A recent client asked for a survey to show what I would call a boundary line adjustment. They would like to purchase a strip of land no owned by their neighbor. The client and the neighbor are in agreement to the purchase. Local zoning bylaws will determine how much land can be conveyed without detriment to either of the two parcels.
I have looked at other survey maps that have a different approach, and show separate parcels, noted to be conveyed from one to the other. They mark the parcel as ??not to be a building lot? and sometimes call it an ??outlot?; then describing the conveyance of the ??outlot? from one to the other.
My problem with this approach is that it leaves the client with two parcels of land. A boundary line adjustment would show the old boundary and redraw the boundaries of each separate parcel. This way I can show the boundary of each complete. Besides I do not think ??outlot? is a correct word.
Do you find it necessary to delineate the strip as a separate parcel or do you agree that a boundary line adjustment is cleaner and clearer?
You have described how it is done here.?ÿ We do not have the BLA concept in action.?ÿ The closest to a BLA is a replat of a portion of an existing plat with all the various signatures and approvals required.
Hey, you want to buy one foot or all but one foot of some lots I own, make me an offer.?ÿ We'll get a deed typed up and that baby is yours, if I like your offer.?ÿ End of story.
Yeah, that sounds extremely silly to create an extra parcel between the lots.?ÿ I would pursue the BLA if you have that option.
That's a good question, and I think I've done it both ways.?ÿ If they execute quitclaim deeds to one side or the other of the new lot line(s), or all their interest in Lot 1A or 2A, then describing the conveyed parcel(s) shouldn't be an issue, since you're now delineating the two new lots in total.
Just tell the planning board they don't have jurisdiction, since you're showing two conforming lots, and they can't not endorse it.?ÿ Sure......
I suspect this is in Mass, so the ANR procedure is the process, for creating new lots or changing existing boundary lines
Here if it's an existing lot you can also do a lot aggregation. You couldn't create that small of a lot here as a separate parcel without a Subdivision review.?ÿ Trouble with a BLA here is, if it's under 20 acres it has to go through a State DEQ review. $2000 and one year process. Deed creation of lots is not allowed here anymore. An easy solution is to get a Judge to issue a Court Order. Works if there are trespass encumbrances. Zoning Regulations also control what options you have. I'd suggest a pre-surveying meeting with your Planning Department to determine what you're up against. On the surface it looks pretty simple, but it could end up a "No Can Do"situation.
Yes, the Planning Board must indicate their Approval is Not Required (ANR). Then the map will be recorded.?ÿ
?ÿ
Around here that's a BLA. Slam Dunk.?ÿ Creating a new and separate lot would put you into the subdivision review process. The new lot would need to conform to zoning restrictions, would need full services installed, probably road dedication, etc., etc., and all the things that creating a new lot would entail. The BLA review and approval process is no cakewalk, but in comparison much much less stringent.?ÿ ?ÿ
BLA, it's in the state statutes as an exception to subdivision regulations. If you trade deeds then you can violate the regulations.?ÿ
I would call it a lot line adjustment as the boundaries are known, no new parcel is being created and one neighbor is conveying by warranty deed to another. Around here it requires a cursory review by local planning commission to ensure you are not making an existing lot non compliant (or more non-compliant). Receiving property then has to perfect a deed from themselves to themselves rolling into their existing lot.
?ÿ
BLA should only be used for when the true boundary is not known and therefore is exempt from municipal review.
The ANR process is similar.?ÿ BLA also stands for Boundary Line Adjustment.
Here that would be called a recombination survey.
I routinely deal with tracts that are lots and some fraction of an adjoining lot.?ÿ I happened to look at a tract today that I had surveyed in 2003 that was something like "The East 85.5 feet of Lot 1 in Block 1 of Schultz and Judy Addition and the West 14.5 feet of Lot 8 in Block 4 of Porterfield Addition".?ÿ The result is 100.0 feet along the road and 150.0 feet deep.?ÿ There could even be a jog in the backside of the tract if the lot in one addition had a different depth than the one in the other addition.?ÿ There could be a jog in the road side if different street widths had been approved in the two additions.?ÿ This may sound abhorrent to many here, but it works where bureaucracy has not yet reached an unbearable level.
I know of an older neighborhood here where nearly every property is?ÿ a lot plus a fraction, or parts of two lots. I haven't looked into it enough to know what happens where it meets another addition.
I dunno, you didn't appear to describe anything outside of the platted lots so I don't know if I would worry about the shape of the subdivisions.?ÿ The thing that puzzles me with these descriptions is if the strips are uniform width or a wedge with 1 end the described dimension, etc.
