I have a client that owns ten 25 foot wide lots in an old platted subdivision. There was 1 tax parcel # until 1 year ago when the owner sold 6 lots to their daughter and quit claimed the remaining back to them selves. The deeds were recorded and the county tax assessor assigned 2 parcel#s to both tracts. So far so good, now they have a sale for the new tract and the City planning department has declared their actions were illegal and says a resubdivision certificate is required. In my mind, the city is wrong, the original platted lot lines are being followed and the new tax parcels meet the minimum area and road frontage dimensions. In the last several years, this planning department has developed the attitude that they are in control of everything. I have planners who could not survey land if their life depended on it, but can always find something in my survey that they dont like. I am very frustrated. I agree that there is a time for a resubdivision certificate, but this seems to be local government over reach with no accountablity. Can I get some opinions on this?
Seems to me you need to read the city ordinances and find out what triggers the requirement for a resubdivision. They cannot make up laws on the fly, but you still have to work there.
"...They cannot make up laws on the fly, but you still have to work there."
That pretty much sums up my experience. What do their 'regs' say? Go from there. Only other advice I could give you is that it helps to have a "friend" within these departments. Can't 'fight city hall' and all that, ya know?
Around here those lots were PROBABLY merged by the original owner in order to conform to zoning requirements.
You'll need to share with us where you are.
Any response would be very location specific.
How were the lots conveyed? If a running description combined the lots instead of listing them individually then the town may have a point.
Here is our local subdivision definition. Subdivision means the division of a lot, tract, or parcel or land into two (2) or more lots, plats, sites or other division of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development. The term includes resubdivision and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of subdividing or to the land or territory subdivided. For the purposes of these regulations, divisions of land for agricultural purposes, when the resulting parcels are five (5) acres or larger in size, shall not be deemed to be subdivisions of land.
All of the lots are still as originally platted. We just grouped them into 5 lots each. The 10 lots were under 1 tax parcel number, the tax assessor had no problem issuing 2 new tax parcel numbers. The city planner considers this a resubdivision of a tract of land. Threatened witholding building permit unless the 2 month resub. ordeal is completed. I think the question is this, Is a tax parcel considered to be a lot, tract or parcel of land?
Is a tax parcel considered to be a lot, tract or parcel of land?
I wouldn't think so. As you stated, the lots as originally platted have never been vacated and still exist according to the recorded plat. There never was any resub or changes in the original lot designation and they still exist as platted. The tax parcel numbers do not change the platting, but were for the convienence of the assessors office for taxation purposes as they were all under one ownership. The planner needs to be given a course in land law and what he can do and cannot do.
Depends upon where you are.
In California, during the Carter Administration, under the guise of paperwork reduction, Assessors were given the ability to combine adjacent parcels of like ownership into one tax number. This does not mean that the parcels were merged in fact, just in tax collection purposes.
Based on recent court rulings in California, the treatment of old subdivisions depends heavily upon what has been done with the subdivision in the intervening years. If none of lots were sold and the subdivision has been handled as though it were a single parcel, then the courts are treating it as such.
Bottom line: how are the courts in your state handling these cases? It varies from state to state.
I think that the question comes down to, "Can the client convey each lot, individually, legally?"
If the lots were described in a deed out, as a single parcel, such as "bounded on the north by lots 1-6, the east by jones, the south by main street, and the west by smith" then they have been combined by deed.
If they are listed individually then they can still be conveyed individually...at least around these parts.
What would the town do if only one lot was conveyed out, or if the lots ownerships were "checkerboarded?"
