I disagree. (B) doesn't say what you are asserting. All it says is when they do get merged/consolidated, you have no right to split them again without board approval.
I disagree. (B) doesn't say what you are asserting. All it says is when they do get merged/consolidated, you have no right to split them again without board approval.
In the case of that specific ordinance, clause (b) is dependent upon clause (a) -- it is describing the effect of what happens when a merger occurs under clause (a). The goal of the ordinance, when read as a whole, appears to be to prevent landowners from acquiring parcels that were drawn under former zoning rules, then splitting or subdividing them without having the newly created lots conform to the current rules.
"Your question about whether A, B, and C were once a single parcel is really irrelevant in this instance . We are dealing with merger and not separation of title. What relevance do you think there is to this question?"
Fine. I thought it might help clarify how/when the easement had been created, since that wasn't clear (to me).
But you surely know best.