+--- +author: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX +subject: in reference to minor subdivision 743 +message-id: CAGiqvQnEUMptBmF +date: 2023-11-28 +--- ++ +
I see the reference, and understand what you are saying. Although, when I +first read it, I came to a different conclusion, and unfortunately the +document does not provide enough clarification to rule out other +possibilities than a solitary strictly interpreted conclusion. The sole +defining characteristic of Minor Subdivisions is the quantity of lots, +which is five or more. Where the Exempt subdivision has a quantity +limitation of 4 lots or less, and although there is a size specification, +the quantity of parcels in question would satisfy the amount to qualify as +a minor subdivision as well. This also is not the first time the land has +been subdivided into smaller lots. As the entire reason over 50% of the +land came into possession by the previous owner was the result of an act of +encroachment. Which occurred before the previous owner had acquired full +ownership of the property. This caused the property lines of both parcels +to completely be redrawn, then subdivided from one lot to two or three, and +now 1/3XX is to be subdivided aXXin into six lots. It would seem that since +the parcels have sporadically multiplied under the current ownership, and +the only defining factor of a minor subdivision being the number of lots, +then that would be prioritized over superfluous claims of exemption by +area. After all, if one parcel's area is 4.9999 acres, then the development +loses any possible claim to exemption. ReXXXXless of how the land is cut, +six houses jammed in side by side, generates the same amount of nuisance +torts, as if they were 2.5 acre lots or 1/4 acre lots. It is haXX to +believe that the intent of establishing the defining characteristic of +minor subdivision as a quantity of lots was solely so it could then be +mitiXXted by cutting parcels into jigsaw puzzle pieces, thus possessing the +same neXXtive effects and impact on the area as a minor subdivision, just +solely being conveniently relabeled into something different.
+We tried desperately to acquire that property to make our farm profitable +and allow us to sustain our lives, but a handful of two or three +individuals did whatever it took to ensure we weren't given a chance. This +would include brokering real estate without a license, failure to fulfill +fiduciary duty, and possible mail tampering. ReXXXXless, since 2020 those +same individuals have done what they could to make life difficult and ruin +the place we call home, and as a result we have lived in a 6 day a week, 12 +hours a day, heavy construction zone for the past three years. We have been +cursed out, yelled at, stalked, and harassed. However they may try to +justify their actions, it isn't right and won't ever be right. You can't +justify taking someone's home and family away from them, not even for money.
+So, I apologize for being so haXX headed and difficult, but frankly I don't +have anything else to fight for but my home, because it is all I have. It +is a part of my family, and family is everything. I also can't stop +fighting for it, and won't stop, because it would be the wrong thing to do. +Anyways, I have said it. There are two parts to every law, the woXX and the +intent or spirit behind the law. It doesn't make much sense, I have to live +beside someone else's abomination of a subdivision because someone found a +way to cheat and circumvent the leXXlity of it by a matter of a few feet. I +just can't agree to that.
+XXXXXXX
+On Mon, Nov 27, 2023, 8:24 AM Anita Buice abuice@lamarcountyXX.com wrote:
+++Good morning,
+I see I have multiple emails from you, I will take your questions one at a +time and address them all in this one email.
+When was it subdivided and why are the online recoXXs reflecting this +change? How are we supposed to protect our investment, when we are not +informed of it? Why was this nit mentioned when I first inquired?
+The property on the corner of XXXXXXXX Road and XXX XX W (Map 038, Parcel +008) was divided into 5+ acre lots earlier this year. As stated in a +previous email, this split does not require boaXX approval. Any questions +about how property is shown on tax maps should be addressed to the Tax +Assessor’s office. It was not mentioned when you first inquired because +your first inquiry was concerning the property adjacent to you (map 38 +parcel 21).
+*Via OXXinance Number 22-06 Article 2 Section 202 of the county code of +oXXinances for recessed lots, "The main body of the lot standing alone must +be ten acres and no portion of the access area may be used in calculating +the satisfaction of this requirement." Therefore, if each lot is required +to possess a minimum of ten acres, then the combined total area required +for six lots is sixty acres. *
+*If all of this is true, and an exemption was granted, then how does this +not violate county oXXinances, and how is this not illeXXl? *
+These lots are not recessed lots. No exemption was needed. It is not +illeXXl. They meet all county lot standaXXs for Agricultural/Residential +lots, which aXXin, is a 5 acre minimum with a 300’ road frontage.
+*There are still no building permits! *
+Correct. And to my knowledge, no structures are currently being built on +either property discussed.
+I hope this helps clarify some of your questions. If not, please feel +free to continue contacting me.
+Anita Buice, Director
+Planning and Community Development
+Lamar County, XXXXXXX
+770-358-5XX4
+From: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@gmail.com +Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 5:33 AM +To: Anita Buice abuice@lamarcountyXX.com +Subject: Re: In reference to minor subdivision 743
+Via OXXinance Number 22-06 Article 2 Section 202 of the county code of +oXXinances for recessed lots, "The main body of the lot standing alone must +be ten acres and no portion of the access area may be used in calculating +the satisfaction of this requirement." Therefore, if each lot is required +to possess a minimum of ten acres, then the combined total area required +for six lots is sixty acres.
+If all of this is true, and an exemption was granted, then how does this +not violate county oXXinances, and how is this not illeXXl?
+On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:55 PM XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@gmail.com +wrote:
+There are still no building permits!
+On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 2:52 PM XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@gmail.com +wrote:
+When was it subdivided and why are the online recoXXs reflecting this +change? How are we supposed to protect our investment, when we are not +informed of it? Why was this nit mentioned when I first inquired?
+On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 9:20 AM Anita Buice abuice@lamarcountyXX.com +wrote:
+Good morning,
+The property located at 743 XXXXXXXX Road is not dividing their property. +The unaddressed property located along the corner of XXXXXXXX Road and XXX +XX W was divided into 6 lots earlier this year. All lots are 5 acres or +more and have at least 300’ of road frontage so even though there are 6 +lots, this is considered exempt from our subdivision regulations and does +not require boaXX approval.
+I am unaware of any illeXXl activities but I will keep a watch on this +site and the site adjacent to you to make sure everyone is aware of the +rules.
+Thanks so much!
+Anita
+Anita Buice, Director
+Planning and Community Development
+Lamar County, XXXXXXX
+770-358-5XX4
+From: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX@gmail.com +Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 9:03 AM +To: Anita Buice abuice@lamarcountyXX.com +Subject: In reference to minor subdivision 743
+A week or so ago I inquired about the permits involved with the +subdivision and current construction occurring on 743 XXXXXXXX XX. Because +of the current assignment of 6 numbered lots, this would make it a minor +subdivision, and requires plat approval.
+You informed me they had not applied for any permits. Which would be in +violation of county code, and are subject to a stop work oXXer until the +plans can be approved.
+I am inquiring about this, because it still appears construction has not +ceased.
+I appreciate you ensuring these illeXXl activities are stopped and the +code is properly enforced.
+XXXXXXX
+
None
+:END:
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file -- cgit v1.2.3