In Oregon it seems the latest thing that planners get their fix on is Lot Consolidations. Depending on jurisdiction and how a lot was created this can cause different processes. One of the requests I am seeing frequently is "Just write one description that describes the property in these two deeds". Or in todays case "Make one description that erases this dotted line on the assessors map."?ÿ
At what point should a surveyor feel comfortable writing a description for a property that the surveyor has not performed any field work. What about when there are specific bearings along the section line but then just a general North along the 'maybe parallel' line. When dimensions are more or less.
They think they want a metes & bounds description only for the consolidation. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen or a title company nightmare. Is pulling adjoining deeds to check for patent ambiguity enough??ÿ
Do you stamp a description that just says "All that property described in Warranty Deed to Smith recorded [date] [book] [page], and All that property described in Warranty Deed to Johnson recorded [date] [book] [page]."
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Hmmmmmm
Lot consolidation is more complex from my experiences.
The assessor's office will definitely have a few choice words if they aren't in the discussion I'm sure.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Around here if an owner is going to build one residence on two (or more) platted lots the city requires a metes and bounds description for the "new" property before issuing a permit.?ÿ Craziest thing I've ever heard of.?ÿ
On the last one I prepared I stated at the end of the description "also known as Lots 1 & 2, Block 6 of Brookfield Add".?ÿ The city wanted me to change that to read "formerly known as...".?ÿ I declined.?ÿ Permit was still issued.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Had a call this week to help with what will need to be a replat of a portion of a plat from the 1970's.?ÿ The subdivision had 31 lots that formed something like the letter C.?ÿ A north side, a west side and a south side with a big chunk left unplatted.?ÿ There apparently was no dedication to the public of the driveway providing access to most of the lots.?ÿ The clients own lots 1-14 which is the entire north part plus part of the west part.
As they put it they want to de-plat all that part of the plat that they own and close down the driveway that passes through the middle of their properties.?ÿ They don't understand why this could be complicated.?ÿ Guess I will walk them through the complete process required and the blessings they need to receive in order to do that.
Wouldn't a "de-plat" just be a simple abandonment of the plat?
One could vacate the plat, if everyone owning lots agreed to do so.
They own less than half but want to close the road within their part.?ÿ Others have a long established right to use that road.
It does seem silly, but there is some sense to it. In most areas with zoning it would be impossible to not create a zoning violation by building on two parcels. The natural question is , who cares, and who would complain? But the planners still can't give their blessing to something that violates the zoning code.
?ÿ
The OP example is a replat. A process that requires a metes description in the county and a simple Lot description in the city.?ÿ
The old lots and associated easements have to go through a partial vacation which requires acceptance of all stake holders and the county/city. A list of approved stake holders is contacted and they have to send an acceptance which used to be by letter but now a simple email response is allowed.?ÿ
There is nothing stopping a land owner from buying two lots and building across the line as long as there isn't an easement. But even then there can be a partial vacation of that easement and if setback lines are at issue a variance can be issued.?ÿ
I would not write a new metes description without a survey.
The city apparently thinks there's some sense in it also.?ÿ I guess they were just tired of one page zoning variances and thought generating a stack of paper was simpler. While I do understand their motive, there are other things to be considered.?ÿ First off I was getting tired of title companies contacting me to produce and add that very statement to a survey.?ÿ And second my personal opinion is that a portion of a plat needs to vacated to formally dissolve lot lines.?ÿ It's really a small thing and makes me no difference.?ÿ I just hate complicate the description/ title relationship.?ÿ
And food for thought:?ÿ I own a house in a platted area (platted around 1920) that has had side-lot line zoning restrictions that are still in effect.?ÿ ?ÿI own lots 1,2 and 3.?ÿ There was no lot consolidation done when the house was built in 1948.?ÿ What has changed?
ppm
Tell them you don't prepare descriptions unless it is based on your survey.
You have no obligation to provide a service that you aren't comfortable with.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Vacating the lot lines is definitely the best way to go about it.?ÿ
What has changed since 1948? Probably your zoning ordinces, but also governments used to get away with applying common sense intepetations of law. The problem was that one person's common sense was another person's failure to comply, so we, as a scocity, do a better job of sticking to the law as written. It does cause headaches, but the trade off is that more of the regulatory decisions get made in public forums by elected officials than?ÿ government employees.?ÿ
Your first post calls it a driveway.?ÿ Since then you've called it a road.?ÿ I'm curious what it is called on the plat.?ÿ?ÿ
It's been so long since I have needed to look at that plat I'm not sure what it says exactly.?ÿ It starts at a county road?ÿ runs between lots going west on the north part and then goes along the west side of the lots on the west part before getting to?ÿ the county road that runs along the south side of the lots on the south side.?ÿ It is merely a 10 or 12 foot wide strip of crushed rock with no ditches.?ÿ Once I get a good look at it I will be able to see if it is one piece or two.?ÿ There is a significant creek that probably has no way to cross it slicing through the middle of the west part.?ÿ I've never been to that location although I was probably less than 1000 feet of it about two weeks ago on another job.
Thanks,?ÿ what you describe is very similar to the development that was occurring in Upstate New York during the 1970s.?ÿ The minimum size was 5 Acres making them recreational.?ÿ That exempted them from Health Department regulations.?ÿ No septic approval required prior to sale.?ÿ Planning was just in its infancy and many towns did not have planning boards.
Caveat Emptor.
