Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/18/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSSHB 352: "An Act relating to the approval, change, or vacation of subdivision plats in areas outside organized boroughs, in the unorganized borough outside of cities, and in the third class boroughs; and relating to the definitions of `street' and `subdivision'." REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated HB 352 came to her attention because she had a university subdivision being created in her district in an area where there was no platting or planning authority. She said there was a problem with legal access to the subdivision. She explained that all subdivisions filed within an unorganized borough or a borough which does have platting authority are filed with DNR, but DNR has no authority to determine whether or not the subdivision was in compliance with state law. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has been working with the Division of Land and the Native corporations on the issue, and the sponsor substitute before the committee addresses their interests. She explained HB 352 will provide some oversight by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) when subdivisions are filed within an area where there is no platting authority to ensure that in the future, there will not be clouds on the title, access problems and other problems created by improperly filing plats. She pointed out on page 3, line 17, where it says "organized under P.L. 92-203, by the creation of public access", it has been suggested that it say, "by the creation of public or common carrier access." Number 234 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the proposed amendments from Sealaska are incorporated into the work draft. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said they are included. She explained their needs have been met, but the language may not be word for word. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to ADOPT CSSSHB 352(RES). CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 265 RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, stated Section 1 defines subdivisions. Currently there are two or three definitions of subdivisions. The change made in that section provides for one definition for subdivision which will apply to all platting authorities. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he noticed on page 3, lines 14- 18, subdivision is defined and asked if that is what Sealaska has an interest in. MR. SWANSON thought that was correct. He said Sealaska's main concern is that when conveyance is received from the federal government, a big block of land is received which has roads, access, utility lines, etc., through it, and Sealaska does not want that to create the original subdivision. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought lines 14-18, on page 3 meant the exception for those corporations is only in the creation of public access. MR. SWANSON said what DNR is attempting to do is if a RS2477 happens to fall across land conveyed to a Native corporation, that would not create the subdivision. It is the subsequent action to create lots which would create the subdivision and would go into the plat review. He explained it would be the same situation if there was a need to run a utility line across the land. DNR does not want that to create a subdivision. Number 311 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in regard to the public access portion and asked if it would apply to the rights on section and quarter section lines. MR. SWANSON requested Sealaska to respond to the question. He said when land is conveyed to a Native corporation, only the exterior boundaries are surveyed, so section lines do not exist unless they were surveyed before. If the section line has been surveyed, the section line access is there. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the exemption applies to more than Native land. MR. SWANSON said the exemption is only for land conveyed to Native corporations which is Public Law 92-203. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Swanson to explain application of the sponsor's suggested amendment to add common carrier, on page 3, line 17. MR. SWANSON responded common carrier is a telephone, telegraph, utility line or pipeline, so putting in that particular utility will not create the subdivision, it will just allow that to happen. Number 337 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Mr. Swanson to continue explaining the changes. MR. SWANSON said Sections 1 and 2 are the definitions of subdivisions. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he still was not clear why there is a definition of subdivision in Sections 2 and 5. He asked why there are two different definitions of subdivision. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded because two different areas of the law are being discussed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said one section applies to public lands and the other applies only to Native land. MR. SWANSON stated a change is being made in Title 38 to define subdivision and changes are also being made in Title 40. He said there is a desire to get one definition of subdivision. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added a change is being made in Title 46, as well. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER felt to say they are being made uniform is not correct. He pointed out the definitions contained in CSSSHB 352(RES) are not repetitive and asked how they are being made the same. Number 360 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded there is a definition for Native lands and then there is the rest which has the other definition. He said the definition is the same for the same type of ground. MR. SWANSON stated currently there is no definition of subdivision in Title 38 and Section 1 addresses that problem. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why the definition in Section 2 is different than the others. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER thought Title 34, Title 40, and Title 46 all have... CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked committee members to use the Chairman. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated although the definition for subdivision is not word for word in each of the sections, it is the same. She said because there are different sections, there is different information needed, but the basic definition of a subdivision means: "the division of a tract or parcel of land into two or more lots or by the creation of public access; does not include cadastral plats, cadastral control plats, open-to-entry plats, remote parcel plats created by or on behalf of the state regardless of whether these plats include easements or other public dedications, or plats prepared by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the purpose of transferring leasehold interests at state-owned airports or creating or adjusting right-of-way boundaries." She said the other language in the bill is applicable to that particular section of law and only that section of law. She explained each section refers back to the specific definition of a subdivision. Number 451 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why the exception for land owned by corporations organized under P.L. 92-203...and apply it to the other definitions as well. MR. SWANSON responded Title 38 only applies to state land and that is the reason for the Native corporation exception. