To the editor:

The article “Land plat status to be planners’ debate topic” mentions Commissioner Pine’s support for exempting platted properties from new floodplain recommendations. At a planning commission subcommittee study session all commissioners, except Commissioner Haase, voiced similar support for an exemption. These commissioners expressed concern that making platted properties comply with new regulations would force the city to renege on good-faith agreements with property owners.

Commissioner Haase explained that Kansas law vested residential property rights at platting but commercial property rights at development. If he is correct, then any changes that compel commercial properties owners to comply with the new regulations would not make the city abandon its agreements with property owners. Instead, the city would simply be acting within the conditional nature of the plat.

Since commercial property rights do no vest at platting, plats do not grant unconditional development rights. Instead, they inform property owners how they can develop at the time of the platting. They also allow development requirements to change if the property is not developed. Property owners who wait to develop know that the conditions may change.

In this case, floodplain requirements may change, and, if they do, the city of Lawrence would not be reneging on any agreements by requiring commercial properties to conform with them. I urge the planning commission members to consider the conditional nature of a commercial plat, rethink their positions and pass new flood plain regulations that apply to all undeveloped commercial properties.

Ed Tato, president

East Lawrence Neighborhood Assn.