(old web site)
Schindler's
Land Use Page
|
(old web site) |
|
Schindler's |
|
| Land Use Questions and Answers on Land Divisions |
Have a question on land use, planning, and zoning? Please email it to: schindl9@msu.edu . Please tell me what county you are from. |
| A large part of Extension's service is to respond to email questions on land use, planning, and zoning. This page contains questions which are among the more common ones received. The questions and answers here are compiled from those I have received/responded to, and those I have participated in discussion with on the Michigan Society of Planning discussion board. | The materials here, are written for the specifics of planning and land use law in Michigan. | Please send your comments and suggestions to me, to make these pages a better service for you. Send to schindl9@msu.edu . |
| Topic | Question | Answer |
| Divisions can never be divided again | I attended your "Citizen Planner" class in which you
covered the Land Division Act and I have a follow up question. If
a split is made which is less than 40 acres or the equivalent (say 5 aces),
and no divisions are allocated to it, is it true that it can never be split
again even after 10 years? (November 7, 2001) |
Yes. That is correct.
Splitting land which results in 2 or more divisions (say each at five
acres) which do not have any future divisions allocated to it can never
be divided again. One can still make further splits, but
it is done as redivisions, subdividing (makes a plat),
making a site condominium, getting a court order.
The "10 year turn-a-round" applies only to making redivisions of Exempt Divisions, (those that are, or larger than, "40 acres of the equivalent"), the "60% or greater remaining" when one divides by clustering, and divisions. ----Kurt H. Schindler |
| Property Line Adjustment | Our Assessing Department and I have begun to work on
an application procedure for land divisions. We are using the application
information you provided in MSUE's
training as a model. What in "lay" terms is meant by a property line adjustment? In looking at Section 102 e and f of the Act, we are stumped. (June 12, 2001) |
The act reads:
"The division does not include a property transfer between 2 or more adjacent parcels, if the property taken from 1 parcel is added to an adjacent parcel, any resulting parcel shall not be considered a building site unless the parcel conforms to the requirements of this act or the requirements of an applicable local ordinance." ----section 102(d) (similar language in section 102(e) and 102(f)) Details on how a municipality handles this should be spelled out in a local land division /lot split ordinance. To help understand the statute, sometimes it helps to break the thing down into its component clauses: At a minimum the act requires each of the following standards be met: 1. The one division includes only a property transfer between 2 adjacent parcels, 2. If the property taken from the first parcel is added to the other, adjacent parcel A. any resulting new parcel shall not be a building site unless i. the parcel conforms to the requirements of the Land Division Act, and ii. local ordinance. You can add additional standards (by adding them to your local land division/lot split ordinance) such as: 1. maximum size, or with of a transfer of property for purposes of a boundary line adjustment; 2. that there is a actual trespass requiring a property line adjustment (building trespass, nonconforming setback needing correction, past survey error); 3. The two parcels, when the transfer is all done, complies with the minimum parcel size and with requirements. ----Kurt H. Schindler |
| Dividing a lot in a subdivision | We are dealing
with lot splits in our Village. What does the Land Division Act require
for dividing a lot in a subdivision? We appear to be in the position where we had a "lot-split" ordinance before PA 591 appeared and now have a "Land Division" ordinance which follows the PA 591 procedures but exempts platted lots. (March 31, 2003) |
The Land Division
Act requires a local government (township, city, village) have some system
for dividing a lot in a subdivision, or a lot can not be divided.
P.A. 288 of 1967, as amended, (being the Land Division Act; M.C.L. 560.101
et. seq.) reads: 560.263 Lots; further division; regulation. Sec. 263. No lot, outlot or other parcel of land in a recorded plat shall be further partitioned or divided unless in conformity with the ordinances of the municipality. The municipality may permit the partitioning or dividing of lots, outlots or other parcels of land into not more than 4 parts; however, any lot, outlot or other parcel of land not served by public sewer and public water systems shall not be further partitioned or divided if the resulting lots, outlots or other parcels are less than the minimum width and area provided for in this act. History: 1967, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968 . Otherwise one must follow the procedures in M.C.L. 560.221 through 560.229 or 560.201 through 560.213. Go to here to look up and view Michigan Compiled Laws. ----Kurt H. Schindler |
| Property Line Boundary Alternation/Correction. | We need information on a "lot line
alteration" having to do with parcel division. Someone has 10 acres (330x1320),
in Norman Township, who wants to split it in to two 5 acre parcels - the
long way. They were told they can't divide it because of the 4 to 1
problem. They want to sell 1/2 to the guy next door and they will keep
the other 1/2. The woman talked to someone in Detroit who said they
can just use a "lot line alteration". No one here seems to know about it. Can you help us? Our Planning Commission chair says, it appears that we may have to amend the Land Division Ordinance for our township. It does not, at the present time, incorporate the 1997 Land Division Act. (October 12, 2000) |
The property line alternations
is to be used to move a property line to correct a trespass problem (e.g.
someone built their home too close to, or over the parcel line). One
adjusts the property line around the trespass. Usually involves a very
small amount of land (line moves a few feet. Moving the parcel line 165 feet to create a five acre parcel is NOT a "parcel line alternation" and should not be used in that matter. They are asking to create another parcel (the 1/2 they are keeping). That parcel must comply with zoning, and the township Land Division Ordinance, and the State Land Division Act. The Land Division Act requires the 4:1 ratio. The proposed five acre parcel is not 4:1. Application for the land division should be turned down. (The Land Division Act does not provide for any appeals, variances, etc.) The answer is simply "no." The other 1/2 (they are selling to a neighbor) might, when combined with the neighbor's land, be approvable or may not. Can not say without knowing what the resulting two parcels combined would be. But it does not matter. To approve the division both would have to be approvable, and the first 1/2 is not. If the township Land Division Ordinance was written prior to the Land Division Act and there may be some problems with it vis-a-vis the Act. That would take some study. But for the current issue, (the above proposed land division) it does not mater. ----Kurt H. Schindler |
| Requiring Land Surveys | In reviewing the Land Division Application,
I am wondering why an actual survey of the property being split is not required,
or is it? On the attachment portion of the application it requires
a map drawn to scale and other requirements, but not a survey. Without
a survey, how does anybody know exactly where the property being split is
located? And who does the correct legal property description?
