Subdivisions-large acre parcels.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
2008 General Session Summary for SF0011 Bill No.: SF0011 Drafter: LGC LSO No.: 08LSO-0027 Effective Date: 7/1/2008 Enrolled Act No.: <enrnum> Chapter No.: <chptnum> Prime Sponsor: Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee Catch Title: Subdivisions-large acre parcels. Subject: Allows boards of county commissioners to regulate subdivisions creating 35 to 140 acre parcels. Summary/Major Elements: The act allows boards of county commissioners to regulate subdivisions creating 35 to 140 acre parcels. The act provides an exemption to such subdivision regulation for the creation of not more than 10 parcels over 35 acres created from any parcel existing on July 1, 2008. Persons creating an exempted parcel must still comply with certain requirements to claim the exemption. For non-exempted lands, the act provides that a board may require any or all of certain specified information with an application for a subdivision permit for a subdivision creating parcels 35 to 140 acres in size. A subdivider obtaining a permit under this act must obtain review and recommendations from the local conservation district regarding soil suitability, erosion control, sedimentation and flooding problems. The subdivider must also meet other notification and other requirements. The act does not apply to sale or disposition of lands that were developed and promoted prior to July 1, 2008. The act requires the filing of a notice with the county clerk when any subdivided land is sold pursuant to a contract for deed. Comment: Final action on this bill was not taken at the time this summary was prepared. Should changes be made to the bill upon final passage, an updated summary will be transmitted to all legislators.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 11, 6:56 PM
S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker expressed concern that the legislation could cause unintended consequences due to its complexity and language, leading him to vote against it.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the bill because changes to paragraphs B6 and B9 clarified ambiguous language regarding water studies for exempt parcels, ensuring only necessary disclosures are required. Additionally, replacing 'survey plat' with 'legal description or recordable survey' resolved confusion over terminology while still providing assessors with needed property information.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports concurrence because the report adopts most House amendments and correctly addresses the water issue by requiring only a disclosure of no central system for on-lot wells rather than a full study.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes both the bill and the amendment because he believes landowners already pay taxes that should be used by counties to fund roads and water projects, rather than shifting costs.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes changing the effective date at this late stage is an attempt to sneak up on developers and landowners by altering rules unexpectedly.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes both the bill and the amendment because she believes the legislation will not stop cost shifting to the Water Development Commission or prevent sprawl.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because she believes counties need more time until July 1st to prepare for the changes required by the bill.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it gives county commissioners the ability to implement regulations immediately if they face a problem, rather than waiting years for adoption.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports Amendment No. 4 and the bill because he believes clarifying definitions of parcels will avoid future legal turmoil and unintended consequences.
H59
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because she believes the amendments have made the legislation tighter and necessary for counties to manage subdivisions effectively.
R · S25
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker recommends voting no because there are numerous amendments to review and verify before concurring, though they acknowledge the changes may ultimately be acceptable.
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues that the amendment fails to provide fair compensation for landowners whose property value is substantially reduced when a road is condemned through their ranch.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
8 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
22 stored
Adopted 2nd reading by CHILDERS
Failed 2nd reading by GINGERY
Adopted 2nd reading by ILLOWAY
Filed 2nd reading by SIMPSON
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by SIMPSON
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by SIMPSON
Failed 3rd reading by BROWN
Withdrawn 3rd reading by SEMLEK
Adopted 3rd reading by SIMPSON
Adopted 3rd reading by STUBSON
Adopted Committee of the Whole by STUBSON
Failed Committee of the Whole by SEMLEK
Filed Standing Committee by H07
Adopted, Corrected Standing Committee by H07
Failed, Corrected Standing Committee by H07
Adopted 2nd reading by SCOTT
Failed 3rd reading by LARSON
Failed Committee of the Whole by SCOTT
Adopted Committee of the Whole by SCOTT
Filed Standing Committee by CASE
Adopted Standing Committee by CASE
Failed Standing Committee by CASE