80 Acres

My first question is: "legally declared" by whom?

In our fair hamlet of Norman there is an ordinance that prohibits any development smaller than 10 acres within the watershed of our Lake Thunderbird (aka Lake Dirtybird) water supply.

Of course with a standard parallel and a guide meridian running right through the middle of this area, there are plenty of "fractional" acreages...meaning the NW of the NW of the NW might not be exactly 10 acres. Most are a little shy of their patented GLO reported acreages. The City Council (dumbasses, one and all) has on several occasions denied permits due to "less than 10 acres" being reported on surveys.

After much discussion over the years with the City Attorney and other interests they decided to allow the "10 acre minimum" to include the aliquot sub-division of the original "640 acre" report of the GLO, even though an up-to-date survey may report less than the cardinal acreage.

I don't have any other case law to quote, but I'm sure there are some cases involving this. In my opinion a "West Half of the NW/4"..or any subdivision of a standard section, should legally be accepted as containing the patented "standard" acreage. Even though a modern survey may report a different (less) area.

This probably more of a local jurisdiction question, but the term "80 acres" was most likely meant to describe an aliquot part of a section and not a "survey accurate" 80.0000 acres. Many 80-acre parcels in this area have had the road right-of-way taken out, so naturally contain less than 80 acres, but still considered an aliquot part.

this is a local agency thing... good luck!

My first question is: "legally declared" by whom?

The state and the county, the state rule is 160, but any county can modify it to something less than 160 but not less than 35 which was the old rule. Of course the 35 acres was put into effect to take into account 1/41/4's and lots that were less than 40. Something the new regulators didn't understand.

>2009 Manual of Instructions
>Section 1.20

>The most important parts of the Act of February 11,1805, are:
>(1) All section lines shall be surveyed and all quarter corners on those lines established.
>(2) The corners set by the Surveyor General are unchangeable.
>(3) The lines marked by the Surveyor General are unchangeable.
>(4) The lengths of the section lines are unchangeable.
>(5) The quantity or area of a section or fractional section is unchangeable. The Surveyor General , i.e., the Government, could correct or change a survey up until such time as private rights were acquired based on the survey; however, that fact was established by case law in the courts.

Do we have a problem with the word "unchangeable?"

The owner of an 80-acre tract paid for 80 acres, just like his neighbor did. How can the "law" penalize one landowner for doing precisely the same thing as another landowner? Just because a micromanaging bureaucracy (or an uniformed surveyor) places some decimal points behind his "more precise" measurements doesn't change the definition of the 80-acre tract. It was created as 80 acres and will remain 80 acres. The fact is "unchangeable."

It's not just a "local agency" thing. It's a federally protected "property rights" thing.

JBS

Methinks we are tilting at windmills...........

Cause the BLM seems to have thrown all that out the window.:-O

Which complicates this discussion greatly.

equaling 80 acres, (78.5 ac. as-measured)?

thanks Mr. Stahl

I knew there was a "formal address" of this issue somewhere in print.

I advise them to use the plat acreages and sell the land that way, if they need or want a survey then record acreages would be the best solution. So far it's worked in two different states.

But we all know the acreage isn't going to be exactly 80 acres measured but why even bring it up, they can't split the land.

Mike

Are you serious? Your state does not allow division of land under 35 acres? How in the hell do you get a city lot?

Mike

Zoning, most of the state is zoned ag and in that zone in one county it's 35, in another it is 80 in others it's 160. If you want to go smaller then you to change the zoning and good luck with that. There are some exceptions and exemptions but the powers that be still will deny it if the zoning is ag. Or in the case of a cemetery or utility site make them get a CUP. You can also do a boundary line adjustment to clean up a line, but that doesn't create new property.

Each zone has it's own allowances, so a R1 zone allows lots no smaller than 6500sq.ft., I think; been a long time since I looked at those regulations.

I assumed you were doing a survey, and that is how you knew it was slightly under 80 acres. I would agree with you, that the owners should use the "record" acreage and not worry about some calculated number that doesn't match the record.

