Residential With Non-contiguous Lots

[SJ GLO]

Yes, the parcels are located in the Pinelands. Most of you would be familiar with this area from the Sopranos. Its where the mafia likes to bury the bodies. I have a copy of the deed - the lots were assembled in 1999. The house built in 2010 and the Pinelands zoning dates back to 1978. The idea of allow being able to allow lots like this to be assembled is that when the Pineland restrictions when into effect, a large portion of of the region became unbuildable and the land basically worthless, so this appeased the pissed off owners. I think the zoning official gave me wrong info and I am going to try again on Monday to speak to someone else. The two 'out lots' are clearly marked on their tax cards that their density rights have been transferred to the mother lot, so why would the township care who owns the 'out lots' as long as they don't try to develop them.

 

[timd354]

Yes, the parcels are located in the Pinelands. Most of you would be familiar with this area from the Sopranos. Its where the mafia likes to bury the bodies. I have a copy of the deed - the lots were assembled in 1999. The house built in 2010 and the Pinelands zoning dates back to 1978. The idea of allow being able to allow lots like this to be assembled is that when the Pineland restrictions when into effect, a large portion of of the region became unbuildable and the land basically worthless, so this appeased the pissed off owners. I think the zoning official gave me wrong info and I am going to try again on Monday to speak to someone else. The two 'out lots' are clearly marked on their tax cards that their density rights have been transferred to the mother lot, so why would the township care who owns the 'out lots' as long as they don't try to develop them.

Yes, it makes no sense that these lots cannot be transferred as they are not buildable in any case. I would suggest speaking to someone in the land records office as they should know whether a deed transferring only the two out lots would be accepted for recordation.

 

[Carlos Danger]

It's been a long time since I appraised a couple of large parcels in there, but I recall the Pinelands Commission being helpful.

 

[Carlos Danger]

The other two lots can be used for hunting, primitive camping and bee keeping.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Yes, the parcels are located in the Pinelands. Most of you would be familiar with this area from the Sopranos. Its where the mafia likes to bury the bodies. I have a copy of the deed - the lots were assembled in 1999. The house built in 2010 and the Pinelands zoning dates back to 1978. The idea of allow being able to allow lots like this to be assembled is that when the Pineland restrictions when into effect, a large portion of of the region became unbuildable and the land basically worthless, so this appeased the pissed off owners. I think the zoning official gave me wrong info and I am going to try again on Monday to speak to someone else. The two 'out lots' are clearly marked on their tax cards that their density rights have been transferred to the mother lot, so why would the township care who owns the 'out lots' as long as they don't try to develop them.

This is exactly what I was referring to. We have a similar situation is some of the areas I work, also dealing with Pine Barrens. There are also other areas involving subdivisions created approximately a century ago (prior to any zoning ordinance), out in the middle of the woods with substandard lots, and no infrastructure. Development and perc rights are transferred from those lots to lots in other areas. However, only the rights are transferred, and the lots the rights were transferred from are not "merged" with the lot that received the rights. It could theoretically be set up in the manner you noted, though I haven't seen it done in market area.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

True, and when they are legally separate parcels with individual tax parcel id #'s they can usually be transferred individually.

I can't speak for all areas, but there are many circumstances where tax parcel IDs and the legal description of the property don't match up. The very common one I come across deals with properties that are located in one or more taxing jurisdictions. For example, there was one property I came across that was less than an acre in size, yet was divided by a village boundaries and two school boundaries, thus has three tax parcel IDs. Yet it is only one building parcel.

There may be other issues that are local. Another common one where I work involves vacant lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size requirement. They may be described by one or more tax parcels, but may be only one building parcel if under common ownership.

 

[Webbed Feet]

They do have their own tax ID numbers but are valued at zero.

Recognize this as trivia. What the taxing authority is doing to achieve taxation purposes is meaningless to your assignment. Besides, it is doubtful there is an actual market value of zero. If so, I'll gladly purchase all of that zero value land in the state.

 

[Walter Kirk]

This certainly sounds like a Pinelands restriction, not a zoning restriction.
Pinelands regulations restrict the ability to build in a very large portion of south Jersey.
Two weeks ago I erected a modular house for a customer in the pinelands, the house is located on a one acre parcel but the owner had to purchase additional parcels ,which can never be developed, elsewhere in the township to obtain a building permit. This may sound crazy but you must remember this is New Jersey.

I would, of course, inform the client of this situation and I would use sales of other developed properties located nearby which are currently legal non conforming uses.

 

[CANative]

i have not had the same situation (as I recall) but I don't see why this couldn't be done legitimately.

Describe the situation, explain that your assignment is to value the single parcel, and do it.

I'm assuming the other parcels have their own separate legal identity. They should be able to be sold individually if the owner was so moved. The deed identifies who owns the property. The legal descriptions identify what the property is. It sounds to me like there are three different sites/lots under one single ownership. The client only wants to lend on one of those three (although it may wrap the mortgage on all three as an abundance of care... but that isn't your problem).

My 2-cents.

Williamson Act. Minimum 100 acres. But to meet the requirement several parcels may be combined if they are contiguous or if they are held in common ownership. The parcels may not be sold separately unless a notice of non-renewal is filed and that takes 11 years now (was 10.) Otherwise there are severe tax penalties.



An agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. However, in order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership. Smaller agricultural preserves may be established if a board or council determines that the unique characteristic of the agricultural enterprise in the area calls for smaller agricultural units, and if the establishment of the preserve is consistent with the General Plan. Preserves may be made up of land in one or more ownerships.

 

[gregb]

Thanks for the reminder Boyd-

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/basic_contract_provisions/Pages/LCA_QandA.aspx