Been one of those days, just left a meeting with a City Planner, City Attorney, and land owner regarding submitting a subdivision plat so the land owner can be issued a building permit.
I came to the meeting armed with a 1985 recorded plat of his one lot tract that was approved, dedicated, signed, and recorded in the County Clerks Map Records.
The Planner and City Attorney both told me in no uncertain terms that plat was approved and recorded before the City annexed this area and that the city would not recognized the plat unless it had a city signature on it. They also said that the city was not forcing the owner to replat but he would not get a building permit unless he did.
The new plat will be basically the original plat with the addition of the city's signature block. I have a hard time with this but if I don't create it the owner is not going to be able to add a new building to his lot.
This plat was recorded in 1985 but the city is still actively annexing and it is going to happen sooner or later that someone wants to build on a vacant lot platted in the last few years and they are going to be required to do a one lot replat.
This is the most abusive use of the subdivision regulation I have seen and I wish I could be of more help but I can't force the city to issue permits and/or except what should be perfectly good recorded plat.
Then as soon as I had got back to the office I had a letter from an attorney demanding that I cease surveying on a property we have been working on. It was originally a recorded lot and in the parents Will they named the son as the Executor of the Estate and he wrote a Deed to his sister transferring her the north one-half of the lot. I know what you are thinking but the tract was due north- south with road frontage on each end and determining the north half was easy. The problem is the brother said what he intended to transfer was that part of the lot that was one-half the distance between the two houses on the lot. The sister is trying to sell her portion and they have a Title Company so I am going to let them decide where the fee simple line is but my survey is of the north one-half of the lot.
Then I get a call that the plumbers said the nine building we just laid out where wrong and that they are a foot smaller than the plans call for. Did some checking and sure enough new plans were issued last week but nobody bothered to send us a set.
> Been one of those days, just left a meeting with a City Planner, City Attorney, and land owner regarding submitting a subdivision plat so the land owner can be issued a building permit.
>
> I came to the meeting armed with a 1985 recorded plat of his one lot tract that was approved, dedicated, signed, and recorded in the County Clerks Map Records.
>
> The Planner and City Attorney both told me in no uncertain terms that plat was approved and recorded before the City annexed this area and that the city would not recognized the plat unless it had a city signature on it. They also said that the city was not forcing the owner to replat but he would not get a building permit unless he did.
>
> The new plat will be basically the original plat with the addition of the city's signature block. I have a hard time with this but if I don't create it the owner is not going to be able to add a new building to his lot.
>
> This plat was recorded in 1985 but the city is still actively annexing and it is going to happen sooner or later that someone wants to build on a vacant lot platted in the last few years and they are going to be required to do a one lot replat.
>
> This is the most abusive use of the subdivision regulation I have seen and I wish I could be of more help but I can't force the city to issue permits and/or except what should be perfectly good recorded plat.
>
> Then as soon as I had got back to the office I had a letter from an attorney demanding that I cease surveying on a property we have been working on. It was originally a recorded lot and in the parents Will they named the son as the Executor of the Estate and he wrote a Deed to his sister transferring her the north one-half of the lot. I know what you are thinking but the tract was due north- south with road frontage on each end and determining the north half was easy. The problem is the brother said what he intended to transfer was that part of the lot that was one-half the distance between the two houses on the lot. The sister is trying to sell her portion and they have a Title Company so I am going to let them decide where the fee simple line is but my survey is of the north one-half of the lot.
>
> Then I get a call that the plumbers said the nine building we just laid out where wrong and that they are a foot smaller than the plans call for. Did some checking and sure enough new plans were issued last week but nobody bothered to send us a set.
Sounds like time to sic the AG on the "City". I don't think they have the power they think they have.
Time to jump in someone's backside about the non-issuance of revised prints.
Municipalities annexing lands happens all the time. I don't see how this city can demand a replat just so "their" name appears on it. Here in Florida we still use plats that were recorded in the parent county, before the current county in falls in existed.
Wow and I thought we had a power problem around here. You have us beat hands down. Good luck with that one.
If the sister agrees the intent was halfway between the houses I suppose you could fix it but that probably isn't the case since it was inherited by them probably in equal shares.
I agree and I told them the state sets the subdivision regulations and the city attorney replied they give the cities the authority to expand the requirements. I pointed out that was intended before it was recorded and that the plat is an instrument of property conveyance and they should honor all recorded plats. These guys are not going to budge and it's going to take an administration change or AG letter or a lawsuit to make this right.
She is not going to agree with anything, in fact she has a restraining order against her brother and he is not even allowed to call her on the phone. We finished the survey and I wish them the best.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Makes you wonder what the City Attorney has been smoking?
I didn't think so.
The brother's self-serving testimony (I assume) probably wouldn't fly particularly since you would expect an inherited property to be split evenly.
> This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Makes you wonder what the City Attorney has been smoking?
I'm with you Dave. This situation is totally absurd and ridiculous...