Long story short,
I have two abutting parcels created prior to 1920. In the 30's they are both conveyed to the same person, and the legal descriptions are combined into one new metes and bounds description.
In 1993, one parcel is sold off and the grantor retains the other based on the original descriptions from the 20's. There is no plan drawn, no ANR filing, and the deed states "the premises being conveyed is a portion of the premises described in said deed AND this deed creates no new boundaries".
What say you? Violation of subdivision control law? I don't see how the parcel descriptions can be combined into one, and then 60 years later, after the inception of sub. control law, be separated once again.
Happy Friday!!!
-V
Make the idiot attorney who thought that these could be sold individually fix the problem.* (* If one really exists.)
Any improvements? Could these lots have been Constructively Merged?
Did each lot conveyed in 1993 (well conveyed and retained) meet the Zoning Requirements in effect in 1993? How about today?
I will agree it appears to a subversion of the Subdivision Control Law. I have an even more blatant example of an idiot attorney:
An old road is defined and lots subdivided off it in 1963. No statement of conditions or covenant recorded or found in the Town Offices. There's a note on the plan that the way is not adequate for all of the lots and Lot 7 will be merged with a lot fronting on a different road (Call it Lot 8). Lot 7 and 8 each had single family homes and two single family homes were permitted on one lot in 1963.
In 1993 (the year of the idiot attorney I guess) the idiot attorney secured an easement from Lot 7 to the roadway that was inadequate in 1963. Lots 7 and 8 were then sold to sisters.
I met with the sister owning Lot 7 last year. I told her to get the idiot attorney to fix the SNAFU he created with the conveyance. Lot 7 now has 0 frontage and the neighbor with the easement would like to find a reason to revoke the easement (he has limited power to revoke the easement included in the document).
Any improvements? Could these lots have been Constructively Merged?
House on the first parcel that abuts a public way. Rear parcel is (and has always been) landlocked.
Did each lot conveyed in 1993 (well conveyed and retained) meet the Zoning Requirements in effect in 1993? How about today?
By dividing the lots by deed, the attorney basically re-created a landlocked parcel, certainly with no conformance to the bylaws in effect.
The saving grace here is that the current owner of the front parcel (conforms to zoning) wants to purchase the rear parcel and combine the two, which, I think, should alleviate the issue. We would put a plan on record at the registry if this happens.
So these lots existed as two, were combined, divided, and are going to be combined again.
-V
Hey, our problems were almost the same.
Do you think the same attorney messed both up?
Possible I guess, you never know.
-V