I am working in a survey where the owner would like to divide part of the NE 1/4 into lots to be sold. There is a pond in the middle of the quarter section that will be accessed by all lots. This pond used to be a gravel pit that has been vacant for well over a decade. Since this pond in located in the center of the proposed lots do I still calculate the area and ownership with a meander line along the edge of water (solid blue lines)? Or, Would the properties come to a corner near the center of the lake (red dashed lines)? Who pays the taxes on the pond area? I am leaning towards the meandering line option because all owners will have access to the entire pond, but I am looking for documentation that will confirm my decision. Has anyone come across something like this that can shed some light for me??ÿ
I am working in Iowa and have been trying to determine this through the Iowa Code, but have yet to locate a situation like this.
?ÿ
Thanks,
Dan
I wouldnt meander it. Someday in the future someone may apply different methods to divide the currently submerged lands than you intend today. Plat it just like you show, then set witness corners somewhere safe along the lines. My .02
When you meander a waterhole, they have to form a partnership or homeowners association that owns it.
I have done similar divisions where the property corners were in the waterhole and set reference monuments at some point away from the water and just past the high bank.
Set something in concrete (bag of concrete in post hole with minimum of 1 inch rod) as steel will corrode away and stainless steel will work very good around waterholes.
?ÿ
It depends.... (got that out of the way) Will this be a ??subdivision?, with dedications and reservations- common areas, etc,or will it be tract land with a recreational easement for the pond? There are pros and cons ?ÿeach way- luckily you??re the original surveyor so you??re setting it up for others to retrace- so do a good job for those who follow. This is an EXCELLENT opportunity to excersise the K.I.S.S principle. ?ÿpersonally I??d not Meander it. Unless absolutely necessary /required!
Extend parcel lines into the lake to avoid any future confusion about whether the grantor retained ownership of the pond.?ÿ Include an easement for recreational use over the entire pond area with each individual parcel conveyance.
A very nice subdivision where one of my family members has a house. Behind the house is a lake created by removing the gravel to help make the subdivision's roads. The lake has a walking path around it, lots abut the walking path and are monumented, the lake is general common area available for swimming and fishing to the lot owners. So far it's been working well, I would recommend it.
?ÿ
Your illustration is basically the way it's done in FL.?ÿ
Just out of curiosity, has any thought been given to access, easements, etc? Or is your illustration still in the hmmmmm.......stage of planning? ???? ?ÿ
This may be of some interest: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/legal-rights-inland-waters-and-applicable-law-lakes-bays-and-rivers
@flga-pls-2-2
Yeah- but somewhere along the line you know there’s going to be a headline, “Florida Man....yada yada yada”.
Whatever you do, don't leave the status of the pond in doubt. I suggest using your red lines as property lines and using your blue line as the boundary of a private (lot owners only) recreational easement.?ÿ?ÿ
@flga-pls-2-2
A gravel pit pond entirely within private property and with no connection to any navigable (for title purposes) waterway would not be subject to public ownership under the Public Trust Doctrine.
Looks like a good, informative article, but not applicable to this situation.
I agree with your suggestion to clarify ownership and add easements for all lots.
I am in a subdivision with an HOA, which works pretty well, all things considered. However, some of the lots have shared driveways, but the developer did not set up any legal mechanism concerning the of rights or shared maintenance of the driveways. If all the owners are good people and agree on things, no problem. Throw a selfish SOB in the mix and it is a true mess.
Keep it simple and include the pond in the fee ownership of all the lots, if you have that option.
Ken
Has the property owner done any design or planning for the development? If I were buying one of those lots, I would be particularly interested in what, if anything, had been done to protect water quality in the lake.
The grades appear to slope pretty steeply toward the lake, as you would expect in a former gravel pit. The nature of the future development will have a big effect on whether the lake remains clear or fills up with weeds and algae.
The owner can get quite a lot of free advice from the Iowa DNR, the local soil and water conservation district, the USDA, etc., on how the lake could be protected and managed. That in turn might lead to restrictive covenants, a variety of easements, a HOA, etc. Things like that would tend to increase the market value of the lots. And they could also affect your work.