NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to HB77

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Attorney General

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

According to the Attorney General, Senate Bill 157 accomplishes two basic things. (1) It amends the Subdivision Act by deleting from the definitions section certain lands now not considered subdivisions under the Subdivision Act, and creates a new section wherein counties may exempt such lands from their subdivision definitions. It provides criteria and an exemption procedure at the initiation of the landowner. (2) It creates a new section in the Act to address the merger doctrine in subdivision law. Subsection A provides that two or more contiguous parcels shall not be merged solely by virtue of the fact that they are owned by the same person or entity. Subsection B says that counties may provide an exemption procedure in their subdivision regulations and lists certain criteria for such a county exemption regulation. It provides that where any one of the contiguous parcels does not meet the minimum lot size set forth in the county's regulations, and one or more of the listed criteria are also present [for example: no legal access, not meet water, sewer, slope, size, health, safety or zoning standards], then the county may initiate a merger procedure. The procedure provides for notice and an opportunity for the landowner to be heard with appeal rights.

Significant Issues

The bill shifts the determination of whether certain lands are to be considered "subdivisions" from the Subdivision Act to the counties. Counties are authorized to provide in their regulations a procedure where the landowner desiring to be exempt from the county definition of "subdivision" may apply for a determination by the county that the lands in question meet the criteria for a finding of exemption, with appeal rights. The issue is whether this matter should be addressed in the State Act or by the counties.

The Bill also codifies the procedure for a determination of whether two parcels of land under common ownership should be considered to have merged into one larger parcel for purposes of further subdivision analysis. The Bill provides for a due process procedure at the initiation of the county. The county is to notify the landowner when it appears that the merger criteria are present and affords the landowner notice, and opportunity to be heard, with appeal rights. The issue is whether this codification of the merger doctrine is in the public interest.

RELATIONSHIP

HB77 addresses the merger doctrine in a different manner.

MV/ar/njw