Maybe I am missing something, and a survey is required. Please set
me straight on this confusing issue. (May 6, 2002) |
You can require a survey.
Actually there is a state statute (I would have to look up the citation)
that requires a survey whenever someone is dividing land. It is among
the least known about and most often ignored laws around.
Surveying is expensive. People do not like to pay for it. Some might want to get the division approved before having the expense to do so. Also, if one is using Public Land Survey property descriptions (as opposed to metes and bounds, or lot/block in a subdivision) it may not be needed: e.g. I own a "40" that is the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7..... I propose to divide it into two parcels and submit a property description of: N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7..... S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7..... Then what is to check? It is a judgment call. Bottom line is you certainly can require a survey. ---Kurt H. Schindler |
|
Zoning, Construction Code, and Land Division Act |
Our agricultural zoning requires a minimum of a 40
acre parcel size, with the exception to create one parcel smaller. The
Land Division Act has its own formula for "Divisions" which could allow up
to 4 parcels to be created. How is coordination between both and building
and permits done, and how does one keep track of sub-size non-conforming
parcels? (March 30, 2001) |
First: The
Land Division Act says, among many other things, that a new division
of land shall comply with local ordinances (municipal land division ordinance,
zoning ordinance) (section 109(1)(d) of P.A 288 of 1967, being M.C.L.
560.109(1)(d)). Thus, the individual who is conducting reviews of
land divisions shall check to make sure the division being created complies
with minimum parcel size in the zoning ordinance. If it does not,
then the proposed division should not be approved. If it does, then
it is approved... etc. This was one of the very important, and fundamental, changes which was made when the Land Division Act was created; to have a process which stops creation of parcels which are too small due to requirements of a local ordinance (such as zoning). Second: The Michigan State Construction Code requires a building permit shall not be issued unless, among other things, "the application conforms ... to the requirements of other applicable laws and ordinances" (section 11(1) of P.A. 230 of 1972, as amended, being M.C.L. 125.1511(1)). That means a building inspector does not issue a construction code permit if local zoning is not first complied with. It also means a building inspector does not issue a construction code permit if the land division act is not first complied with. Most permit departments determine "compliance" be requiring a copy of the approval to be attached to the building permit application, such as a copy of the zoning permit, a copy of and land division approval. Or the person (e.g. zoning administrator, land division reviewer) has signed off on the building permit application. This provision has been in the Construction Code Act for a very long time. It is a fundamental part of the process. It is intended to be a bottleneck in the approval process to catch any problems before construction starts. Finally, the municipality tax assessor, will get a copy of all the deeds which are recorded in the county Register of Deeds office. When s/he updates the tax role to reflect the land division, s/he is supposed to notice that the division was not approved, and then shall report the violation of the land division act to three people: 1. County Prosecutor, 2. Michigan Attorney General's office, 3. Plat Section of the Michigan Dept. of Commerce (or whatever that office is called now). [Sorry I do not have the legal cite for this one, but it is in the Michigan Tax Code.] Many local communities also direct the tax assessor to send a copy to the municipal enforcement officer who can peruse it as a civil infraction as a zoning violation or local land division ordinance violation. So, back to your situation: The person first would apply for a land division approval. If it did not comply with zoning, the approval would not be granted. If someone goes ahead and creates an 8 acre parcel anyway, the tax assessor should have noted it and reported it. (Even if reported, it is not common for anyone to aggressively enforce--these are usually ignored.) Then when they try to build, they (1) try to get a zoning permit, which they should not be able to do, as it is a parcel which is too small, and did not exist prior to the effective date of the ordinance (so it is not grand fathered), and then they (2) try to get a building permit which hits the next road block, as they can not produce the land division approval, and can not produce the issued zoning permit. Your last point was someone indicating they do not have a way to keep track of if a particular parcel was approved or not. I would not buy that argument. Keeping track of such things, is necessary for the job of being able to review and approve/disapprove land divisions. The person doing that review has to have a system of keeping track of what has been approved in the past (copies of his approval on file) and most likely keeps a parcel map as a quick reference which shows what are "parent parcels" and which divisions are approved, reserved, etc. This is just the record keeping that is part of the job. MSU Extension has a program on, "Land Divisions." It is a training program aimed at those individuals who have the job of reviewing proposed land divisions. That program goes through the technical process, what needs to be included in the review, and so on. -----Kurt H. Schindler |
| Schindler's Land Use Page: Land Use Page | Education catalog | Schedule of programs| Pamphlets |for people who are not members of local boards | questions and answers | land use links | Old Stuff | Indicia, disclaimer, etc. |  |
||||||||
| 2001 Planning & Zoning Amendments | 2004 Land Use Legislation | 2006 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act | 2008 Michigan Planning Enabling Act |Kurt Schindler | |||||||||
| Kurt H. Schindler, Regional Land Use Educator, MSU Extension, Wexford County; 401 N. Lake Street, Cadillac, Michigan 49601 | (231)779-9480 |schindl9@msu.edu | fax(231)779-9105 | Map to office | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
