FW: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
From: Jack Mihalik [mailto:JackM@hummelandlewis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Pmlsolicitors pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org
Subject: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
Everyone,
This may be a unique situation and I would appreciate any input you may have.
One of my municipalities approved a development plan for an integrated group development for a parcel of land that sets forth parking, access lighting and other traditional planning matters. A developer's agreement will have to be executed.
Individual parcels are not delineated in the approved plan and as each parcel is sold, subdivision approval for that particular parcel will have to be obtained. Each individual parcel must comply with the zoning ordinance.
As it turns out the deed into the developer sets forth several separate and distinct tracts that were never incorporated into one tract by deed.
The question is whether the tracts set forth in the deed can be sold without the need for subdivision approval since they are already divided.
Thank you.
Jack
John A. Mihalik, Esquire
Hummel & Lewis, LLP
3 East Fifth Street
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
570/784-7516
570/387-8132 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this email is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege or the confidentiality of this message (including any attachments). If you are not an intended recipient or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing, or disclosing any of the information contained therein. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (570/784-7516) or by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE: The above information may contain an opinion which does not constitute legal advice. Unless a retainer agreement has been signed, this firm is not your legal representative and you should not rely upon any opinions contained in this message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.
I think that the development plan acted as a merger of the lots into one
single parcel. This would then require a subdivsion in order for the
developer to sell the seperate tracts. There is case law on merger and
consoidation which I think sets forth the proposition that if the owner of
ground shows an intent to merge then he must subdivide. However, the case
law states that the burden of proof as to the owner's intent is on the
Twp. Check out Ryan on Zoning for an analysis of this issue. Les Mlakar
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Chuck Thompson cthompson@imla.org wrote:
From: Jack Mihalik [mailto:JackM@hummelandlewis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Pmlsolicitors pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org
Subject: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
Everyone,
This may be a unique situation and I would appreciate any input you may
have.
One of my municipalities approved a development plan for an integrated
group development for a parcel of land that sets forth parking, access
lighting and other traditional planning matters. A developer’s agreement
will have to be executed.
Individual parcels are not delineated in the approved plan and as each
parcel is sold, subdivision approval for that particular parcel will have
to be obtained. Each individual parcel must comply with the zoning
ordinance.
As it turns out the deed into the developer sets forth several separate
and distinct tracts that were never incorporated into one tract by deed.
The question is whether the tracts set forth in the deed can be sold
without the need for subdivision approval since they are already divided.
Thank you.
Jack
John A. Mihalik, Esquire
Hummel & Lewis, LLP
3 East Fifth Street
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
570/784-7516
570/387-8132 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic
mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended
solely for its authorized recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or
legally privileged. Nothing in this email is intended to constitute a
waiver of any privilege or the confidentiality of this message (including
any attachments). If you are not an intended recipient or responsible for
delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you
have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you
are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing, or
disclosing any of the information contained therein. In that event, please
contact us immediately by telephone (570/784-7516 <%28570%2F784-7516>) or
by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this transmission
(including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE: The above information may contain an opinion which
does not constitute legal advice. Unless a retainer agreement has been
signed, this firm is not your legal representative and you should not rely
upon any opinions contained in this message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with certain regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any
federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by
any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under
the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein,
unless expressly stated otherwise.
Pmlsolicitors mailing list
Pmlsolicitors@lists.imla.org
http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/pmlsolicitors_lists.imla.org
--
Leslie J. Mlakar, Esquire
Avolio Law Group, LLC
117 N. Main St.
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724) 834-6040 (ext. 107)
Interestingly, this issue is a component of a major Supreme Court "takings" case slated for argument in the Fall. Murr v. Wisconsin involves a subdivision regulation that merges two non-conforming lots when they come into common ownership. When the county refused to let the owner subdivide the now merged lots, the owners sued claiming a taking. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of the county (and the state). In my experience, I believe that the issue depends primarily on the subdivision regulations in effect where the property exists. I candidly admit not knowing Pennsylvania law, so take this for what it is worth, but my recollection is that there is no common law doctrine of merger except that involving the merger of estates, such that an easement merges into the fee and must thereafter be recreated to exist if at all. There may be Pennsylvania statutory law that affects this issue. Subdivision laws routinely merge non-conforming lots and many also merge pre-subdivision regulation parcels or tracts when they come into common ownership, but it is generally these subdivision laws that affect the transaction unless a state law preempts the issue. Chuck
Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Executive Director and General Counsel
International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1440
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
202-466-5424 x7110
Direct: 202-742-1016
Cell: 240-876-6790
Plan ahead:
IMLA's Annual Seminar April 15-18, 2016 - Omni Shoreham, Washington D.C.
