Has anybody formed an opinion of this recently introduced bill:
http://totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=200920100AB2105
In general, it modifies the definition of "subdivision" and will allow an owner of a lot that is separated by one of a variety of infrastructure/utility rights of way to not be considered contiguous, resulting in two legal lots without having to subdivide the property.
The bill appears to be silent on what process would have to occur to deal with the thousands of lots across the state. I would assume that this would create a large volume of certificates of compliance...
AB 2105
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Utility easement?
The proposed language to be added as 66424 (b) (2) (C) is:
"A utility easement."
If utility easements can divide property into separate parcels, this would present a huge increase in the number of taxable and saleable parcels. Presumably, the dividing line would be the center of the easement, possibly depending on how it was described (i.e. "5' northerly of and 10' southerly of the following described line ...").
It doesn't seem likely this language will survive long, but stranger things have happened in Sacramento ...
Warren
"A utility easement."
If utility easements can divide property into separate parcels, this would present a huge increase in the number of taxable and saleable parcels. Presumably, the dividing line would be the center of the easement, possibly depending on how it was described (i.e. "5' northerly of and 10' southerly of the following described line ...").
It doesn't seem likely this language will survive long, but stranger things have happened in Sacramento ...
Warren
-
Tom Herrin
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Highland, CA
- Contact:
Looks like AB2105 has been amended already (3/24/10), with the new language being much more restrictive:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... sm_v98.pdf
The language allowing for a 'utility easement' to be a dividing line has been dropped. As written in the amended version, I could see the benefits of something like this passing.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... sm_v98.pdf
The language allowing for a 'utility easement' to be a dividing line has been dropped. As written in the amended version, I could see the benefits of something like this passing.