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that Section 34 does not apply to state-owned land but other land. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the person from Sealaska could speak as some of the questions being asked could be answered. RICK HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, RESOURCE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION, SEALASKA CORPORATION, stated the proposed change in Section 1 making the reference to AS 40.15.290 meets the concerns which Sealaska had raised. He said Title 34 of the statutes relates to private lands, while Title 38 represents state lands. Sealaska was interested in the legislation because in correcting the problem discovered by Representative James in her district, it opened another problem. He explained Native corporations are conveyed large blocks of ground and at times, access across the ground will be required for public access or common carrier corridors. He said by having public access or common carrier corridors across their property, they do not want property they have not subdivided to all of a sudden be thrown into the subdivision definition which then starts kicking off other things under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and state law. MR. HARRIS stated Sealaska is satisfied with Section 1 and Section 5 with the proposed amendment which Representative James offered. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to AMEND CSSSHB 352(RES), on page 3, line 17, after the word "public", add "or common carrier." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 550 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the explanation of the changes to the law could continue. MR. SWANSON stated Section 2 establishes a new section in Title 38 for state land which defines subdivision. Section 3 addresses public records which set out DNR as the platting authority outside of organized boroughs or boroughs who do not have platting authority. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what the significance is of removing the words, "for the change or vacation..." MR. SWANSON responded that deletion allows DNR to review all plats instead of just vacation of existing plats or a portion of plats. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if that implies a greater work load on the department. MR. SWANSON replied the department is assuming they will have approximately 250 more plats to review. Existing regulations allow the department to charge for that plat review. He said the fees charged will more than cover the cost of the additional workload. He added the savings and benefits to the lot community will be substantial. Number 590 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the program operates under program receipts authority. MR. SWANSON answered that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered if the fiscal note does not pass, is the department's program receipt authority any bigger than the actual program receipts, and is there room to take the money and apply it to the department's budget. MR. SWANSON answered no. He said the department does not have any program receipt authority within the survey budgeting. He stated the department has fees and the fees go back into the general fund. Number 612 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there is a fiscal note because there is income to cover expenses. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said there is not a zero fiscal note, it has a zero impact in relation to the general fund. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated there must be an assurance that the receipt and expenditure authorization is appropriated in the budget. Otherwise, the department will be given added responsibilities with no money to accomplish them and the money collected will go into the general fund. Number 665 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked if the department's concerns have been addressed. MR. SWANSON answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in Section 4, it says the department may not disapprove a new subdivision plat except for failure (1) to comply with applicable state law; or (2) of the plat to provide for, or otherwise specify, access... He asked what else could the department disapprove a plat for. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought the section related to public input. When a plat is filed and if it meets state laws and regulations, it is on the books. TAPE 94-36, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if public hearings, etc., are state law requirements. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded they are by platting and planning authority within the various communities. MR. SWANSON said there are some requirements within Title 29 which is the municipal actions, but this legislation is outside municipal actions. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that nothing in state law is therefore being left out in the department's ability to disapprove a new subdivision plat. MR. SWANSON said the way he reads it is that the department will review the plat to make sure it complies with any state law as far as consistency with platting, public records, etc., and will make sure it has public access. If the plat meets those requirements, DNR will approve the plat. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated if the old language is read it says that "DNR is the platting authority in the area outside the organized boroughs,...for only the purposes of hearing and acting on petitions for the change or vacation of plats" which means it has already been done and shall execute in accordance with AS 29.40.130-29.40.160. He pointed out DNR is being given the platting authority and the other words are providing some limitations they have in their platting authority. DNR may not disapprove except for failure to comply with state law or to otherwise provide access to the lots. He felt the way the section has been rewritten is to conform with the new elements of function. Number 028 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that DNR cannot disapprove a plat for any subjective reason. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the language indicates a state department cannot disapprove anything except for a violation of a state law. He thought he was missing something because all a state department can enforce is the state law. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to move CSSSHB 352(RES) with fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Monday, March 21 at 8:15 a.m. to hear HB 496 and HB 238. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|