Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/21/1995 01:03 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCRA - 02/21/95 HB 80 - DNR APPROVAL OF PLATS IN UNORG BOROUGH CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Representative James to come forward and readdress HB 80. He also recognized those on teleconference waiting to testify on the bill. He also pointed out a letter from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) addressing technical changes they wished to see made in HB 80. Co-Chair Ivan asked that proposed amendments be submitted at least 24 hours prior to a committee meeting. Number 459 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Sponsor of HB 80, stated the purpose of this bill was brought to her attention because of a plat in her district that didn't fall under a platting authority. She found that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was the filing place for plats, but DNR had no authority to review the plats. She said she has worked with surveyors and the DNR to pull the bill together and bring it back in the form worked on during the Seventeenth Legislature, SB 81. Representative James did a comparison between SB 81 and HB 80 and drafted another copy to incorporate everything that had previously been agreed upon by all the parties involved. Representative James wanted Pat Kalen and Ron Swanson to explain how their needs had been met with this bill. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA wanted to know whether the changes mentioned by Rick Elliot in the last committee meeting were the same as Ron Swanson's. Number 491 RICK ELLIOT, Municipal Lands Trustee, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, stated he had not seen the changes and could not offer an answer. Number 493 CO-CHAIR IVAN again stated that proposed changes should be offered to the committee with enough lead time for the committee members to have a chance to look them over before a committee meeting. Number 500 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the changes in the bill were directly related from a request by the surveyors in Fairbanks. She stated they tried to incorporate Rick Elliot's concerns into the bill as well as to ensure the agreement of everyone. Number 508 MR. ELLIOT mentioned that he didn't have a copy of the new amendment, but he was familiar with SB 81. Number 514 PAT KALEN, Surveyor, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, said he had a copy of the committee substitute but he wasn't sure what the other amendments were. Number 516 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the amendments delete the right of way concerns for the Department of Transportation (DOT). She said that DOT had an exemption on these before, but the proposed amendments would change that to make the exemptions specific to airports. MR. KALEN confirmed that his concerns would still be addressed. Number 522 RON SWANSON, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources, stated he only had a committee substitute. Number 524 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE expressed his concerns over the digression from the main topic. He referred to the letter from Ron Swanson and stated that they are all in agreement that the changes were quite technical and could be included in the new committee substitute. He moved that the technical changes offered by Ron Swanson be included in the committee substitute. CO-CHAIR IVAN appreciated the comments and recommendations. Number 546 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the new committee substitute had been adopted. Number 549 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the committee substitute for the purpose of the discussion. Number 552 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated that he already had a motion on the floor requesting that the technical changes be included in the committee substitute before the committee substitute be adopted by the committee. Number 553 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN felt that Representative Mackie's motion couldn't be acted upon until the committee substitute was adopted by the committee. Number 555 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated there were two ways it could be done. It could be included into the committee substitute which becomes a part of the working document and then move the committee substitute before the committee. Number 557 CO-CHAIR IVAN accepted the motion put forth by Representative Kott to adopt the committee substitute. Number 559 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE again moved that Ron Swanson's technical changes be included in the committee substitute. Number 564 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT objected for the purposes of clarification. He pointed out there were two recommended changes, the first dealing with section 40, and the second dealing with the definition of subdivision. He stated that if only part of the letter was going to be adopted, then it needed to be clarified. Number 571 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated from her perspective concerning Ron Swanson's amendments, he had two changes with a preference for the second change. She said his changes should be made into two amendments. Number 576 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE moved to divide the question with a motion to adopt the first portion. Number 579 CO-CHAIR IVAN heard no objection, so it was so ordered. Number 581 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES detailed the options in the second portion of the amendments. Number 587 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative James if she was endorsing the proposed amendments from Ron Swanson. She replied that she was. Number 590 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE asked Ron Swanson to explain the difference between the two options he'd put forth. Number 593 MR. SWANSON said he had provided two options because he had been presented with two options and he hadn't the time to take it to Legal to ask which option was the better one. His main concern here was that within an airport, any alignments of the runway or roads as it is leased would not be subject to review by the DNR. The external boundary was one of the major concerns. He felt both suggestions were operable, but again he stated his lack of time to go over them thoroughly to discern the best one. Number 602 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Swanson why he was advocating a lot of detail in the statute. Number 607 MR. SWANSON felt it wasn't that much detail, but information explaining both options. He talked about the size of corner alignment dependent upon the subdivision. Number 615 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated that he'd pick the second option because of its clarity not due to deletion but to a stipulator addition. He felt the underlined part added to the sentence would solve dedicated right of ways. Representative Mackie moved that the committee accept the language in the second option. Number 622 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected just