MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 3, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, February 3, 1995, Chairman Lambert presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Mrs. Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin, Vice Chairman Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman Mr. Max Bennett Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Pete Ernaut Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom Mrs. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Denice Miller, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau, John Doughty, Douglas County, Robert Morris, Douglas County, Pat Coward, Nevada Realtors Association, David Robertson, Law Offices of Robertson and Benevento, Stephanie Licht, Nevada Wool Growers Association. Chairman Lambert began the meeting with an introduction to Assembly Bill 45. ASSEMBLY BILL 45 - Eliminates exemption from provisions governing subdivision of land provided for certain divisions of land for agricultural purposes. Mr. Robert Morris, Douglas County District Attorney's Office and Mr. John Doughty, also of Douglas County, spoke first in favor of A.B. 45. Mr. Morris explained the reason they have asked for this bill is to take care of a problem of creating parcels that do not come under the subdivision act of the land division. The section specifically allows for agricultural parcels. Their desire was for the land division to go through the accepted subdivision parcel map or land division map for several reasons. Initially, the parcels being created for ten acres have no real requirements on them. If they were to be used for purposes other than agricultural, many problems could arise. If residences were constructed, for example, the parcels would not fit in with the existing structure of subdivision law in Nevada. Mrs. Lambert asked for a clarification on the requirements for regular parcel splits so the Committee would have an idea of the differences being referenced. Mr. Doughty explained the basic forming of the land division process which allows divisioning of parcels no less than 40 acres in size which are used for agricultural purposes or residential lots. This law requires the dedication of access easements to every parcel and does not create problems like those which would occur here in this exemption in A.B. 45. The parcel map process allows for the creation of parcels less than 40 acres, four at a time, also requiring legal access to each parcel. Sewer, water and other infrastructure needs would be addressed in that process as well. The most involved process would be the subdivision map process which involves five or more parcels, regardless of lot size. A.B. 45 creates a problem because the land division map has allowed for the creation of these parcels up until now and this exemption would prevent access, creating land-locked parcels and a potential threat to emergency access needs. Mr. Doughty indicated they do not see this as a viable method of creating parcels within the county or state. Mrs. Lambert queried the origin of this bill as being brought about by a division of land under the current law and is under appeal to the Supreme Court so has not filed its final maps. She asked if Mr. Doughty's intention was to prevent that division from going through. He stated the general rule on that legislation was that a special effort would have to be made to apply to that case. He was not interested in affecting that case. The reality is a potential problem for the future regarding the access limitations to the parcels. Mrs. Lambert introduced Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of the Nevada Farm Bureau, speaking against A.B. 45. He pointed out Farm Bureau policy on zoning and its restrictive impact on agricultural land owners, determining the highest and best use of their land. The Farm Bureau should be aware of this and become more active in the process of promoting private property rights. He questioned what aspects needed to be changed in the bill and noted those parcels which are used agriculturally are exempt from access requirements. He wondered whether a change in statute was necessary to correct the problem. Perhaps another scenario can be derived to address these types of problems at a local level. Mr. Busselman reiterated the reason for questioning the bill as simply not understanding why it was needed. Mr. Bennett asked why the exemption was there in the first place. Mr. Busselman said he did not know. Agricultural land purposes are different than residential land purposes. Mrs. Lambert introduced David Robertson, attorney for Mel Schwake, a rancher involved in the lawsuit who brought about this bill request from Douglas County. That lawsuit is currently before the Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Robertson wanted to respond to Mr. Bennett's question as to why this law is here. It was originated in 1947 to indicate that the statutory exemption and division statutes were not in conflict with one another, but rather one supplemented the other. It was clear to the court that the Legislature intended to continue to allow for the exemption from chapter 278, property divided for agricultural purposes into parcels of more than ten acres if a street, road or highway opening or easement of any kind is not involved. There was great concern in Douglas County about protecting agriculture and the Legislature has seen fit to provide a way to divide the