Local platting authority is updating codes and is making several changes to zoning and survey procedures. I have limited experience with regulations in rest of world and was looking for input. The first question I have deals with “unusable land” - they have decided to deduct square footage of unusable land from parcel area calculations when it comes to subdivision parameters.
In other words – our zoning classification is largely based on square footage of lot. Most all subdivision decisions are based on square footage of lot. Taxes are based on square footage of lot.
The changes state - the square footage of tidelands, submerged lands (anything wet – creek, pond etc.), areas over 25% slope, flag stem on flag stem lots, and other director specified situations, shall be subtracted from the square footage of the lot for subdivision calculations.
The problem is, we live on a rock sticking up out of the ocean and we have an avulsive act that basically fixes all tideland boundaries at a certain date, most of our property is carved out of the hillsides so topography is a factor and I think most all ground that isn’t on a slope can be very wet if not under water at certain times of the year. To me I can’t believe they can do this as they will still be requiring the public to pay taxes on all this disqualified square footage. Some properties that were going to be subdivided now do not qualify because of the lack of square footage.
My question is – is this common?
Do I have any argument against this?
Does this make sense to do this?
> Local platting authority is updating codes and is making several changes to zoning and survey procedures. I have limited experience with regulations in rest of world and was looking for input. The first question I have deals with “unusable land” - they have decided to deduct square footage of unusable land from parcel area calculations when it comes to subdivision parameters.
> In other words – our zoning classification is largely based on square footage of lot. Most all subdivision decisions are based on square footage of lot. Taxes are based on square footage of lot.
> The changes state - the square footage of tidelands, submerged lands (anything wet – creek, pond etc.), areas over 25% slope, flag stem on flag stem lots, and other director specified situations, shall be subtracted from the square footage of the lot for subdivision calculations.
> The problem is, we live on a rock sticking up out of the ocean and we have an avulsive act that basically fixes all tideland boundaries at a certain date, most of our property is carved out of the hillsides so topography is a factor and I think most all ground that isn’t on a slope can be very wet if not under water at certain times of the year. To me I can’t believe they can do this as they will still be requiring the public to pay taxes on all this disqualified square footage. Some properties that were going to be subdivided now do not qualify because of the lack of square footage.
>
> My question is – is this common?
> Do I have any argument against this?
> Does this make sense to do this?
"and other director specified situations" this part bothers me, this could be changing day-to-day.
Questionable if such a local Ordnance would stand up in an Appellate Court, anything goes in the lower courts. Planning and Zoning demands often are not challenged because of cost or the time lost to do a desired land development project. Maybe your local taxing authority needs to have some input. A letter sent to the local paper exposing the plans and asking some questions about taxing and for the language used to identify development boundary's, who makes the decisions for what is excluded from development, who is charged with determining the land area and monument the new land development boundary's, what are the penalties and what appeals process will be in place to protect the land owner from excessive government control of private lands.
jud
They make other statements-
-The Department may require covenants binding future owners
-The Department may submit the plat and improvements plan to a qualified civil engineer, land surveyor, or other professional for review and may recover the costs of the review through an escrow fund. (they are requiring applicants to set up an escrow fund)
They are also requiring that a wastewater disposal system be signed and certified by an engineer even though it is legal for a landowner to install their own system according to DEC standards. Is this normal stipulation to subdivision approval?
Based on "areas over 25% slope" most of SE Ohio and West Virginia would be excluded from development.
Many of the local towns here have requirements that 100% of the required area be buildable upland, that is defined in several ways but not to different than you are saying.
At least you're on a rock, I'm on a sandbar.
I don't think that what you are saying is uncommon at all. At least in those areas that have to deal with flood lands.
This ends up happening in NH (at the state level) due to septic loading. i.e., we have to subtract wetlands, slopes over 35% and ledge outcrops when figuring minimum lot size for on-site septic. Soil types and slope and #of bedrooms also influence the minimum lot sizes.
Of course, each town can also add their own curve-balls to this formula at the local level.
I guess I don;t have a problem with it for the most part. For planning purposes, you can only use the good land anyway. As far as taxation, the house & buildings generally make up the lions share of taxation anyway. Whether the lot is 1 acre or 3 acres, the taxes wouldn;t be much different if there is a 4 BR house on the lot.
Conservancy District
Chatham, MA has a similar take.
First off, the definition of a Coastal Bank is any slope within or rising above a flood plain with a slope of 4:1 (25%).
Then they decided to put this to Zoning by creating the Conservancy District with the same definition. The area landward of the limits of a coastal bank or the floodplain is called Buildable Upland.
Then they set the requirements. Any new lot must contain 20k S.F. of buildable upland to be a buildable lot.
Our minimum zoning is 20k S.F. lots, so it works. If you have a zoning district with 40k S.F. lots, you have the 20k based on B. Upland and the other 20k can be 'lowland'.
We have a guest house provision that applies when a lot has 40k b. upland and a total lot area 20k S.F. greater than the area requirement in the district. (40k S.F. zoning => 60k S.F. lot w/ min. 40k buildable upland = house + guest house).
This does not affect upland lots where a 4:1 slope does not intercept a flood plain and they are all coastal flood plains here on this sand bar.
Our bylaw was tested right up to the State's Supreme Judicial Court and was upheld because there are specific uses allowed on lots that are otherwise unbuildable. You lose most of the value, but it does not become a taking.
It's not too bad and it keeps the development away from the banks. While I enjoy watching the houses fall into the ocean, I prefer to see them stable.
Happens a lot here in SW Connecticut.
I can send you some links to some subdivision regs if you'd like.
I think it depends on what your state's enabling legislation allows. In my state, WV, in my opinion, it would be vastly over reaching and probably would not hold up in court. In my neighboring state The People's Republic of MD (just kidding that's what some of my MD surveyor friends call it) it would likely not present any problem.
Do I would look up the provision in your state code that provides the enabling legislation for zoning regulations and then follow up to see if there are any court cases available to clarify what the courts think the legislation allows.
Or if you have an attorney friend who does land use law ask them; although I think it's always instructive to read that case yourself.
Thks for the input, I have developed a few pieces of property in different states so I have had to deal with a couple different sets of regs and the internet is great for info. My problem is that our new regs are being written for urban sprawl area densely populated with overuse issues. We are sparsely populated, no blaring past issues and no “every case” issues. We have few resources and the ones we can get are priced at the top of the scale. The new regs are a result of government inefficiency and laziness and are a way to pass the responsibility and costs to the public. From a surveyors perspective it will increase development costs probably 100% so purely monetarily I should be happy. From a landowners perspective it is almost criminal. Socialism seems to be winning.
> The new regs are a result of government inefficiency and laziness and are a way to pass the responsibility and costs to the public. From a surveyors perspective it will increase development costs probably 100% so purely monetarily I should be happy. From a landowners perspective it is almost criminal. Socialism seems to be winning.
yup. sux.
