Steven Roessner, post: 393630, member: 9988 wrote: Hey all,
per the conversation everyone is having about gaps I had this tucked away in my records as a reminder to myself when I encountered discrepancies between lines and considered that there may be a gap or overlap in boundaries.
What evidence do you have that the parties intended to either create or to retain ownership of some narrow strip of land ("gap") next to one of their boundary lines? Any time there is evidence of a supposed "gap" or "overlap," look for the reasoning behind it. If there is no reason, there is no "gap or overlap." A simple mathematical difference between records and observations isn't a sufficient reason. There must be direct evidence of the intent to create the ÛÏgap or overlapÛ in order to overcome the presumption against gaps or overlaps.
There was never intent to create a gap between properties.
Kent McMillan, post: 393646, member: 3 wrote: Actually, I suspect that the "problem" is that the poster wants to claim that his 10 acres consists of one grandfather legal lot that is well under the 5-acre minimum with the remainder of the 10 acres being whatever is left over. The only advantage I can see there is that he could develop the 3+ acres or sell it so someone as a separate tract. The County Engineer is apparently pointing out that he doesn't actually own all of the supposed 3+ acres because part of it is outside the boundary of the 10 acres as conveyed to him. So that shoots down the claim that he has a grandfather legal lot. That's what my ouija board suggests.
Kent, right on, the value it being a corner tract... without co-op water the possibility of 5.01 may be compromised.
Steven Roessner, post: 393630, member: 9988 wrote: Hey all,
per the conversation everyone is having about gaps I had this tucked away in my records as a reminder to myself when I encountered discrepancies between lines and considered that there may be a gap or overlap in boundaries.
What evidence do you have that the parties intended to either create or to retain ownership of some narrow strip of land ("gap") next to one of their boundary lines? Any time there is evidence of a supposed "gap" or "overlap," look for the reasoning behind it. If there is no reason, there is no "gap or overlap." A simple mathematical difference between records and observations isn't a sufficient reason. There must be direct evidence of the intent to create the ÛÏgap or overlapÛ in order to overcome the presumption against gaps or overlaps.
There was no intent to create a gap.
The problem I have now is that the Neighbor who recently Purchased the Property will not respond to my request to agree to a boundary line agreement at my Cost?
Kent McMillan, post: 393574, member: 3 wrote: This is not a difficult problem. The real question is when your land and the adjoining land owned by the Cantus (per Comal CAD records) first left common ownership, the order in which the same owner conveyed each tract, and how the tracts were described in those deeds by which the tracts were separated. This is something that should be possible to readily determine in the records of the Comal County Clerk's Office, which is probably the best organized such operation I've seen in Texas to date.
Just from examining the Comal CAD maps, it would appear that the Cantu's land is a remainder that was left over after your tract was sold off. if this is so, the odds would favor the Cantus having a better claim to the land in the gap than you would. That will depend upon what the research discloses, of course.
Specifically, an abstractor would identify the series of conveyances from some landowner leading both to you and to the Cantus. To be thorough, it would be prudent to also examine the earlier conveyances several owners back before the land left common ownership.
Once those facts are in hand, the answer to whether there is a gap or not should be readily apparent with the survey that you have already in hand. Your surveyor has drawn your attention to the possibility that a gap exists, which is appropriate. Now it is up to you to arrange to have the gap investigated further if its existence is material. You can hire a title company, an abstractor, or pay a land surveyor to investigate this for you. In my opinion, a land surveyor is more likely to get a useful answer than a title company would be.
Personally, the (possible gap) was not concerning before the County Engineer made it essential to establishing the 3.8 tract as being valid.
The County wants a Boundary Line agreement.. My Neighbor who recently purchased the Property has not responded to my request to reach a simple agreement.. Our original(7) abstract tracts that were taxed for 70 Yrs. were terminated by the County ( They are at least 10 similar within a mile of our tract still on the Books). The County directed me to find a tract that was Deeded pre 2010 Sub-Division Rules thus 3.8 tract.... Its been a struggle....
So, this isn't really a surveying problem at all, but a land development problem, i.e. buying a 10.04 acre tract that could be subdivided into two 5.02 acre tracts, but wanting to slice it up into smaller pieces than the subdivision regulations allow?
As a point of curiosity, how are you going to provide water to the 3.8 acre tract and squeeze in an on-site sewage facility as well?
Kent McMillan, post: 393659, member: 3 wrote: So, this isn't really a surveying problem at all, but a land development problem, i.e. buying a 10.04 acre tract that could be subdivided into two 5.02 acre tracts, but wanting to slice it up into smaller pieces than the subdivision regulations allow?
As a point of curiosity, how are you going to provide water to the 3.8 acre tract and squeeze in an on-site sewage facility as well?
BTW, I wouldn't get too far out on a limb in claiming that the original land grant lines shown in some GIS bear any relation to reality. In that part of Comal County, that would not be extremely likely to be true. Errors of hundreds of feet exist in the GIS original survey lines just down the road a bit and I'd wager that's the case where you are.
Kent McMillan, post: 393659, member: 3 wrote: So, this isn't really a surveying problem at all, but a land development problem, i.e. buying a 10.04 acre tract that could be subdivided into two 5.02 acre tracts, but wanting to slice it up into smaller pieces than the subdivision regulations allow?
As a point of curiosity, how are you going to provide water to the 3.8 acre tract and squeeze in an on-site sewage facility as well?
The tract would meet the 2010 Sub Division Rules as Grandfathered...Here is the 1.015 which was part of the old Fischer Store Road (Blanco) to SAN Marcos Road. The 1.015 was where to gap probably started? The 1.015 is in part of the 3.8. Both with metes and bounds.
