In the past I have been required to split a property that was specifically described as two parcels, and shown on a recorded subdivision map as two parcels, because the parcels had been "merged" by the city or town. I did not believe they had the right to do this, but their attorney described the reason as being the "Doctrine of Merger" and I do not believe that either.
Now I am asked to prepare a survey and map to show two contiguous parcels, being described in a deed as parcel one and two, as one, effectively removing the lines between the two parcels, and requiring an approval of the planning board before being recorded. Doesn't this "merge" thing take care of that?
Sometimes I think planners should have some consistency.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
If your client wants you to merge the two parcels into one, it can be prepared as an 81X plan, as there are "no new lot lines" shown on the plan. Tell the folks at Planning nothing until the plan is recorded. If they want to get pissy about it, they can take it to a judge and get laughed out of court.
Doesn't this "merge" thing take care of that?
The closest run-in I've had with the merger doctrine in Idaho was during a dental checkup the dentist asked me if I could do a survey to combine his parcels. His office building straddled the line of 2 lots he owned and he wanted to upgrade the sign out by the street but Boise wouldn't let him do it until he combined the lots. I told him I'd forward it to the boss for an estimate, but during my next visit he said he talked the city into giving him 1 tax ID number for the combined area of both lots and that let him upgrade his sign without doing a parcel consolidation.
Anyway, the point is I thought the merger doctrine was something municipalities could do in their own records as a way of letting common sense prevail.