> 66424 is the go to statute. Again, it states that roads, by and of themselves, don't create subdivision of land in California. And its regardless if the road is created in fee or as an easement.
However, since the statute is applied at the local level, its interpretation depends on what outcome the local agency wants to achieve. I know of a case in Solano County in which a large (1/4-sectionish) parcel bisected by Interstate 80 was found by the county to be two separate parcels. The county was supporting a Certficate of Compliance proposal to recognize 6 separate parcels, some of which were "pork chop" islands created by a freeway interchange. I questioned the interpretation early in the process, but County Counsel issued an opinion that supported the subdivision.
Don, you're right. 61 Ops Cal Atty Gen 299 (1978) discusses 66424 just as you stated. I'll have to dig deeper into this one as I am obviously not remembering the specifics correctly. One or 2 years back this topic was part of a bill in the Ca legislature regarding an attempt to declare roads created divisions even if the right of way was only an easement. There was considerable opposition and the bill died. I'll try and dig up the history on it as it had quite a bit of this very same discussion contained in the debate on it. Anyways, thanks for making the point clear.
Jim:
Maybe their decision included consideration that the land was "split" by an access controlled freeway, which action would hinder or preclude use of the two pieces as a single property. Seems I've read about something like this somewhere.
AB 2105 (2010) attempted to tackle this question by adding language to 66424 regarding when parcels would be considered legally separated when they were divided by certain facilities/rights of way. As stated earlier, AB 2105 died in committee, but it did generate a lot of discussion in the land use industries. Re-reading through that bill's history and the changes it went through (3 revisions) my memory was jogged in that I recall many in the debate believed the current language in 66424 was primarily being interpreted that division by roads did not by itself create a land division. AB 2105 intended to more clearly state that interpretation, but would also create instances where certain facilities would create separate legal status.
I recall also that the bill did not differentiate between rights of way in fee vs. those held as an easement.
Long story short, I do believe Don hit the nail on the head in reading 66424 as to the intent gleaned from a plain language reading. However also I do know it is being interpreted by some to define that roads don't subdivide. I've seen certain muncipalities make that determination and it was the position held by a number of folks who weighed in on the debate over AB 2105.
That was one of the points attempted in AB 2105. If interested a link to the versions of that bill can be found here:
> "Don't let them WHERE you down."
>
> I can't believe I wrote that:-)
>
> Don
It must be that mountain air up there Don. Your oxygen and pollutant level is low.