S
Kent McMillan, post: 393662, member: 3 wrote: BTW, I wouldn't get too far out on a limb in claiming that the original land grant lines shown in some GIS bear any relation to reality. In that part of Comal County, that would not be extremely likely to be true. Errors of hundreds of feet exist in the GIS original survey lines just down the road a bit and I'd wager that's the case where you are.
Should this not been addressed many Years ago ? This (possible gap) needs to be cleaned up for us to retain the 3.8...
Actually, the San Marcos-Blanco Road was probably an easement only. The quitclaim instrument executed by Comal County is probably best understood as merely an abandonment of the public right-of-way to which Comal County owned no fee title. The effect of the abandonment would not be ordinarily understood to create a separate road tract, but as just to release the public easement from the underlying titles.
Michael harwell, post: 393664, member: 11340 wrote: S
Should this not been addressed many Years ago ? This (possible gap) needs to be cleaned up for us to retain the 3.8...
The issues that you're dealing with relate to a particular scheme of land development that apparently has only come into existence during your term of ownership. The former landowners, Douglas Barclay, Trustee and Curtis L. Bruner's Wildgame, Inc. clearly didn't envision developing the 3.8 acres as a separate tract.
From what I know of this situation, this is just a land development problem that has arisen as a result of wanting to get around the platting requirements that would come into play if you divided the 10.04 acres into two tracts of 5.02 acres which meet the minimum lot size requirements.
Th
Kent McMillan, post: 393665, member: 3 wrote: Actually, the San Marcos-Blanco Road was probably an easement only. The quitclaim instrument executed by Comal County is probably best understood as merely an abandonment of the public right-of-way to which Comal County owned no fee title. The effect of the abandonment would not be ordinarily understood to create a separate road tract, but as just to release the public easement from the underlying titles.
That makes since...The last Survey on their legal description notes the 3.258 Survey is one of the same 3.8 by Deed vol and page. The County wants a northern boundary line agreement to resolve the (possible gap).. My Neighbor, has not responded..
Kent McMillan, post: 393667, member: 3 wrote: The issues that you're dealing with relate to a particular scheme of land development that apparently has only come into existence during your term of ownership. The former landowners, Douglas Barclay, Trustee and Curtis L. Bruner's Wildgame, Inc. clearly didn't envision developing the 3.8 acres as a separate tract.
From what I know of this situation, this is just a land development problem that has arisen as a result of wanting to get around the platting requirements that would come into play if you divided the 10.04 acres into two tracts of 5.02 acres which meet the minimum lot size requirements.
The requirement from the Counties SubDivision rules is that a tract had to be deeded pre 2010 to be (grandfathered).
The tract was established pre 2010.. Also, (7) tracts were taxed for 70 yrs.and were terminated.There were (2) that were part of deeds,the rest were abstract tracts..Would there be an intent to create the gap?
I
Kent McMillan, post: 393667, member: 3 wrote: The issues that you're dealing with relate to a particular scheme of land development that apparently has only come into existence during your term of ownership. The former landowners, Douglas Barclay, Trustee and Curtis L. Bruner's Wildgame, Inc. clearly didn't envision developing the 3.8 acres as a separate tract.
From what I know of this situation, this is just a land development problem that has arisen as a result of wanting to get around the platting requirements that would come into play if you divided the 10.04 acres into two tracts of 5.02 acres which meet the minimum lot size requirements.
according to the County,I still need to clean up ( possible gap) to plat 5.02.
Michael harwell, post: 393675, member: 11340 wrote: I
according to the County,I still need to clean up ( possible gap) to plat 5.02.
That isn't provided in the Subdivision Regulations, though, unless you are claiming ownership of the land in the gap.
Michael harwell, post: 393673, member: 11340 wrote: The requirement from the Counties SubDivision rules is that a tract had to be deeded pre 2010 to be (grandfathered).
The tract was established pre 2010.. Also, (7) tracts were taxed for 70 yrs.and were terminated.There were (2) that were part of deeds,the rest were abstract tracts..Would there be an intent to create the gap?
The earlier conveyances have nothing to do with the more recent conveyances that created the present land boundaries. This is a very simple problem that depends strictly upon how the Cantu's land and your land was described when the land left common ownership after 1995.
Kent McMillan, post: 393676, member: 3 wrote: That isn't provided in the Subdivision Regulations, though, unless you are claiming ownership of the land in the gap.
The County will agree that the 3.8 does exist provided I reach an boundary agreement with my Neighbor..
Isn't the issue that the County Engineer raises that one of the maps you've posted indicates that you don't appear to own all of the 3.8 acres since part of it lies outside the boundaries of your 10.04 ac. tract?
Given that the 1960 conveyance from Comal County to Meyer was only a quitclaim of interest, I'd wonder what exactly Ms. Meyer really owned at the time of the conveyance of the 3.8 acre tract. A QC deed would ordinarily not be sufficient to convey title to all of the bed of the old San Marcos-Blanco Road as the description of the 3.8 acres would seem to claim by calling for the Northeast line of the road as a boundary of the 3.8 acres, rather than the centerline of the road as would usually be more likely in such situations of abandonment.
Very good,I deem this good quality information. The County has now recognized the 3.8,with the exception of a Boundary line agreement with our Neighbor..I'm guessing, they tire of the persistent resolution of this matter?
Michael harwell, post: 393685, member: 11340 wrote: Very good,I deem this good quality information.
Mr. Harwell,
I encourage you to make a donation to our forum host.
DDSM