family farm without having to meet the expenses required to satisfy the subdivision laws if that property division related to agricultural purposes. That was the judge's opinion for the purpose of the law. Mr. Robertson stated this bill would not have any effect on any division map which was recorded prior to October 1, as litigation is still pending. Mr. Nolan understood this was a decision by Douglas County District Court. Mr. Robertson regarded this law as a standard law, existing in many states. This law is in place to allow the transfer of property, which is what his client wants to do. Douglas County had refused to record maps so the case went to the Supreme Court. The concern is that if this bill were passed without the appropriate clarification, that Douglas County might say the law was changed and then they would not have to record that map. Mr. Bache questioned whether this issue has been a bone of contention over the past 48 years or is this a first. Mr. Robertson replied this is the first court case in Nevada dealing with this statute and the first time a county has contended there is a problem with the statute. In other states, similar statutes have been challenged, yet upheld. Pat Coward, Nevada Realtors Association, indicated the Association's main objection to A.B. 45 is more in concept. They are strong believers in property rights and support that at all times. At the time of bill discussion with the legislative committee, it was confusing at best to understand what was really going on, especially with the directions each county was taking individually and how those actions related to the bill as a whole. As the bill has been in place since 1947 and there have been no disputes up to this point, the Association does not see a need for A.B. 45. Mrs. Lambert wondered if any of those Realtors knew if this law had ever been used in any of the other counties. Mr. Robertson said no. He mentioned people from Elko were concerned about the passage of the law jeopardizing current rules and regulations regarding subdivision of agricultural property. He restated the stability of the bill since its inception and the lack of necessity for it at all. Ms. Stephanie Licht, Executive Secretary of the Nevada Wool Growers Association, voiced their opposition to A.B. 45 as it infringes on private property rights. The agricultural exception has been there for a long time and there is no apparent need for a change. Mr. Dan Hickey, Vice President of the State Farm Bureau, spoke regarding property rights and local ranchers. He said people cringe when new laws approach. He also mentioned the influx of Californians moving in to see the beautiful, green, open spaces and the cows. He urged a vote in opposition to A.B. 45 in order to maintain the quality of life here in Nevada , especially the agricultural aspects of rural farming and ranching. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Hickey if there were ten acre or more subdivisions in Douglas County that had no agriculture on them. He could not answer accurately but indicated he would make an attempt to find the answer. Mr. Morris made an additional comment concerning someone purchasing one of these ten acre agricultural parcels and then deciding to build a house. It would then become a problem because no building permit could be issued as there is no legal access to the property. He mentioned the use of the word "agricultural". If the land were to be used strictly for agriculture, there would not be as much of a problem. However, if the property is to be divided up among family members who would want it for other purposes, and then they wanted to sell it, then problems would arise due to bypassing the division laws which regulate water, sewer, infrastructure and those types of things. Mr. Bennett mentioned "buyer beware" and Mrs. Freeman pondered the ramifications of future litigation should someone build without a permit and who would be at fault. Mr. Nolan felt removing the exemption would cause more problems than leaving it in. Mr. Morris restated the lawsuit was filed with the intention of retaining the exemption for estate purposes and not for agricultural ones. If someone obtains a parcel of this property and attempts to build on it, then problems would definitely occur. The county has the obligation to provide for the health, safety and welfare of people by putting requirements on land development. Land division maps are the preferred route to take, followed by parcel maps, which do allow for infrastructure. Allowing this would create lots of ten acre parcels with no access, causing real problems upon their eventual sale. Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Morris if a Realtor was required to disclose the fact that a building permit would not be available for such a parcel. Mr. Morris responded yes, they should, but if residences are allowed at all, even if the parcel is used for agricultural purposes only, a building could still be erected without a permit and thereby evade the subdivision law. Mrs. Lambert closed the public hearing on A.B. 45 and requested a motion. MR. ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 45. MR. BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Lambert mentioned the meeting in Las Vegas on Monday, February 6, and indicated the time would be 1:30 p.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Denise Sins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs February 3, 1995 Page