for the purpose of getting a clearer explanation from the bill sponsor. Number 624 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out two things she hoped would be accomplished by HB 80. She stated previous problems included exempting various things. Upon the creation of right of ways, DOT wants to locate toward the center of the road. The first part would state that DOT would not be exempt from this any longer. The second stated that providing the right of way boundaries had not previously been dedicated to the public. A "subdivision" would be a right of way not previously dedicated to the public and wouldn't be dedicated to the public. MR. KALEN wanted a fax copy of the proposed definition. MR. SWANSON said he would fax the copy to Mr. Kalen. Number 645 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it was in the bill once, and an exemption was requested, but now it is being added back in. CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Pat Kalen to proceed with his comments. Number 651 MR. KALEN had two comments. He was satisfied with the majority of the committee substitute. He said it retained, to a large extent, the wording of SB 81. The problems with it on his end were over the exemptions. He stated there were little land transactions within the state that were in any unorganized boroughs. He wondered why the exemptions would need to be met in an unorganized borough. MR. KALEN stated his organization was one that worked with various state agencies to develop this legislation. He said he was speaking on behalf of the surveying society. Number 679 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE clarified that Mr. Kalen was in favor of the committee substitute. Number 680 MR. KALEN stated that for the most part, he and his staff were in favor of the committee substitute. His reservations revolve primarily around the definition of the word "subdivision." He said that in the past, the word was clearly defined based on a definition offered by Senator Leman. He stated that surveyors had originally stopped SB 81 over the confusion of the word "subdivision" and who it applied to. He stated he didn't have any exceptions or exemptions for anyone in his definition. TAPE 95-3, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE asked the members to look at the option he moved. He said the option just added into the definition of things not included. He stated one thing not included was right of way boundaries already dedicated. Number 016 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES believed that this option stated right of ways can be adjusted as long as they weren't dedicated to the public, and upon the dedication to the public, it becomes a subdivision. Number 040 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY mentioned his concern over the amendment. His understanding of the definition of "subdivision" and the committee substitute, extended his belief that it didn't include right of way boundaries. Number 050 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that subdivision had nothing to with right of ways. A "subdivision" was if you put in a right of way and you plat it for public purpose, then it was a "subdivision." If you move a right of way that has previously been moved, then it still was a subdivision. The only time it wasn't, upon moving a right of way, was if it had never been dedicated to the public. Number 060 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he didn't quite follow. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that if you divided a piece of land into two parts, it would be a subdivision, not including cadastral plats, control plats, open to entry plats, and parcel plats. She stated this was providing the right of way boundaries that hadn't been previously dedicated to the public. Upon the adjustment of a right of way that had been dedicated as a plat and was then moved, it was a subdivision again. Historically, when DOT has changed right of ways and taken the monuments from the land or even changed the land one way or another, they pay for taken land and take out their monuments. They then indicated that you had to find your corners by going to the center of the roadway. Those owners then had to undergo surveying because it was a requirement and they were not exempt from doing that. Number 102 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated that Representative Vezey brought up a good point. He agreed with the sponsor, but his problem with it was that the actual language may be a bit confusing. He stated it still accomplished its intention. Number 109 MR. KALEN explained his letter which added language to the definition of "subdivision." He stated that leases were already dealt with in section 40, 50 and 60. He said this bill was headed in the right track, but he stated the wording should be simple. Number 135 CO-CHAIR IVAN stated his appreciation of Mr. Kalen's comments. He asked Representative James what her recommendations would be. Number 139 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the right of way boundaries issue would not be deleted and anything creating or adjusting right of way boundaries was a "subdivision" with the exception of an airport, because it was already exempted. She said this referred to the replat of a subdivision and a replat won't be excluded. She said that deleting "or creating or adjusting right of way boundaries" would be the better way to go. Its absence would indicate that it was a "subdivision." Her intent was not to give DOT an exemption for creating or adjusting right of way boundaries and to have them include it in the description of a subdivision. MR. KALEN commented on ways to redefine this definition. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE asked that testifiers request permission from the chairman for recognition before commenting. Number 179 CO-CHAIR IVAN appreciated the remarks made by Representative Mackie. He then asked Representative James what could be accomplished. Number 181 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there was a motion on the floor to accept the second option. She preferred this option be the first option by deleting certain wording, "or creating or adjusting right-of-way boundaries." She then stated she would be happy with the bill with these changes. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified that the original motion was to adopt the second option, but now the motion was to adopt the first option. Number 200 CO-CHAIR IVAN heard no objections and it was so ordered to adopt the first option. He again invited questions and comments from committee members and other testifiers. He pointed out that he would appreciate testifiers request permission to speak rather than interrupting when they wished to say something. He then asked the desire of the committee concerning HB 80. Number 218 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee substitute for HB 80 with the new amendments and with its fiscal notes be moved out of the committee. Number 228 CO-CHAIR IVAN heard no objection, and CSHB 80 was moved out of the CRA Committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|