Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HB 3081 Mr. Pap6 requested more information about the impact of the bill, related to unlawfully divided tracts. Ms. Keppler explained that the bill would allow lots that were divided illegally to become legal if a governing body had approved a development permit for that portion of a lot after its unlawful division. The bill would eliminate the City's current approach, which was to examine the lots in question and ensure that even if the other property owner was not participating in the division, the lot met City standards. Mr. Pap6 asked what occurred if the lot did not meet City standards. Ms. Keppler said the City required the two property owners to work together to resolve the issue, whether through a lot line adjustment or easement. Mr. Pap6 questioned how the City could force the property owners to work together. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lidz said the purpose of the bill was to allow the lots to be developable, but the remedy in the bill seemed to be to eliminate all existing rules. For that reason, staff recommended the City oppose the bill unless it was amended. Ms. Keppler noted that the City reviewed less than one such application annually. Ms. Bettman suggested that number could increase if people knew their illegal lots could be legal. She indicated opposition to the bill with or without amendments, stating "if it's illegal, it's illegal." Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 3081 to Oppose. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lidz that typically, such lots were annexed into the City from the county. He said that generally, property owners did not go through any development or land use procedure; they simply created a deed and filed it. The goal of the bill was to make such lots legal and developable. He reiterated that staff's concern was the elimination of land use rules. Ms. Brooks noted that the bill was introduced by Representative Smith of the House Land Use Committee at the request of two constituents. She asked if the committee was willing to let staff talk about the bill to see if the problems she was attempting to fix could be solved in another way. Ms. Bettman did not know how that could occur. She perceived the bill as a means to subdivide a property illegally and circumvent the State's land use rules. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the property owners involved, who may not be aware of the problem. He asked if there was anything in a deed record to alert a potential buyer to the problem. Ms. Keppler did not think most purchasers would be aware of the fact. She noted that the land use process began with a form that asked the property owner to verify the lot was legal. It was the property owner's responsibility to check that fact. Mr. Lidz added at that point, it was too late for the purchaser of the lot to remedy the fact the lot was not legal. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bill could be amended to include the controls were now proposed for elimination. Mr. Lidz thought so. Ms. Bettman indicated that if the bill was amended, the bill could be brought back to the committee. Ms. Brooks noted a hearing occurred the previous day. Mr. Pap6 requested that the bill be brought back to the committee. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 3