This is an overreaching power grab by the county. Squash it before it grows.
Squash it before it grows
In Ohio, the Recorders red mark legals that don't meet the County's conveyance standards. Usually they get one transfer then the next needs a new description. Each county is a little different with what they'll accept but it is usually POB or closure related from what I see.
Over the years verbiage has been added to some of the descriptions, often hand written, to include a portion of the adjoining vacated RW per Ord.###.
This particular County interprets that vacation verbiage as not meeting the conveyance standards.
I can understand that they're trying to clean up messy descriptions for the public's sake, but especially in this case, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate. And the rational that the sublots somehow grow is concerning.
Just ask them to point you to the platting regulation requirement.
It's proposed? Then it's not in effect.
My reply would have been, "Good thing I got here before the new standards gave you the (supposed) authority to make such a silly requirement."
Then I would make sure the right people were in the crowd when they had the hearing for the ordinance...
That's Idaho. Ymmv..