Laserfiche WebLink
a litigation interrogatory response,the Planning Director stated that SUB 05-00064 did not satisfy <br /> the requirements and standards of the Subdivision Control Code. Exhibit "C" to Petition <br /> (emphasis added). <br /> Kellberg further asked what additional requirements or standards would have been required <br /> had SUB 05-00064 not been a consolidation and resubdivision. The Director stated, "[t]he <br /> additional requirements would have been determined in the subdivision process and cannot be <br /> definitively stated because this subdivision did not go through the full normal process under <br /> Section 23-7. Generally, it would have required a county water system and an agricultural <br /> standard road, unless variances were obtained." Id. (emphasis added). <br /> SUB 05-00064 divided the 48.47 parcel into six lots while retaining the non-contiguous <br /> .699 acre portion of TMK 3-2-002-035 as an independent lot of record, in and of itself <br /> The current tax map shows: <br /> w \ . <br /> \\\\ " ': 4 W <br /> o <br /> cam \,,,,,‘ . ��~ �� -- - _ _ �Z E <br /> -f _ , T 116-27--'-- ,„.---,.:A, 7., <br /> 114 -� �• <br /> ti,o {1Q a,..•T <br /> o u <br /> —77- A ti \.` 55 ,o <br /> `3' _i X './mac <br /> ``�� � 5-7-3,4- o-186.2 e4c- <br /> —5 <br /> 5 <br />