Reversion to acreage
-
Michael Butcher
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:59 pm
- Location: San Diego
Reversion to acreage
SMA Section 66499.11 & 66499.16 deal with reversion to acreage. Is the reversion to acreage applied to the entire subdivision or can it be applied to just a select portion of the lots within the subdivision? What is your opinion and experience?
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
Interesting question, Mike. I see no one has step up to plate on this one.
So...in short, I would say, No. Reversion to acreage is designed to remove the subdivision from the "map" as well as all it's roads, road widening and such. Of course, the local jurisdiction would have to perform a positive act to vacate roads and dedications shown on the original subdivision, map.
Why are you not looking at a simple Merger of Parcels for the bits of the subdivision you want to "push" together?
So...in short, I would say, No. Reversion to acreage is designed to remove the subdivision from the "map" as well as all it's roads, road widening and such. Of course, the local jurisdiction would have to perform a positive act to vacate roads and dedications shown on the original subdivision, map.
Why are you not looking at a simple Merger of Parcels for the bits of the subdivision you want to "push" together?
Ian Wilson, P.L.S. (CA / NV / CO)
Alameda County Surveyor
Alameda County Surveyor
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
A good question to stimulate the thought process. My initial reaction was the same as Ian's. However, in reading the SMA, I see nothing that would prohibit a reversion to acreage of a portion of the subdivided land. 66499.11 says Subdivided real property may be reverted to acreage pursuant to the provisions of this article. It does not say that the subdivided real property needs to fit any particular configuration (i.e. all of the subdivided land within the subdivisions distinctive border).
The attached link (granted it is from Florida)
http://www.ci.orange-city.fl.us/city/go ... vision.pdf
indicates that the local ordinance of this City allows the reversion of all or any portion of the subdivided land.
An example. Subdivider A records a final map for 20 lots and bonds for all the improvements through a subdivision improvement agreement and ties up multi-million dollars in security to guarantee the work. Subdivider A grades out 10 of the lots and installs the public improvements to serve these 10 lots and sells them to Builder B who builds and sells the homes. The economy goes into the toilet and Subdivider A wants out of the business because it does not pencil out to complete the remaining multi-million dollar improvements. If the City were agreeable, why wouldn't it be in the best interest of all concerned to process a reversion to acreage on the remaining 10 lots and dissolve the subdivision improvement agreement and release the security.
The attached link (granted it is from Florida)
http://www.ci.orange-city.fl.us/city/go ... vision.pdf
indicates that the local ordinance of this City allows the reversion of all or any portion of the subdivided land.
An example. Subdivider A records a final map for 20 lots and bonds for all the improvements through a subdivision improvement agreement and ties up multi-million dollars in security to guarantee the work. Subdivider A grades out 10 of the lots and installs the public improvements to serve these 10 lots and sells them to Builder B who builds and sells the homes. The economy goes into the toilet and Subdivider A wants out of the business because it does not pencil out to complete the remaining multi-million dollar improvements. If the City were agreeable, why wouldn't it be in the best interest of all concerned to process a reversion to acreage on the remaining 10 lots and dissolve the subdivision improvement agreement and release the security.
Dennis Hunter, PLS & PE
Simi Valley, CA
Simi Valley, CA
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
66451.10 After explaining that the local agency has the sole and exclusive authority a merger of continuos parcels (meeting certain criteria) it states, “This exclusive authority does not, however, abrogate or limit the authority of a local agency or a subdivider with respect to the following procedures within this division:
(1) Lot line adjustments.
(2) Amendment or correction of a final or parcelmap.
(3) Reversions to acreage.
(4) Exclusions.
(5) Tentative, parcel, or final maps which create fewer parcels.”
We just did a LLA that first consolidated 9 lots into 1 then merged another 4 lots into 1 and then used the two "merged lots" along with 2 others to do a LLA.
SMA 66499.20-1/4 says the City/County ordinance may “authorize a parcel map to be filed under the provisions of this chapter for the purpose of reverting to acreage land previously subdivided and consisting of four or less contiguous parcels under the same ownership.”
Check out 66499.203/4. “Merger without reversion to acreage”
(1) Lot line adjustments.
(2) Amendment or correction of a final or parcelmap.
(3) Reversions to acreage.
(4) Exclusions.
(5) Tentative, parcel, or final maps which create fewer parcels.”
We just did a LLA that first consolidated 9 lots into 1 then merged another 4 lots into 1 and then used the two "merged lots" along with 2 others to do a LLA.
SMA 66499.20-1/4 says the City/County ordinance may “authorize a parcel map to be filed under the provisions of this chapter for the purpose of reverting to acreage land previously subdivided and consisting of four or less contiguous parcels under the same ownership.”
Check out 66499.203/4. “Merger without reversion to acreage”
-
goodgps
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
Reversion to acreage can apply to entire phases of a subdivision or to a block. There is indeed a grey area when it comes to dissolving a lot line for convenience of development. Confusion can come in when considering "merger" with "reversion" Both seem to accomplish the same result.
I've been advised that a "reversion" also removes conditions such as street improvements underground etc, where a simple "merger" retains those Subdivisionary conditions.
A Reversion smack in the middle of a partially developed subdivision may not be allowed due to the necessity of the capital improvements required for the general well being of the original subdivision.
Ians and Submans referral to improvements is correct.
Careful consideration when consulting with a client, is NOT to get the client in trouble or caught up in a lawsuit. The Public agency may "approve"OF a reversion, but needy neighbors may demand that improvements be installed or may file action (against the P.A. first then on down the trail ) if you follow me.
NICE POST 8^)
"good"
I've been advised that a "reversion" also removes conditions such as street improvements underground etc, where a simple "merger" retains those Subdivisionary conditions.
A Reversion smack in the middle of a partially developed subdivision may not be allowed due to the necessity of the capital improvements required for the general well being of the original subdivision.
Ians and Submans referral to improvements is correct.
Careful consideration when consulting with a client, is NOT to get the client in trouble or caught up in a lawsuit. The Public agency may "approve"OF a reversion, but needy neighbors may demand that improvements be installed or may file action (against the P.A. first then on down the trail ) if you follow me.
NICE POST 8^)
"good"