It seems like we should always use the original deeded acreage and/or the platted acreages. We have the exact same problems with smaller parcels of land that have some city or county regulation and minimum-size standards going on. Same principle that Mr. Stahl is referring to. The "legal" area is the area referenced in the "legal" description.

Mike

That's the most asinine, liberty depriving, government over-reaching ideas I've ever heard of. In my county, you may have to file a subdivision plat (1 lot subdivisions) but they cannot stop you from dividing land down to 1/2 of an acre as that is the minimum that TCEQ has said for On Site Sewage Facilities. You can go smaller if you're on city sewer (there are no county sewer lines) and if you can do that, my city has a minimum of 6000 square feet.

I just can wrap my head around me not being able to sell 10 acres to my kids or someone else because I can.

Mike

I just can wrap my head around me not being able to sell 10 acres to my kids or someone else because I can.

There was a neighbor county that resisted zoning until a few years ago. They just HAD to pass zoning, GET WITH THE PROGRAM, enter THE NEW CENTURY!!!!!

Cause they were having so many PROBLEMS without it!!!

So they finally did pass zoning, now of course they still have the same problems, only it costs WAY more to have them.

Haven't talked to a single person that thinks it help with anything, just created more regulations and no one thinks it's made life any better. No doubt someone does but I don't know them.

To people who always used to tell me how important zoning was; I would always say; "well, would you live in xxx county?" and they would always say sure, how nice it is there, that they really enjoy it and then I could say they don't have zoning, which most people usually didn't know.

Now I can't do that anymore:-(

I assumed you were doing a survey, and that is how you knew it was slightly under 80 acres.

Yes, I just completed one and the guy wants to sell 2 40's off his land, the 40's are kinda landlocked by a road and he can sell to the neighbor without any review and he wanted to know if they total 80 or more in case another party wants to buy them. The section is a little short north and south, so no they are a bit under. But I told him to go ahead. Use record from the plat, that was my opinion.

Does the zoning ordinance state 80 acres, 80.0 acres, 80.00 acres, or ...

79.501 acres = 80 acres

79.951 acres = 80.0 acres

A few years back, our local planning department had denied approval of the split of a parcel into nominal 5 acre parcels because the zoning called for 5 acre minimims and one of the parcels was 4.9x acres.

The applicant appealed to the Board of Supervisors. One of the Board members understood significant figures and put the couple of hundredths of an acre into perspective for the other Board members and the subdivision was approved.

That BOS member was a surveyor, and a good one. He has since retired and near as I can tell, the BOS is now made up of a bunch of idiots who have no discernible talent or knowledge outside of local politics.

All we get now is blather, grandstanding with or without the benefit of facts on their side, scandal and criminal charges. It's like watching congress on a smaller scale.

the BOS is now made up of a bunch of idiots who have no discernible talent or knowledge outside of local politics.

All we get now is blather, grandstanding with or without the benefit of facts on their side, scandal and criminal charges. It's like watching congress on a smaller scale.

Wonder how our board commutes all the way out there?;-)

They never approve anything then it gets sent above them and gets approved, just a more expensive process with no benefits:-(

The regulation is 80 acres, so 79.99 is too few-if you want to be completely anal, and of course they do.

The issue might get more complicated as BLM resurveys continue to be done. They are parceling up the sections into lots (no attempt is being made to recover historical evidence in the interior of the sections) with new acreages. Any 1/41/4 not 40.00 acres gets a lot number and a acreage even 39.99 or 40.01.

Patents were issued for these 1/41/4s and the patents would declare an acreage for the land. So do the landowners use the record acreage or the new Lotted acreages? Who do you think the boards are going to listen too?

How does the manual conform to this procedure, are we to assume that the fee title acreage and the fed title acreage are different for the same land? How does that work?

Here's an example from the latest local resurvey:

The W2SW4, and SE4SW4 was patented in 1918, the feds reserved coal but not oil, the patent declared 120 acres. So is the W2SW4 and SE4SW4 120 acres or 119.12 acres?

Not really a big deal until you want to sell two of the 40's and can't.