Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Z.B. June 1995 -- Page 5 city did n. ot show that approval would violate a plan or regulation, so Compass was entitled to the approval order. r SubdiviSion -- Park Agency. Claims Jurisdiction Over Property Through Merger bf Subdivided Land .. Phill]?s v. Cole, 619 N.Y.S.2d 886 (New York) 1994 Forest Park and Land Co. owned land along-Blue Mountain Lake in the town of I!~dian Lake, N.Y. As illustrated by a map filed with the county clerk in 1904, th~ company subdivided the land into. eight'lots (lots 101 to 108) along the shoreline, all of which were crossed by a company road. By 1939, the lots had been sold and resold, but each lot kept its own iden- tity. DuriI~g that year, a corporation conveyed lots 102 through 104 to Graham. From thet~ until 1984, those three lots remained together. In 19j54, Phillips bought part of lot 104; He .asked the Adirondack Park Agency t~ decide that his property was part of a subdivision that existed before 19'/3. He ~nade this request because the Adirondack Park Land Use and Devel- opment Elan became effective in 1973, and subdivisions that existed before then wer~ not subject to the agency's jurisdiction. The agency decided that the eight-lot ~ubdivision.was a pre-1973 subdivision along the ownership bound- aries that ~xisted in 1973. Therefore, lots 102 through 104 had merged into one before Phillips bought his part of lot 104. Phillibs sued, challenging the agency's decision. The court reversed, find- ing that thc 1904 map created a lawful subdivision. The court said the agency's decision l~ad no basis-because every conveyance since 1904 (including the conveyance of the three lots to. Graham) referred to the map. The agency ap- pealed, claiming the 1904 map did not create a preexisting subdiVision.. ~ - DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Phillips. The 1904 map created a preexisting subdivision. The. eight, original lots were sold ~tnd resold according to the filed subdivision map, and lots 102 through 104 were always three separate lots. Therefore; the agency had no jurisdiction over Phillips' property. : Accor{ting to a state statute, the factors to consider when deciding whether there was ~ subdivision included the number and location of lots sold in the subdivision and the nature, extent, cost, and location of structures and improve- ments. Before 1973, the subdivision was substantially improved by a road, public water, telephone, and electricity. Therefore, it was a "formalized and coherentlyiarticulated plan of subdivision prior to August 1, 1973." Environmental Issues -- Lumber Company Says State Law Preempts r Restrictive Timber Ordinance Big Creek Lumber Co. b~c. v. CounO, of San Mateo, 37 Cal. Rl~t~:2d 159 (California) 1995 In 1973~, the California Legislature enacted the Z'berg-Negedly Forest Prac- tice Act (fqrest act) to establish comprehensive regulations for the conduct of