IMLA's Annual Conference September 28 - October 2, 2016 - San Diego
From: Pmlsolicitors [mailto:pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 9:22 AM
To: pmlsolicitors@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Pmlsolicitors] FW: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
From: Jack Mihalik [mailto:JackM@hummelandlewis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Pmlsolicitors <pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org>
Subject: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
Everyone,
This may be a unique situation and I would appreciate any input you may have.
One of my municipalities approved a development plan for an integrated group development for a parcel of land that sets forth parking, access lighting and other traditional planning matters. A developer's agreement will have to be executed.
Individual parcels are not delineated in the approved plan and as each parcel is sold, subdivision approval for that particular parcel will have to be obtained. Each individual parcel must comply with the zoning ordinance.
As it turns out the deed into the developer sets forth several separate and distinct tracts that were never incorporated into one tract by deed.
The question is whether the tracts set forth in the deed can be sold without the need for subdivision approval since they are already divided.
Thank you.
Jack
John A. Mihalik, Esquire
Hummel & Lewis, LLP
3 East Fifth Street
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
570/784-7516
570/387-8132 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this email is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege or the confidentiality of this message (including any attachments). If you are not an intended recipient or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing, or disclosing any of the information contained therein. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (570/784-7516) or by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE: The above information may contain an opinion which does not constitute legal advice. Unless a retainer agreement has been signed, this firm is not your legal representative and you should not rely upon any opinions contained in this message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.
I agree with Les
From: Pmlsolicitors [mailto:pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Les Mlakar
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 1:38 PM
To: Chuck Thompson cthompson@imla.org
Cc: pmlsolicitors@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Pmlsolicitors] FW: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
I think that the development plan acted as a merger of the lots into one single parcel. This would then require a subdivsion in order for the developer to sell the seperate tracts. There is case law on merger and consoidation which I think sets forth the proposition that if the owner of ground shows an intent to merge then he must subdivide. However, the case law states that the burden of proof as to the owner's intent is on the Twp. Check out Ryan on Zoning for an analysis of this issue. Les Mlakar
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Chuck Thompson <cthompson@imla.orgmailto:cthompson@imla.org> wrote:
From: Jack Mihalik [mailto:JackM@hummelandlewis.commailto:JackM@hummelandlewis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Pmlsolicitors <pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:pmlsolicitors-bounces@lists.imla.org>
Subject: SUBDIVISION QUESTION
Everyone,
This may be a unique situation and I would appreciate any input you may have.
One of my municipalities approved a development plan for an integrated group development for a parcel of land that sets forth parking, access lighting and other traditional planning matters. A developer’s agreement will have to be executed.
Individual parcels are not delineated in the approved plan and as each parcel is sold, subdivision approval for that particular parcel will have to be obtained. Each individual parcel must comply with the zoning ordinance.
As it turns out the deed into the developer sets forth several separate and distinct tracts that were never incorporated into one tract by deed.
The question is whether the tracts set forth in the deed can be sold without the need for subdivision approval since they are already divided.
Thank you.
Jack
John A. Mihalik, Esquire
Hummel & Lewis, LLP
3 East Fifth Street
Bloomsburg, PA 17815
570/784-7516tel:570%2F784-7516
570/387-8132tel:570%2F387-8132 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s) and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Nothing in this email is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege or the confidentiality of this message (including any attachments). If you are not an intended recipient or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing, or disclosing any of the information contained therein. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (570/784-7516tel:%28570%2F784-7516) or by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE: The above information may contain an opinion which does not constitute legal advice. Unless a retainer agreement has been signed, this firm is not your legal representative and you should not rely upon any opinions contained in this message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.
Pmlsolicitors mailing list
Pmlsolicitors@lists.imla.orgmailto:Pmlsolicitors@lists.imla.org
http://lists.imla.org/mailman/listinfo/pmlsolicitors_lists.imla.org
--
Leslie J. Mlakar, Esquire
Avolio Law Group, LLC
117 N. Main St.
Greensburg, PA 15601
(724) 834-6040 (ext. 107)