E-Edition

JOB OPENING FOR OFFICE MANAGER

The Sanpete Messenger

County commission approves eight-lot subdivision east of Mt. Pleasant

County commission approves eight-

lot subdivision east of Mt. Pleasant

 

By James Tilson

Staff writer

Nov. 16, 2017

 

MANTI—During its regular meeting last week on Nov. 6, the Sanpete County Commission gave its final approval for amendment of the Gateway Subdivision, located two miles east of Mt Pleasant.

During the approval process, the commission discussed the process whereby amendment of a subdivision plat should be made. Sanpete County Attorney Brody Keisel informed the commission that recent changes in Utah law require that an amendment must have the approval of the county commission and be recorded, in addition to providing proper notice to subdivision lot owners.

The amendment to the Gateway Subdivision plat had been previously approved, but Reed Hatch, Sanpete County Recorder, reviewed the signatures of the owners who approved the amendment, and found irregularities. “One of the signatures was from a deceased person, and some of the owners never replied to the notice.”

The amendment dealt with changes in lot size for a few of the lots that were affected by a new road being built through the subdivision, and a subsequent re-surveying of the subdivision. Letters informing the lot owners were sent to all owners, but not all replied.

Hatch had asked the commission whether the notice given satisfied the law.

Kiesel answered that he felt that if the commission and the Recorder thought the subdivision had satisfied due diligence, then the statute had been satisfied as well.

Commission Chair Claudia Jarrett said that she was glad that all the county parties were getting together, and working through the process of amending the plat, and she thought that due diligence had been shown by the subdivision.

Zoning Administrator Scott Olson clarified that 80-percent of the lots in the subdivision were still owned by the corporate developer, Incline Inc., and there were only 5 individual lot owners. He said that there were only three non-responses to the developer’s letter, and none of those were affected by the lot amendments needed for the road.

Jarrett then stated that she was willing to stand by the commission’s original approval of the amendment, and the amendment was approved again by the commission.