OK, client comes to us to get a plat.
So he can get a permit from the city.
To build a new house.
City says master thoroughfare plan says 120' ROW planned for the road that is currently 60' wide. Please dedicate 30 additional feet on your side.
No problem.
Send plat for signatures from all the utilities.
Electric company doesn't want to sign. Their powerline is in the current ROW. If additional ROW is dedicated, they say their franchise will require them to move the powerline to the new ROW line.
So we're not going to get plat approval? WTF?!
Andy-
Tiz a *issing contest methinks !
YOS
DGG
Have yor client tell the city to butt a stump. There is NO law that will stand up to require people to dedicate additional row. Tarrant county got in this trap. Our county used to do it and since the tarrant county court case, we don't.
Seriously, tell the city to eff off.
Not sure how it works there, but if a road gets widened here the utility has to pay to move their line if the utility is in the existing ROW. If they are outside of the ROW the county/state/city has to pay to move it. So we would have a hard time getting approval from a utility for an expansion, particularly if it is some future planning project, if their line is inside the ROW.
How did you label the line?
All you would be showing is a line that recites a potential future action by the City. Keep im mind Item 17 in the ALTA/ACSM Land Title SurveyTable A:
"Any changes in street right of way lines either completed or proposed, and available from the controlling jurisdiction."
If this line exists, you are probably obligated to show it on the survey. Think in terms of your client......isn't it relevant to his knowledge of the property that there a potential 30 foot taking hanging over his head?
"Potential widening as per City master thoroughfare plan" shouldn't be objectionable to the utility.
Frankly, the line being on your plat has nothing to do with their obligations......if the city decides to widen, they'll be moving their lines, no matter what is says on your plat.
Exactly, Mike.
Check your state laws governing municipal authorities, there are rules they must follow for road widening.
It is a form of extortion when they 'require' a r/w grant as part of an approval process if the plat is otherwise OK.
While the municipality is hard do sue, the surveyor can be named as a 'facilitator' and be made to pay the owner for the loss of land unless the surveyor has written permission form a knowledgable client who knowlingly submitted to the 'extortion'.
You might get around it by showing the additional r/w as an 'outlot' that requires a separate action by the owner to grant the additional r/w.
Richard Schaut
I emailed Kris for a citation and will see if I can find anything in my references.
Here in NYC nearly all streets are mapped and owned by the City in fee.
The City Topographical maps show existing ROW and in some cases, proposed widenings.
Here in Queens, Metropolitan Avenue is mapped to be 100 feet wide. Prior to the consolidation of NYC, it was an 80 foot wide street, and many buildings were built to the ROW line at 80 feet width. The Avenue runs over 8 miles through densely populated areas of Brooklyn and Queens. It has only been built to it's full width in a few places, but it is a major alternate rush hour commuting route.
In the Queens portion, new buildings are required by the City to hold the 100 foot width, meaning a loss of 10 feet in most cases (20 feet if the widening falls along one side only, as it does occasionally).
Recently, a bank wanted to build a branch on Metropolitan Avenue, but their "standard footprint" (drive through, parking, ATM lobby, etc., etc.) wouldn't fit on the lot if the 100 foot width was held....so the local planning board gave them a variance.
As a member, I argued that by granting the variance, they effectively were eliminating the possibility of a future widening, but the community doesn't really want the street to be widened anyway, so for them, it was no issue. The bank was built, with it's street facade sitting 10 feet into the proposed widening.
Right across the street, the developer did not need the extra 10 feet, so he didn't ask for a variance. His building sits right on the proposed street line, 10 feet further back than the bank. .
Andy
I may have mis-spoke. I'm pretty sure it was Home Builders vs. Denton County, but I'll know for sure tomorrow.
I won't forget you bud.
Check out
Town of Flower Mound vs. Stafford Estates Ltd. Partnership
135sw3rd620
Another cite:
71sw3rd18
Anything from fort worth to Sherman all runs together for me in the metromess.
