am Cadbury, 1500 Sky1 i ne Park Loop, opened hi s remarks by saying Mr. Saul had misrepresented his group as the record would show the group had never asked the City to enforce covenants on land. He represented an ad hoc association of more than 30 of the 58 property-owning families in Skyline Park Estates. His major points presented for denial of the appeal included the following. The form provided by the City for partition application specifies that it be signed by "owner" of the land affected. He cited precedent established in the Bienz vs. Dayton case which his group felt had merit, but which the City Attorney claimed did not apply to thi sease. He felt covenants established property rights and Fasano requirements entitled the group to notice when property rights may be affected. He continued there was no giving or taking of land in the Zdroy minor partition, and therefore no street was created by the Counci 1. He contended either no street was created, and hence Clark's cannot be a dedication of a street to an already created street, and therefore his application must be for a major partition, , or if a street were created, it was done without sufficient notifi- cation to the affected property owners. He claimed this was depriva- e tion of due process for those property owners. Also, public policy 12/12/77 - 2 '101