County rules

The County has no provision for a Recombination Plat?

Do you have a boundary adjustment process. Don't create a new parcel just adjust the existing boundary between the parcels. I do these all the time and a couple years ago the legislature specifically took P&Z out of it in rural land just because of these sorts of problems.

I hope the lawyers kick their butts!

The parcels are probably grandfathered (existed before the current zoning). Changing the boundary between them doesn't change much, there was two parcels less than 80 acres before and the same after. It's an abuse of stupidity. If the lawyers can't fix it go to your legislature.

Where do you work that requires a minimum of 80 acres for an agricultural zone parcel? In Alabama, most of the areas that actually have zoning regulations have a minimum size of 1 acre for such parcels.

I think MightyMoe is Wyoming/Montana. I'm in Utah. Different counties have different zoning for Ag. My county is 5 acres farm land 40 acres range land. Actually you can record anything you want. What happens is if you create a non compliant parcel with zoning you will be denied building permits until the issue is fixed/resolved.

The boundary adjustment process was getting out of hand because the counties where requiring applications/fees/approval. Someone got a legislator (a dairy farmer) involved and it got fixed. No more P&Z interference in neighbors from fixing their boundary problems.

Thank goodness you have some astute clients! Ask the county folks what in the world prevents someone from creating non-conforming lots? It's at the owners risk isn't it?

I hope your clients take this as far up the chain as they can to achieve satisfaction.

I had a similar issue here in Harwich MA where I was creating a small piece of land to convey to an abutter. Neither parcel would change so as to not conform but the parcel I created lacked frontage and area according to the by-laws. The town planner told me I couldn't do it so I requested a hearing with the planning board. Well they were smarter and agreed.

Dtp

This is why I hate planning and zoning.

Your client is doing the right thing here. Do what they want and force the power hungry bureaucrats to file suit.

Goota love it. The only thing more aggrevating is if they are enforcing subd. regs that are verbatim from the "model law" - which generally intersect common sense/reality at exactly Zero points.

I got so bad a few years back in Utah that one county wouldn't allow boundary line agreements. They said it violated the zoning ordinances. In essence you couldn't establish the boundary between you and your neighbor without paying fees and getting county approval.

I think we are on the verge of regulating ourselves out of existence!

It’s good that your client has relatives that can help with litigation; it’s unfortunate that it gets to this point. I see this sort of behavior more and more all the time. I used to have compassion for the government workers involved in this sort of thing but recently I have changed my opinion. I believe that the only answer to this sort of thing is to fire the individuals involved in making such an asinine decision to not apply common sense to the situation. Somewhere along the way the government employees forgot that they work for the public, the public pays them and it is their job to protect the public. I don’t know whether this is due to labor laws or spineless bureaucrats but we have become too touchy feely and soft when it comes to discipline. My borough (county) applies their code very selectively according to who the landowner is and who is doing the surveying for the project. If you want to fight them through the court they don’t care, it’s not their money it’s yours so essentially you get to pay for both sides. If you win they shrug their shoulders and go on as before. They seem to have no concept that there decisions affect the way we make a living and if you voice your opinion that they should be reprimanded for their actions they really put the hurting on you any chance they get. We have lost our balls and all you have to do to see it is look around.

In Oregon, while the process varies a bit from different urban planning jurisdictions processes, and Counties planning processes, the state laws still allow property line adjustment surveys here.
So, no additional tracts, lots, or parcels need to be created. The mapping and deeds filed at the end of the planning process are more or less specific depending on jurisdiction though.

Planning departments tend to have little or no relationship to what boundaries are, just areas. This, at times leaves them confused it seems. This seems very much like the type of case your up against.

Have you suggested to them to drop the separate "tract" transfer, and simply adjust the common line to accommodate the "encroachment", and write new "parent" deeds for each property, monument that new common line and file a record of survey map?

Seems even the County should recognize that .6 acres of "adjustment" does not change the "use" of that small of a tract. Seems if they can show that beyond a doubt. The County may see the change is simply a case of administrative "house keeping" and allow it. Worth a shot perhaps.

Let us know if they are even allowed to try the adjustment process instead of a "tract transfer"? This could be valuable to know for those that are trying to "swim upstream" against this type of planning logic!

Best of luck!

:good:

I got so bad a few years back in Utah that one county wouldn't allow boundary line agreements. They said it violated the zoning ordinances.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

And it's not JUST that, it is getting really frustrating for a whole bunch of other reasons. And the reasons that there were outcrys for zoning aren't being addressed anyway.

Yes they do have ways of adjusting boundaries, but if there aren't equal parcels being swapped, and one or both are under 80 then forget it.

This isn't really a boundary line agreement, the corners are out there, but the line would just work better shifted over.

Have you suggested to them to drop the separate "tract" transfer, and simply adjust the common line to accommodate the "encroachment", and write new "parent" deeds for each property, monument that new common line and file a record of survey map?

Yes, that's how it works here, but not allowed in this case, so I'm told:bored:

This one is in Wyoming

Yep, we call it a consolidation.

Wow... so it is a property line adjustment then.

Is it planning that's asking for the separate tract then?

Careful, you may have gotten some on your boot.... might want to wash that off!
😉

Wow... so it is a property line adjustment then.

Is it planning that's asking for the separate tract then?

No they aren't ALLOWING a separate tract, a property line adjustment, nothing......
They are saying the lines cant be adjusted, changed at all

> No they aren't ALLOWING a separate tract, a property line adjustment, nothing......
> They are saying the lines cant be adjusted, changed at all

Sounds kind of "NAZI" to me.........

You are kidding right? Two adjoining landowners cannot adjust or change their property lines, nor settle a boundary dispute/uncertainty with no change in use of the properties, no matter what? That just isn't right. Can you post the specific regulation that they are trying to do this under?

I hope your clients' lawyers clean house.

If your client and his neighbor exchange QC deeds and record them, just what enforcement mechanism can the PTB use to stop them?

80 Acres For Agriculture Means The Countyy Has No Say So.

Under 80 they must approve for agriculture, but since the existing use is agriculture no judge will back the county on this.

Around here agricultural use means you do not have to meet other zoning requirements, such as suitable soils for a septic system. It may be cheaper to do a soil test and call them building lots and continue to farm. Of course that may affect the tax rate.

Paul in PA