Our Friday morning meetings include a discussion of the"Problem of the Week." I've attached two possible solutions. I know one is correct. I just want to know where the legal basis for the solution might be found. Also, does the solution vary from state to state?
Don't be too quick to assume a general principle applies in any particular situation. The usual "correct" solution won't work in this case.?ÿ
First streets revert to where they came from. So say the lots existed before the street and the Lot lines extended straight across. In that case 2 would be correct.
1 is correct in the case where the street and lots were created at the same time. I don't have any authorities for this at hand at the moment. Curt Brown's reasoning for this is the Lot owners are assessed for street improvements by length of frontage so the street should revert the same way on vacation.
I've fought that battle before.?ÿ Years ago.?ÿ With the County Appraiser who had tried to go with your solution on the left (#2) but I was insisting the proper method was the solution on the right (#1).?ÿ In our case the lots on either side did not exist until after a railroad had been built.?ÿ Once the railroad had officially been abandoned he wanted to tax the area in what had been the railroad and add it to the adjoining lots.?ÿ I argued that there was another solution that made just as much sense as the solution on the left (#2).?ÿ The alternate solution would have the lines running north-south instead of east-west as shown.?ÿ The railroad ran at an almost perfect 45 degree angle to the lots.?ÿ Some of the abutting lots ran north-south and some ran east-west.?ÿ He did not like my survey showing it like the solution on the right (#1) but finally agreed to it once we had a long conversation.
The straight-across solution seems equitable and what most owners would prefer.?ÿ Find a principle to justify it or get all the adjoiners to sign off on it.
The perpendicular to street solution gives very odd results for the end lots.
The straight-across solution seems equitable and what most owners would prefer.?ÿ Find a principle to justify it or get all the adjoiners to sign off on it.
The perpendicular to street solution gives very odd results for the end lots.
This is it. The "correct" answer is usually perpendicular lines, but in the case of a subdivision like this you have to run through a thought experiment to see the results of a complete vacation of the street within the block.
What is needed is an equitable solution.?ÿ It shouldn't matter what the order of vacation is. If you go with the perpendicular solution the southern lot will get an extra chunk of street, and if there is a similar intersection to the north,?ÿ the northern lot will get shorted.?ÿ
With curves or angle points it gets more complicated.?ÿ
This can be simplified by showing the lot lines in the streets on the original subdivision plat.?ÿ
Several years ago there was a similar situation in *I think* the downtown Norfolk (VA) area, and I believe there was actually an ordinance or something that dictated that the adjoining property lines would be extended to meet the road centerline.?ÿ If I remember correctly, the City Surveyor at the time told me that they had codified it because street vacations were so common in downtown Norfolk.?ÿ Could have been Portsmouth, but I really think it was Norfolk.?ÿ So Solution #2 (left) would have been the method used.
Have fun figuring out what to do in this case.?ÿ Look at the block that is one block to the right of the letter "L" in "ORIGINAL TOWN".?ÿ Nothing is equitable if you think every lot should open the same amount of new turf.?ÿ That is Elk Falls, Kansas which is home to the annual Outhouse Tour which I believe was started by the actor Barry McGuire when he moved there after retiring.?ÿ I met him one day while surveying in the big city.
Here's another one to have fun with.?ÿ Look at Block 32 in the heart of the business district of Oswego, Kansas.?ÿ I don't know what they had in mind when the town was platted but the middle of Block 32 is now where the primary water tower is located.
One thing to remember when apportioning vacations...
The equity road is narrow and frought with perils. If you don't involve the owners, you may be in for a fight. In some states you better have an attorney as well.
[?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ ]
This can be simplified by showing the lot lines in the streets on the original subdivision plat.?ÿ
Hmm, I've never done that when platting a new subdivision.?ÿ And when creating a subdivision out of whole cloth wherever possible the side lot lines are perpendicular/radial to the C/L of the streets, so the issue doesn't come up.
One thing to remember when apportioning vacations...
My vacations usually aren't apportioned equitably
25% Naps
75% Drinking
Q.E.D.
I placed this image here ( I hope it is legible) of an actual public road vacation to the two property owners (in this case a father and son).
You can see that the lines follow the bearings to the centerline of the old John Ward Road.?ÿ I actually found and located those pins in the survey.
We have a right-of-way department where I work (local county government) and I presented this thought-experiment to them this morning.?ÿ All three are in agreement that the image to the left is the one that they would accept.?ÿ The image to the right would create triangular pieces due south that would have to be dealt with individually.
There could be platting language that would change my mind, but I go with perpendicular except on the ends where the notion of not intending to leave little triangles would prevail.?ÿ
Perpendicular would be my "preferred" method, as prolongation can cause overlap problems in areas where side lot lines are not parallel to each other.
However, here in WA case law generally calls for extension of side lines, unless doing so creates an "inequitable result".
Wilson's Easements Relating to Land Surveying and Title Examination applies the basic rule of perpendicular. Interestingly, he cites KS and OK as mandating proportional distribution for reversion, as for accretion/reliction on water boundaries...anyone in those states ever see this?
