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 /> 4 t <br /> � <br /> a1o'er. <br /> 1 2 g-� <br /> c- <br /> .. ��s 'f9 ,,, S.4-4-AG AG <br /> 4� _ ..,-1 . :::,..,7 <br /> �.aoo <br /> illf_i �__._�— - .ace <br /> .-,-........„___ j \''.."7 ' -E)=e 4y,' '( 1 <br /> c---"Tic0 <br /> a zai A. - \3\ 55 e <br /> -- ,..-%,--:-.-.,,,- .--- --_ 7-1-:4-::::---- :067 ' <br /> 2G JO. .-4a <br /> O.-isa Ac. <br /> \ � ✓'- Jb t- _.,� ' .__ a' T�+ <br /> � (fi , A <br /> ti <br /> 5 11, <br /> l <br />